Read on Twitter
New Report:
"An education savings account funded at just half of the amount spent per student in public schools would still provide around $9,509 per student per year, which is about 30 percent higher than the average private school tuition ($7,035) in Alaska."
"Taxpayers similarly fund families directly when it comes to food stamps. The government doesn’t force low-income families to spend their food stamp dollars at residentially assigned government-run grocery stores."
"Instead, the funding goes to individual families who can then take that money to Carrs, Walmart, Fred Meyer, Three Bears, or just about any other provider of their choosing. We should do the same thing when it comes to K-12 education and fund students instead of institutions."
"K-12 education funding similarly doesn’t belong to any particular institution – public or private. Education funding is meant for educating children – not for propping up and protecting a government monopoly."
The argument that “school choice siphons away money from public schools” also begs the question: why would giving families a choice result in less funding for public schools?"
"A large body of evidence suggests competitive pressures from private school choice leads to improvements in outcomes for children who remain in the traditional public school system."
"Allowing families to choose to use their children’s education dollars at religious or nonreligious public or private schools clearly does not violate the Establishment Clause because families and students – not schools – are the primary beneficiaries of each of these programs."
This is "the same reason Pell Grants and the GI Bill for higher education do not violate the establishment clause: the funding goes to students who can choose to take those dollars to religious or nonreligious public or private schools."
"The same goes for the federal Head Start program and other taxpayer-funded pre-K programs.
- and Medicaid dollars can be used at hospitals with religious affiliations – without violating the Establishment Clause."
- and Medicaid dollars can be used at hospitals with religious affiliations – without violating the Establishment Clause."
"Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) ruled in a 5-4 decision that a taxpayer-funded private school voucher program in Ohio did not violate the Establishment Clause even though the funding could be used at private religious schools."
"Mueller v. Allen (1983) similarly ruled in a 5-4 decision that a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for public and private school-related expenses in Minnesota did not violate the Establishment Clause."
"Most recently, Espinoza v. Montana (2020) ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Montana Constitution’s “no aid” provision ending a private school choice program discriminated against religious schools and families and unconstitutionally violated the Free Exercise Clause."
As Keller (2020, pg. 63) explained, “under Espinoza, Blaine Amendments are no longer a barrier to educational choice programs that empower parents to choose religious educational options alongside nonreligious options.”
Alaska’s Blaine Amendment reads “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
"Funding students directly through education savings accounts or other educational choice programs did not legitimately violate Alaska’s Blaine Amendment, even before Espinoza, because students are the primary beneficiaries of the funding rather than schools."
"Alaska’s Blaine Amendment states private educational institutions cannot receive a “direct” taxpayer funding benefit.
Notice that the state’s Blaine Amendment does not say anything about private educational institutions receiving “indirect” benefits."
Notice that the state’s Blaine Amendment does not say anything about private educational institutions receiving “indirect” benefits."
"This is an important distinction that was deliberated during the Alaska Constitutional Convention in 1956. The proposed amendment at that time to add the word “indirect” to the Blaine Amendment was soundly defeated 34 to 19 with two absent."
"Although private educational institutions may indirectly benefit from allowing families to choose public or private schools, families and students are the direct beneficiaries of these programs."
"This might be why Alaska already has several other taxpayer-funded programs that can be used by students and families to pay for private educational services."
"The Alaska Performance Scholarship, for example, is a taxpayer-funded program that allows students to direct “public funds” to the participating religious or nonreligious public or private educational institution of their choosing."
"The Alaska Pre-Elementary Grants program similarly allows state funding to follow children to some public or private providers of educational services.
Alaska also has about 30 programs that allow families to use state funds for homeschooling."
Alaska also has about 30 programs that allow families to use state funds for homeschooling."
"The Alaska Homeschool Allotment allows families to use about $2,000 of taxpayer funding to cover homeschooling costs including books, materials, online learning, tutors, and other educational activities."
"The bottom line: Alaska’s Blaine Amendment is clearly not an insurmountable barrier to funding students directly through a statewide education savings account program."
"The main problem with K-12 education is the massive power imbalance between the public school system and families.
Traditional public school districts hold substantial monopoly power because of residential assignment and compulsory funding through taxes."
Traditional public school districts hold substantial monopoly power because of residential assignment and compulsory funding through taxes."
"Families are essentially powerless in this relationship because a particular educational institution gets to retain substantial amounts of their children’s education dollars regardless of their levels of satisfaction or their preferences."
"This uneven power dynamic is becoming clearer to more and more families this year.
It’s one thing for a public school system to get your children’s education dollars despite failing to meet their needs
It’s another conversation altogether for that same institution to get your children’s education dollars when its doors aren’t even open for business."
It’s another conversation altogether for that same institution to get your children’s education dollars when its doors aren’t even open for business."
"Think of it this way: if a grocery store doesn’t reopen, families can take their money elsewhere.
If a school doesn’t reopen, then families should similarly be able to take their children’s education dollars elsewhere."
If a school doesn’t reopen, then families should similarly be able to take their children’s education dollars elsewhere."
"families should be able to take their children’s education dollars elsewhere regardless of their residentially assigned school’s reopening decision.
After all, education funding is supposed to be meant for educating children – not for protecting a particular institution"
After all, education funding is supposed to be meant for educating children – not for protecting a particular institution"
"Families are realizing that there aren’t any good reasons to fund institutions when we can fund students directly instead."
"We already do this with so many other taxpayer-funded initiatives including Pell Grants for higher education and state-funded Pre-K programs.
K-12 education should catch up.
We should fund students instead of systems."
K-12 education should catch up.
We should fund students instead of systems."
