School

archive

Home Tag : School

Exemple

Preface and Call To Action:  As we near the end of the 2024 legislative session in Tennessee’s General Assembly, tracking legislation can resemble a science fiction movie.  The rules that normally regulate how and when proposed legislation can be brought up for a vote in committee or on the full house floors can appear to warp and bend to the point that a bill like HB1183 and SB503 could suddenly pop up in another bill’s amendment.  While we are watching the Finance Committees of the House and Senate for the original bills, we are hearing rumors that the language of these bills could be added to other caption bills passing through the process and end up on the floor for a vote.  Without getting into the rules-bending possible scenarios of a time warp movie, we are just asking you to email or call your one legislator today and be firm that WE THE PEOPLE do not want the bill to get any votes except a NO regardless of where the sponsors amend it. 

Find your LEGISLATOR HERE to call and email.

Main Article:

The Five Points of the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper deserve both repetition and deeper explanation. This is the second in a series of deeper dives into individual points summarized in the original white paper. Point two reads:

·       The Education Scholarship program will Restrict religious freedoms via government oversight particularly for Church Related Schools and the homeschool students using them as an umbrella program. 

For those of us disagreeing with modern society’s misinterpretation of the separation of church and state, we hold that the church must influence the state rather than the state dictating beliefs and conduct to the church.  With the addition of this School Choice program, the state will instead be able to unduly influence what church related schools teach through funding and regulations.  The religious practices of these religious institutions may be unduly regulated and limited by such state interference in their religious liberties. Both now or in the future, this door for limitations on the religious freedom of parents, teachers, and schools should be kept as closed as possible. The current amount of control exerted by the state government is already enough of a hindrance to religious freedom.

With a Republican supermajority controlling the legislature the current proposal for School Choice may seem innocuous at the present in regard to religious freedom. However, the same opportunity for influence could be rather disagreeable under different political circumstances.  A general assembly or governor less friendly to religious freedom could one day walk through this School Choice funded open door and impose more restrictions on parents and on schools in the private and homeschool world. Also, given the worldview espoused by many current Republican legislators who ultimately believe the state has at least an equal fundamental right to direct children’s education, even now such an open door to state influence over church related schools is at the very least concerning. 

You may ask for examples of how similar legislation has led to such limits on religious freedoms in other states. Examples in the references describes stories of religious schools which accepted school vouchers who have already faced lawsuits for Biblical positions on marriage.  If this were applied in Tennessee, many church related schools would not likely be able to participate based on conscience. Then, due to the interconnectedness of Tennessee homeschool law, when private schools who run umbrella programs do participate, the umbrella homeschool student may become regulated through their umbrella program despite not taking any scholarship funds themselves.

This potential for state regulation arises from the following hierarchy of education regulation.  The Department of Education approves the accreditation agencies which oversee the private schools which then operate the umbrella schools enrolling most homeschoolers in our state.  A 2018 presentation online from the Tennessee Department of Education describes homeschoolers in category IV church related schools to be “non-public school students” meaning those homeschoolers could be regulated as private school students (Tidwell 2018)[1].  Basically, the state directly or indirectly controls all education in the state whether public, private, or homeschool through the Department of Education and its compulsory attendance laws (see separate blog article for further explanation [2]).

While current legislators will claim that no such regulation of homeschoolers or private schools will be included in Tennessee, we have seen that type of homeschool controlling legislation in other states added in subsequent legislative sessions or through those state’s departments of education.  Tennessee legislators have publicly and repeatedly stated that they cannot promise that such future regulations will not be added later. They know that future sessions of the General Assembly could add completely different rules and regulations on homeschoolers and private school children.  Already in our current General Assembly in 2024, some legislators have proposed bills to add regulations to the currently active pilot school choice program. —– HB2409 and SB2268  — HB2450 / SB2273  (Tennessee General Assembly[3]).  See References (10, 14, 15, 18). A more detailed explanation of this situation can be found at “Three Reasons to Oppose School Choice – Part 4 – Unintended Consequences[4]”.

