(Having introduced the topic of school vouchers in Part 1, I move the the first reason parents of all types should reject school vouchers.”)

                Free money is never free when the government writes the check.  There are always strings attached when the government offers money directly or pays for a program serving their public.  When it comes to education, there are varieties of such strings which parents of both homeschoolers and private schoolers should consider before accepting these proposed educational savings accounts (ESA).  While the vague and broad term, “accountability”, encompasses the big picture of our leaders’ mindset towards their money giveaway, other more focused terms fill in some details of what “accountability” to the government for these ESA’s looks like.  These include regulations, registration, pre-approval processes, standardized testing, and curriculum choices at the very least.  The final string that often binds the tightest at the end is the reality of non-discrimination laws especially if any of the money comes from the federal government. 

                With the debate heating up over whether or not such school choice is bad or good, we first hear from the public school advocates like teachers, administrators, and teacher’s unions that the public must have accountability.  We, the citizens of such a state concerned about their children’s future, cannot tolerate the thought that our tax money could be spent without such accountability for how it is spent and the results of the spending.  This is a natural inclination shared by most citizens of any state and is echoed by the very legislators contemplating and publicly commenting on the possibility of this bill.  We have heard state representative Sam Whitson here in Williamson County state on record that of course we must have accountability (Marshall 2023).  Others are likewise repeating this “accountability” refrain here and there so no one gets the wrong idea that we would hand out free money to parents without watching how they spend it.  Therefore, we have both the political left and the political right playing the same music on their string theory of “accountability”.

                This string theory sounds reasonable to most of us who know the history of what happens when no one watches how government money is spent.  The Tennessean article by Campbell et al describes some of the shenanigans already occurring with the money going to Tennessee charter schools.  Rather than recount the instances of known fraud in that article, I turn to the regulations intended to prevent such fraud.  No one wants our taxpayer money to be wasted on such fraud, so we attach regulations on how this money can be spent.  Some current and past examples of school choice related regulations gives us some concrete examples. 

                In Missouri, their school choice program included several regulations for homeschooling families which will likely rub us the wrong way.  In order to receive the government funding for their homeschool education, parents had to agree to the following.  They had to enroll with an Educational Assistance Organization who would monitor the spending of their money and their child’s progress.  Anyone over the age of 18 years old who lived in the home had to permit a background check with the State Highway Patrol.  Annual standardized testing, paid for by the parent, was required.  The state’s treasury department would track the child’s demographics and grades.  They would have a yearly audit of how the parents spent the money.  The program included hotline anonymous reporting systems which anyone could report your alleged fraud, potentially triggering surprise audits of parental spending.  Even after the child graduated, their future educational achievement would be tracked for years.  Both Democrats and Republicans required this level of accountability from Missouri parents simply wanting to homeschool their children with the government’s money. In this example from Missouri, we see the unavoidable necessity for homeschoolers to register with the state and submit to their intrusive oversight with implications for testing requirement, curriculum choices, and religious liberty implications enforced with monetary restrictions.

                Kirsten Lombard described the situation in Wisconsin for private schools who accepted voucher students with this string money in which those voucher-connected students must take common core assessments in order to participate in the voucher program.  She argues strongly that as these required common-core based tests continue, the participating schools will be forced to administer such tests to all students.  She presses the logic that the cost of maintaining two data systems for student tracking and the need to prove performance will require putting all the school’s children into the testing process. While Tennessee superficially claims to have rejected common core and other progressive curriculum like Critical Race Theory, we know that these philosophies continue to be promoted under different names and disguises.  Standardized testing becomes the open door for these curricular influences.

                We can see that Mrs. Lombards predictions have been born out by a few examples.  In New York, the system of Jewish schools called “yeshivas” operated for years as private schools but began accepting state funds through school choice legislation.  When the government was not satisfied with the schools’ outcomes, an investigation into the schools resulted in the schools being forced to comply with common core standards. 

               We also see that beyond forced curriculum and standardized testing, homeschoolers and private schools face other regulatory restrictions in what can be taught by those receiving state funding.  In Maryland a Christian school was forced to defend its right to express a Biblical view of marriage as between one man and one woman.  Initially the school was told it could no longer receive voucher funding (Kookogey 2019).  Then it was told that it would have to pay back $100,000 of funds it had already received. (Perkins 2019). Eventually, a judge sanely ruled that the school had religious liberty to express such a Biblical view without forfeiting access to these voucher funds, but 1 to 2 years was spent in limbo before the case was finally settled in 2021, having started in 2019 (Gryboski 2021).  While this school did win in the end, not all schools may be able to sustain such a legal battle and win. 

                Other examples of providing such funding but later taking it back can be seen in other states.  In Nevada the original legislation excluded a requirement for standardized testing of participating students.  Once passed, the state board of education added a requirement for private school families to administer yearly standardized testing.  The promised freedom in the passed bill was quickly taken away before the program was even implemented.  This occurred despite the fact that the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dale Erquiaga, testified before the Senate Committee on Revenue and Economic Development that no such requirement would be implemented.  While homeschooling families in Nevada can still forgo such standardized testing, their acceptance of state funding requires opting into this yearly testing according to Nevada legal code.  NRS 388.100-140 – OPT-IN CHILDREN

                West Virginia serves as another example where initial freedoms were almost stolen back from homeschool parents.  The state passed a 2021 school choice law in which homeschoolers had worked hard to enshrine legal protections for homeschoolers, thinking they had won, at least in 2021.  They made sure no regulations would be placed on homeschoolers who did not accept the offered money.  Only two years later, West Virginia legislators proposed a bill that would remove the safeguards and lump all homeschoolers into the same regulations by the state regardless of whether or not they took the “bribe”, (I mean voucher money).  Ultimately, this legislation was defeated, but once acquired freedoms are never truly safe as long as legislators believe they should control every aspect of a child’s education rather than leaving it to the parent’s discretion. 

                In summary and support of this string theory of puppeteering the world of private schooling and homeschooling, these examples could be enough to convince you, but the Cato Institute which offers some support for school choice had to admit this regulatory burden.  In a study looking at whether school voucher programs increased the regulations on private schools, they concluded that yes, this state funding source did exactly that.  In their words:

“Voucher programs are associated with large and highly statistically significant increases in the regulatory burden imposed on private schools (compared to schools not participating in choice programs). And this relationship is, more likely than not, causal.”

                Apparently, the string theory of government control of private schooling options through school vouchers is more than a theory, but closer to reality than we should feel comfortable with.

Tomorrow, Part 3 – Failures

Full Bibliography LINK