We must stand now and not allow any present or future restrictions on our religious freedoms as expressed in the education of our own children. As a separate article on the site describes, parental freedoms and religious freedoms are intertwined with the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children being inherently religious in nature both in its explicit command from God and logically foundational in the life and perpetuation of a family. School Choice legislation which opens a door for undue influence of the government in the jurisdiction of education and parental freedoms deserves our vigilant resistance.

References

[1] https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/stateboardofeducation/documents/sbe_workshop_january_25_2018/1-25-18%201%2050%20Non-public%20and%20Home%20School%20Update.pdf

[2]  https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

[3] https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/subjectindex/BillsBySubject.aspx?Primarysubject=1520&GA=113

[4] https://wholepersonwholelife.com/three-reasons-to-oppose-school-choice-unintended-consequences-part-4-of-4/

Read More →
Exemple

Preface: Today, at the state Capitol, both the House and the Senate “plan” to hear and/or vote on the School Choice bills, currently known as HB1183 and SB503. SB503 has been delayed in its committees Monday and Tuesday of this week.  HB1183 was delayed yesterday to be on today’s committee agenda.  While there initially seemed to be nothing that could stop this freedom threatening overreach bill, we are seeing the effects of our pressure on legislators.  The results of thousands of emails, who knows how many calls, multiple in-person visits, and our faces in the committee meetings opposing the bill are all taking their toll on their legislators resolve to pass this bill.  Take a moment today to contact legislators on the Finance, Ways, and Means Committees for both houses today to say a loud “NO to HB1183 and SB503”.  Thank you for standing with the parents of Tennessee in protecting their children. 

Scroll to bottom of article prior to references for both committee’s contact lists.

The Five Points of the Tennessee Home Education Association White Paper deserve both repetition and deeper explanation. This is the first in a series of deeper dives into individual points summarized in the original white paper. Point one reads:

·       The Education Scholarship program will limit the parent’s educational choices to those the government and its experts approve of while advocates falsely claim that parents retain control over their children’s education. 

In Tennessee, we currently have three separate educational systems which minimally overlap:  public, private, and homeschool.  That lack of overlap has allowed the non-public systems, private and homeschool, to remain freer in their education of children. Government funding with regulations will infuse money into the private and the homeschool sectors in such a way as to bring both of these previously freer areas under greater state control.  The private education institutions will be most directly and extensively impacted, but homeschools will also experience influences from the government. Over time, the three educational systems will come to resemble each other more and more, ultimately limiting parents to the government’s overarching control of what is allowed to count as education in Tennessee.

State government influence over private and homeschools already exists, but that influence will advance towards more and more overreach through various mechanisms already existent as well as new pathways created by this school choice legislation. The state, through legislation and through rules promulgated by the Department of Education now dictates what officially counts for a elementary and secondary education through official standards. While they directly administer public schooling through the local school districts, they indirectly influence private schools through accreditation agencies which they oversee through a state required approval process. The private schools then must be accredited through one of these agencies in order to operate in Tennessee.

For the homeschoolers, the state influences us through three different pathways. For the so-called independent homeschoolers, they must register under the local school district and report to that public school entity each year along with participate in testing mandated by the state. For those who place themselves under the oversight of a Church-Related School (CRS), they educate their children one step away from the state, but ultimately those CRS’s must be approved by an agency that must receive approval from the state. For those who enroll in a virtual school, they too ultimately come under a virtual school which must receive agency approval, again approved by the state. In all three cases, the state still stands over all of these homeschool options determining what is accepted as education in Tennessee.

Under the current laws and hierarchy, private and homeschools have enjoyed a decent measure of freedom although we can reasonably argue that more freedom would be better. With School Choice legislation as proposed, new regulatory factors arise which alter this current functional equilibrium. Such factors are mostly inherent in the foundational principles of the School Choice movement. For example, the government funding directed at private and homeschools will dictate what expenses are approved for these non-public options as determined under contract law. The parents, having willingly signed a contract with the state, will have little recourse should the state determine an expense is not permitted. This cannot be avoided without creating problems as some regulations must always follow the spending of government money.

In another example, the schools accepting the money will be bound by the regulations promulgated by the Legislature or the Department of Education.  Schools will be fined or excluded from participation if they are found to fall short of the dictated requirements. In order to comply, schools may adapt policies, alter curriculum, or be forced to hire additional staff to monitor compliance. These changes and more will filter down to affect not only the school choice scholarship students at that school, but most likely the other students as well.

Furthermore, the parent’s choice of school will also be limited by private school’s freedom to not participate in the program. This freedom for a private school to not participate is part of the initial legislation. However, the potential then arises for the state to one day legislate that all private schools must participate in the program if they determine that not enough private school seats are available to the school choice scholarship recipients. After that Rubicon of forced school participation is crossed, the potential for legislatively imposed quotas on the same schools may follow. The door is therefore left open for ongoing battles for parents and private schools defending their freedoms in every Department of Education rule-making meeting and each legislative session.

With all of these forces active, the history of school choice programs in other states demonstrates how state funding can alter educational options in other states.  See References (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). A further explanation of this situation can be found at “Homeschooling and the School Choice Black Hole (8)”. This can happen in Tennessee just like it has altered non-public options in other states. Those alterations ultimately limit the educational choices for parents over time to just those approved by the state. The state cannot fund private and homeschool choice without undue influence which limits rather than expands parent’s choice over time, ultimately moving towards one choice of education, the government’s choice packaged in one of three forms: public, government-funded private, and government-funded homeschool.

Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee List

House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee List


References:

1)     Marshall, Alexis. (2023, December 5). Autonomy vs. accountability: Not all Tenn.. Republicans are on board with statewide voucher proposal . WKMS. https://www.wkms.org/government-politics/2023-12-05/autonomy-vs-accountability-not-all-tenn-republicans-are-on-board-with-statewide-voucher-proposal

2)     Missouri Association of Teaching Christian Homes, Inc. (2022, September 2). Comment from Missouri Association of Teaching Christian Homes, Inc. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/MATCH.state/posts/pfbid02o9K7YC11MQoSbYZPTzT81fL5oW3azYuAJmKY6Bu6ofyufYjLZLzcEjw4RQyJX71pl

3)     Dragon, B. (2019, July 30). 6/12/2019 – Legislative update. Nevada Homeschool Network Homeschooling vs Government school choice Why we should care Comments. https://nevadahomeschoolnetwork.com/nv-esa-funding-bill-threatens-liberty-of-homeschooling/

4)     Editor. (2023a, March 13). 2/21/2023 Legislative Update. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2-21-2023-legislative-update/

5)     Editor. (2023b, April 6). 2023 Legislative Session: Takeaways. CHEWV. https://chewv.org/2023-legislative-session-takeaways/

6)     Coulson, A. J. (2010, October 4). Do Vouchers and Tax Credits Increase Private School Regulation? – Working Paper. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-8.pdf

7)     PewEduReport. (2017, March 21). Philadelphia’s Changing Schools and What Parents Want from Them. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/03/state-reforms-reverse-decades-of-incarceration-growth

8) https://wholepersonwholelife.com/homeschooling-and-the-school-choice-black-hole/

Read More →
Exemple

Article XI. Miscellaneous Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee

“Section 12. The State of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools. The General Assembly may establish and support such postsecondary educational institutions, including public institutions of higher learning, as it determines”.

We hear the word constitution and assume that everyone knows what it means. In one sense, the first Merriam Webster dictionary definition quote below is generally understood among those discussing a “constitution” of a state or nation.

“a: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it

b: a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution

In practical day-to-day life under the laws of a state or nation, the term “constitution” means more than this simple definition superficially suggests. In reality, wide variation exists in how the public views the role, scope, and power of a “constitution”. The best contemporary example of how a constitution can be viewed revolves around the idea of whether or not one views our US Constitution as a “living constitution”. Without getting into the nuances, this is simply the erroneous belief that our US Constitution is meant to adapt to the times and shift with today’s legal mood rather than stand on enduring principles. Your agreement or disagreement with this view of the constitution greatly determines how we as citizens interpret and apply it to current issues like discrimination, religious freedom, and more.

If we consider the Tennessee constitution according to the dictionary without the “living constitution” approach, we cannot shape it into whatever legal and societal mood is in vogue. This is called the “Originalist” approach. Neither the collective body of people in a state or nation nor an individual within that body have absolute rights to do as they please in all situations. A constitution sets those boundaries into explicit terms for all to respect and follow.

Then arises another divisive determinant in how one applies constitutional law to daily life.    The watershed lies in whether we believe government has only those powers explicitly granted to it or has all power that is not restricted from it.  In other words, proponents of the former approach believe that our legislators only have powers granted to it by the people but cannot go beyond what is clearly and explicitly granted on paper.  In the latter approach, the government is free to exert power in any area unless we have set explicit constitutional boundaries in that area.  Such a difference in approach can make a world of difference in areas that are not explicitly or fully addressed by the Tennessee constitution such as private education.

For our Tennessee Constitution, we can look at our current issue of School Choice and first consider what power has been granted to the state in regard to educating children. The constitutional article cited above clearly spells out the delegated responsibility of the state government to provide for a system of free and public education. They are given the responsibility to provide maintenance and support for such schools, presumably meaning funding, They are to also provide eligibility standards, presumably allowing the state to set standards for what counts as a public school. This seems simple enough, free schools for anyone to access which are paid for by the state and operated according to the state’s standards.

At no point in this definition have we heard of our state being given responsibility for any school system other than the public one. Private schooling is not mentioned. Here the second set of differing views on constitutional law comes into play. Does the absence of explicit language in the Tennessee constitution regarding private education mean that the state cannot interfere with and fund private education in our state OR does it mean it can do so but does not have to? While it clearly does not require the state to fund or to oversee private education, does the constitution allow the state such activity in private education if the state so chooses?

Given the reality that our state Department of Education currently oversees the agencies which approves private schools in our state and dictates standards for graduation in our state, the general consensus that the state can oversee private education has been accepted for decades. While debatable at a philosophical level, at a practical level society already conceded this right to the power of the state. Obviously, the public’s beliefs described earlier regarding rights of the government in the constitution have allowed this to occur, but that does not mean it is the correct view.

Now the question arises whether the state can also provide funding for private education.  Reading through the Tennessee constitution, you will not find explicit support for such a practice by the state nor any prohibition.  Therefore, we come back to how we approach this question of whether or not the state can do something not addressed or restricted by the constitution. 

In this case, the constitutional article addressing public education requires that the public education offered by the state meets several criteria.  It must be free.  It must be for the public.  It must be paid for by the state.  It must be maintained by the state.  In none of this does it address paying for private education in regard to charter schools nor to any private school.  Neither are homeschools mentioned.

If we take this at face value, the state does not automatically have a role in overseeing private education in contrast to the current practice.  It definitely does not have an explicit role in paying for any individual child to receive a private education.  While many look to a general welfare clause in the federal constitution in order to grant the federal government a right to fund endless programs for public good, there is no such clause in our state constitution.  Such a general welfare concept is rather assumed and used by Tennessee legislators to justify legislation and expenditures for the best interest of the public.

At this point, we have legislators stating publicly that they are allowed to make whatever law they wish in regard to homeschool education (you can hear this in the Education Committee regarding SB503).  They do so because we the people are either not aware of our rights and the government’s constitutional limits or we are not willing to stand on those rights we believe rightly to be ours. 

In closing, we have gone down the slippery slope accepting the government’s claim that they have power in an area of our lives unless the constitution prohibits it.  Instead, we must assert that they only have power where the constitution explicitly permits.  In this case, no permission to oversee nor fund private education has been granted to the state in the constitution.  That should put an end to the possibility of school choice in Tennessee whether or not one believes it will help children.  Children in the public school system truly need help, but we must find a different solution than one which sacrifices constitutional principles.

Read More →
Exemple

At times, we can provide confident details.  At other times, we can pass on the rumors.  Today, we can provide a little of both.  Initially we expected a 4/10/24 vote on the HB1183 School Choice bill in the House Finance, Ways, and Means committee moving the bill one step closer to the full House floor.  Instead, we get an encouraging turn of events in that they bumped the bill 1 week to 4/16/24.  This was a little surprising as the word on the street was that since the Governor wanted this bill, it was destined to pass.  This is where the confident details end.

From there, there are rumors that they realized they do not have enough votes to get this passed so they delayed it.  Some rumors hint that they may have to break up the costlier HB1183 version into smaller bites in order to garner enough support.  We knew that the Senate’s initially cheaper SB503 version would sooner or later have to reconciled with its costlier house twin, but this latest development portends more hope for stopping the whole thing. 

I don’t have any inside informant to confirm this, but it is common practice to delay a bill in order to avoid a “nay” vote.  The supporters then work on the “nay’s” another week or two to talk them out of the “nay”.  Therefore, the scenario above for HB1183 is very possible.

Regardless, we must keep up the pressure, emailing, calling, and showing up for the next House Finance, Ways, and Means committee 4/16/24 at 2pm.  The bill is number 7 on the agenda that day and in person support with small “Say no to HB1183” signs will balance out the Americans For Prosperity Green jackets which keep showing up in support of the bill. 

Forgive me that I have not had time to reformat the committee members into a clean page, but this link allows you to see all members and email them one by one or call their offices.

Read More →
Exemple

This Murky Area MIGHT Affect Everyone

According to the Senate version: SB503, Scholarship Amount- Allowable uses pg. 3-4

To receive the Scholarship or ESA the parent of the student applies to the Department of Education (DOE). It must be ensured that the student will satisfy the compulsory school attendance requirement by providing documentation of enrollment in a private school (I, II, III, IV, or V nonpublic category) or a public in a local education agency (LEA) outside the students normal assigned district (the Senate bill provides for movement between LEA’s as space allows).

In this section, of greatest interest to Private school students and Category IV Umbrella homeschool students is the following on pg. 4 (4) dealing with special education services.  An ESA eligible student “by participating in the program through enrollment in a private school does not retain the right to receive special education and related services through an individualized education program” BUT “the students may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1414) to receive equitable services through an individualized service plan.” (Pg 4)

In the House Education Committee meeting there was significant discussion about the use of IDEA federal funds in private schools.  The Commissioner of Education, the Deputy Commissioner, and House legal staff and even legal staff from the Department of Education were not able to answer definitively if the federal funds being used by one ESA student in a private school or homeschool would bring the entire school or the homeschool under federal regulations. See below for further information on this complicated issue. This is apparently an open question even though the legislation passed both the chambers with this language in place.  

While a soon to be attached visual will likely be required to understand the following flow of funding for service to children with disabilities in either public, private, or homeschools, the following description walks us through the present practice in schools and the proposed flow under the new EFSA program.  Currently, children with a disability qualify for funding to cover services such as speech therapy, tutoring, occupational therapy, and other therapies through the implementation of an IEP (Individualized Education Program) funded by the state and enacted by the public school in the LEA.  Under both current law and the proposal in SB503 under consideration, if a public-school student with an IEP leaves the public school to attend either a private school or a homeschool, they lose access to that IEP and its services/funding.  In the private school or the homeschool, the child with a disability can instead access funding for similar services through a federal program called IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) that is then titled an ISP (Individualized Service Plan).  These facts are clear and seem to be corroborated by testimony by the legal services representative of the Department of Education during the recent House Education Committee discussion of HB 1183 on March 6th, 2023. 

From this point, the implications of this funding are unclear both in the language of HB1183 and SB503 (sister bills).  Based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Grove City v Bell (1984) (https://time.com/6835607/grove-city-supreme-court-conservative-education/) an institution of higher education which accepts federal grant money for student tuition must agree to certain Title IX non-discriminatory regulations on that money by signing a form.  If that same legal ruling is applied to a child with a disability who receives service funding through the IDEA federal funding, what regulations will be required of the student, their parent, or their private school as a student in a private school or umbrella school?  It is possible the entire school comes under federal regulations but the legislators in attendance at the committee meeting did not receive a clear answer from their own legal counsel nor from the legal services representative for the Department of Education. 

Prior to passing the legislation as written in SB503/HB1183 which follows the same legal logic of severing IEP service funding when a student leaves a public school for a private or homeschool, parents and private schools need to understand how they may be impacted by federal regulations should a student with IDEA funding attend their school or become a part of their homeschool. They need clear answers to the following questions.

  1. For a student with a disability who receives EFSA funds and then receives services funded by IDEA through a public school or its LEA, what strings of regulation will they be expected to comply with?
  2. For the same student, what strings of regulation will be applied to the private school or umbrella school in which they are enrolled?
  3. For the school noted in #2, will other students be impacted by such regulations?
  4. Will the private school ever be the provider of such services and thus regulated by the federal government through IDEA?
  5. Will the money for IDEA ever be distributed directly to the parent and what are the regulatory regulations for the parents and/or their umbrella school in such a situation?
Read More →
Exemple

If you thought that ESA recipients would be given a $7000 check for educational expenses each year, then you will be in for a surprise.  In fact, direct payment to the parent or student is strictly forbidden in both proposals.  In the house bill it reads on pg. 10, “(a) A scholarship awarded under this part: (1) Must not be paid directly to an eligible student or to an eligible student’s parent;” In the Senate bill it says on pg. 13 “(b) The department shall establish and maintain separate scholarship accounts for each recipient and shall verify that the uses of scholarship funds are permitted…”  The Senate bill also specifies that refunds from schools or providers shall NEVER go to the parent or recipient but only to the scholarship account (p. 14, (d)).

Additionally, in the Senate version, use of the funds must be PRE-APPROVED by the DOE (p.13 (b)). Further, the parent or recipient can be suspended or terminated by the DOE if they fail to comply with requirements meaning that the account will be closed by the DOE (pg. 15, (b)). Fraud measures are in place. First, if a parent or recipient uses scholarship funds on non-qualified purchases or if they have misrepresented “the nature, receipts, or any other evidence of one or more of the expenses paid using scholarship funds” (pg. 15 (c)), they will have to pay the amount back to the state.  Second, if they believe that a person knowingly used the funds on expenses that were not qualified (remember pre-approval required) or knowingly misrepresented the information then the DOE may refer the recipient for criminal prosecution (pg. 16 (d)).

The House version also has a section on penalty for fraud or misrepresentation.  On pg. 10 it reads “(a) A parent who knowingly provides false information on an eligible student’s application in order to obtain a scholarship commits a class A misdemeanor.”

At the end of the year, any unused funds will be put back into the treasury for next year’s scholarship fund.  For private school tuition, the funds will probably be used up on that alone.  If a homeschool student does not find a way to use all the funds on approved expenses, then the money will be returned to the state.  You do not get to keep any excess for your personal use or put it toward next year.

To sum it up, no money is directly given to the student or parent.  You can only use the funds on DOE approved expenses (more on this in another blog), receipts and proofs are required for approval of an expense, and you may have to pay it back or face criminal charges if you are not very careful with the procedures and rules.  Money is never FREE and Government Money is never without strings.

Read More →
Exemple

It seems that many of our legislators have forgotten their duty and their jurisdiction.  When homeschoolers bring up concerns regarding the ESFA legislation, they keep telling us that the legislation will not affect us.  When we point out the doors that are being opened in the legislation which could lead to infringement upon our freedom to homeschool according to our convictions, they tell us that we will just have to make sure the “right” people get elected each year.   Additionally, when we give them language by which they could shore up protection for our future, they refuse.  “No need,” they say.  “Not our job,” they reprimand.

Many in the capitol seem to have forgotten that they are the branch closest to the people- to be the most able to respond to their needs.  Despite being the “branch of the people”, most legislators, in this instance, are willing to open doors which may one day lead to the infringement of our freedom while rejecting legislative language that offers protection against those dangers.  They simply dismiss our concerns saying that it is someone else’s job to worry about the future freedoms of families in Tennessee.  I ask, “If they do not care for future freedoms and protect us, then who will?”

Please reach out to your representative and senator in regard to HB 1183 and SB 503, sister bills going through legislative committees.  It is within the contexts of discussing these two bills with our legislators that their forgetfulness has become evident.  Remind them that they have a sworn duty to uphold principles of freedom while working within the boundaries of the Tennessee Constitution.  Tell them you expect them to limit their power to the jurisdictions within which they have been given authority.  In the Tennessee Constitution Article XI Section 12 it reads, “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools (emphasis mine).”  They are not delegated authority over the private sphere where liberty from state interference should be carefully guarded.  Respectfully but firmly remind them that homeschool families and private school families expect them to make laws that promote freedom rather than imperil it for generations to come.

Read More →
Exemple

Have you ever watched the bubble gum blowing contests where the giant bubble pops and covers the blower’s face and head?  In contrast, smaller bubbles just blow up in front of them with less of a mess. 

The School Choice bill SB503 resembles just such a comparison as one reads the fiscal note for it.  Senator Lundberg’s accepted amendment served well to lower the initial cost by involving the cost shifting of TISA funds between public schools and from public school funding to the scholarship fund.  The first-year gum bubble price tag looks more manageable than the House HB 1183 version which tries to blow the double bubble of school choice and adding over 200 million to public school efforts. 

If this SB503 stopped at such a smaller bubble only costing less than 100 million dollars, the bubble’s impact would be slightly easier to swallow, but following years promise a much bigger bubble.  While the House’s HB1183 sister bill version offers an explicit growth rate of no more than 20% per year pending appropriations, the SB503 version could grow to over 500 million in 2 years.  A calculation of the house bill’s growth rate would take 9-10 years to reach this size even though it starts at 400 million. A 500-million-dollar gum bubble in 2 years could truly explode in the face of taxpayers.

While one can appreciate the Governor’s stated intentions of providing all the children of Tennessee parents (emphasized, NOT Tennessee’s children, as the children belong first to the parents rather than the state) with the best education, the price tag for this program is a bubble blowing contest winner and loser.  The price tag bubble will make it look like we are pouring money into education, but its rapid expansion threatens to burst in our state budget’s face. 

Take a few minutes today to contact legislators on the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee today before they meet to discuss this bill on Tuesday April 2nd.  Put a few of the following bullet points into your own words so they know we are all expecting them to protect our state from a budgetary explosion hidden in plain sight in SB503. 

  • While education is important, the state budget is not limitless.
  • Passing SB503 which has the potential to balloon to over 500 million in 2 years, as admitted by your own fiscal note, is irresponsible.
  • We need a better plan than SB503 to rescue children from failing schools.
  • Say no to SB503 before it blows up all over our state budget.

Thank you for taking time to contact the Senators below.  You can email (good), call (better), or make an in-person appointment (best). If you can come for the Committee hearing on April 2nd at 830am at the Capitol, you can bring a small sign that says “NO to SB503”. 

Blessings,

Eric Potter MD

Contact List for Members of Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee

Read More →
Exemple

Milton Friedman may have been a noble prize-winning economist with an idea he claimed would free education from the governmental dominance.  However, he was not a Christian. When he communicated concerning his proposed voucher system in education, he rested his arguments upon expediency rather than eternal principles set down by the Creator. Therefore, he failed to find the balance that he desired between individual freedom and the need for social cohesion.  The state, even in his schema, was necessary for setting approval standards in education as well as financing it. The following are some select quotes primarily from his essay “The Role of Government in Education” (1955) and an interview a few years before his death in 1995.  He has another work Free to Choose from 1981 which I will address in another post where he goes into greater detail but where government still plays a financing and approval role.  Below are a few bullet point quotes or summaries from his writing with my thoughts following each quote.

  • Generally, while acknowledging the role of family in the care of children who are not yet capable of handling the “freedom” endowed to individual, he saw the role of the family as “a procedure [which] rests on expediency rather than principle” (1955).  My Comments: The family was not instituted by God for the care and protection of children and raising up the next generation in the faith but just a matter of expediency since children were not old enough to be responsible members of society.  The very foundation of his worldview is faulty leading to the need for government oversight of the education of children on some level.  His view of family was based on expediency.  Since many of the leftist ideologies of today have come up with models which “free” the child from the need for family, his foundational premises can be called into question by progressives. Arguments from expediency can be easily undone.
  • He believed that the government should finance education but not administer that education.  He gave government the role of setting down minimum standards to promote a widespread acceptance of some common set of values required to maintain a stable society (1955).  My comment: Therefore, government ultimately standardizes the enculturation which occurs through education.
  • “Governments could require a minimum level of education which they could finance by giving parents vouchers redeemable for a specified maximum sum per child per year if spent on “approved” educational services.” (1955)- My Comment: This means that expenditures must be government approved according to their standards.
  • “Parents would be free to spend this sum and any additional sum on purchasing educational services from an “approved” educational institution of their own choice.” (1955)- My Comment: Again, expenditures must be approved by government standards.
  • “The role of the government would be limited to assuring that the schools met certain minimum standards as the inclusion of a minimum common content in their programs, much as it now inspects restaurants to assure that they maintain minimum sanitary standards” (1955)- My Comment: Government standards approved in education and the resulting enculturation of the next generation is vastly different from a restaurant food safety checklist.
  • “How draw a line between providing for the common social values required for a stable society on the one hand, and indoctrination inhibiting freedom of thought and belief on the other? Here is another of those vague boundaries that is easier to mention than to define.” (1955) – My Comment: He does not answer his own question here.  However, this may be THE pivotal issue of a public money voucher system and the door it opens to infringement upon religious freedoms and parental rights.

Also Note: He doesn’t answer, but studies from other countries in later decades- Australia show that government funding of private education flattens out education control over time– “another consequence “ of the experiment of Australia’s policy of limited privatization of education begun in 1973 “was the increasing regulation and centralization of decisions and the loss of private school autonomy which limited the feasible range of options and will probably continue to do so in the future…most of these consequences were generic and would probably follow if this system were adopted in other countries” – “Private Education and Redistributive Subsidies in Australia” Estelle James (1991) in Privatization and Its Alternatives Ed. William Gormley

  • “For the lowest level of education, there is considerable agreement, approximating unanimity on the appropriate content of an educational program for citizens of democracy—the three R’s cover most of the ground.” (1955)  My Comment: This is definitely not true today as leftist ideology permeates the curriculum down to the youngest grades.
  • “But education is not open and shut. In Capitalism and Freedom we came out on the side of favoring compulsory schooling and in Free To Choose we came out against it. So I have become more radical in that sense. Murray used to call me a statist because I was willing to have government money involved. But I see the voucher as a step in moving away from a government system to a private system. Now maybe I’m wrong, maybe it wouldn’t have that effect, but that’s the reason I favor it.” -Friedman in Reason Interview 1995 https://reason.com/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds/ My Comment: He thought that vouchers would lead to more freedom from government but he had the faulty worldview that the family was merely expedient and the government needed to maintain a level of control through approval of minimal standards for use of its money at an “approved” school of the family’s choice.  We can already see that vouchers have not undermined the public system in the states thus far after decades of trials.

Bottom Line:  He was wrong on education vouchers leading to freedom from governmental indoctrination. 

Read More →
Exemple

By Jennifer Potter

In this brief post we offer a correction in part of our review of House Bill 1183. Because HB1183 has language dealing with the scholarships and even more language dealing with public education issues, we need to clarify the testing requirements for scholarship recipients. Previously, we noted that the testing requirements in the bill for the scholarship students follow the federal guidelines and testing schedule. However, that testing schedule is for the public education portion of the bill.

While the scholarship students in private schools will have their academic performance indicators monitored by the Department of Education, they are not required to test according to the federal guidelines like the public-schools. Instead, a third-party contractor will be collecting data from the private schools regarding the scholarship student’s academic performance per the school’s chosen measures. These will be included in a yearly report to the house education committees. We have been told that the third-party contractors will be prohibited from selling the student’s data for profit but do not see the language for this provision in the current version of the bill.

Despite its less rigorous testing schedule, the house bill still contains the same Department of Education approval oversight, DOE rules promulgation issues, and public-private funding concerns. Because the funding schema in this bill involves government money (not tax relief) being paid directly to private education institutions, it tips the balance of power over private education in favor of ever greater state oversight- especially in the future as the size of the program grows.

While some of the public education measures in this bill seem to have some merit, we continue to oppose the bill for reasons discussed. Let’s find another way to help children stuck in a bad education system, not extend the power of that system over the private sphere.

Read More →