Our Views: A dedication, not free money

Many, although not all, advocates of school choice — using public money to pay for private school tuitions — are from the politically conservative side of the spectrum.

And many, although not all, of those on the conservative side of the spectrum favor literal readings of the U.S. Constitution on some of the most-heated public issues.

Apparently, the Louisiana Constitution is not afforded the same level of respect.

We’ve seen much dissing of the 19th Judicial District court ruling, both in state and in national “choice” circles.

In all that overheated rhetoric about the children “losing” in that court fight, it’s often been neglected that the Louisiana Constitution specifically dedicates the money in question to “public schools and public systems.”

Where is the devotion to literal readings of that constitutional provision? Or for that matter to the local taxpayers who contribute, through taxes dedicated to public schools, into the Minimum Foundation Program formula.

We have seen a great deal of comment from backers of vouchers that the court’s ruling stands in the way of education and prevents parents from doing what is best for their children. For that matter, teacher union leaders made much of the ruling, but they also are guilty of ignoring the legal issues raised by the wording of the state constitution.

It is, the rhetoric aside, the legal questions that must be decided in court, and upon which the justices should focus once the case, as expected, goes to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The court decision is about means — the legality of the program’s source of funding — and not ends, whether vouchers are good for education.

The governor’s rhetoric has done much to confuse the national commentators, including those who should know better.

At the respected Fordham Institute, for example, choice advocate Adam Emerson decried the MFP ruling. For the state, he asked, “what is the difference between privately operated charter schools and private schools accepting voucher-bearing students if each are held to account to parents and taxpayers?”

The “held to account” part deserves larger investigation: To accept vouchers, private and parochial schools have accepted state testing, a requirement they opposed in early battles over vouchers.

And Emerson has a good point about public charter schools. Many “privately operated” charters do in fact operate on a day-to-day basis like private schools, although their legal status is that of a public school, and they are subject to many laws that private schools are not.

But Emerson also missed the point about means, not ends.

Emerson praised Jindal because he “sought more than just budgetary leftovers and worked to fund the voucher program from the same pot of money that bankrolls nearly all public education in Louisiana.”

We believe this sort of commentary ignores the real meat of the district court ruling, which is the explicit language of the Louisiana Constitution on funding. The MFP is dedicated, and the local tax dollars that also flow into the formula are dedicated by the voters in local school districts.

Jindal did not raid the MFP for his earlier, smaller-scale voucher program in New Orleans. He chose to do so this year because the MFP money was easier to get through the Legislature than an appropriation unburdened by the constitutional limitation on MFP.

That’s not just another pot of money. And the constitutional issues raised deserve more than dismissal, particularly from quarters where respect for strict construction generally rules.

Comments

1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 25/12/2012

"Then there is total equality, which is supposed to be the basis of public schools to begin with (I think?)" Why would anyone think that? Some public schools have always been better than others.

2) Comment by phil - 24/12/2012

Definitions and the use of words often gets confusing. I think everyone has different views on many different subjects, and people might go from being conservative to being liberal depending on the subject. Based on just being a fiscal conservative on this specific subject, I think vouchers are not feasible. We have a public-private partnership with public schools. That partnership consists of PRIVATE individuals/organizations paying taxes for PUBLIC schools, and I think generally public schools make no profits since they are public in nature. When you have private citizens paying taxes and receiving vouchers to give to private schools, then it appears to be more of a private-private partnership and about all the government does is collect the money as a go between for the 2 private entities. I believe that the only thing that is really fair to both students and parents/taxpayers under a voucher system is for ALL students to receive a voucher, and all vouchers are for the same amount of money. Then there is total equality, which is supposed to be the basis of public schools to begin with (I think?). Then when all students receive a voucher and can choose where to go to receive a PUBLIC education, ALL schools (private and public) should have to follow the same rules. The problem is that big word call "profit". Private schools are in business to make a profit and therefore will never be quite the same as public schools. Not quite the same = not equal. Also, when you think of it, many of these new so called public-private partnerships are really just a ploy to take money away from private taxpayers and hand that money over to private companies for the purpose of making profits with no transparency.

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 24/12/2012

@tradewinns - the problem is most of the miscreants are economically useless as teats on a bull. I think lawyers refer to it as "judgement-proof." It's why liability insurance to drive means nothing to them. The few who are economically productive are probably already liable for child support.

4) Comment by ScotB - 23/12/2012

The legislature determines the appropriation for the MFP. They can set aside an appropriation for scholarships. No problem.

5) Comment by tradewinns - 23/12/2012

Scrooge, for once you agree with me? you're going to hurt my feelings before long. there are educational districts in the nation which already allow fines if children miss school. it is just a step away for some area to take the bull by the horns and institute real correctional action. one thing i have learn in politics is get one step accomplished and then expand the steps. on birth out of wedlock (it's always going to happen, that's life) the first step i would suggest is every birth must have recorded a mother (a given) AND A FATHER"S name. a DNA test could prove linage. then both parents MUST be held responsible for the fiscal raising of the childen. regardless of their fiscal position a maximum of 50% of the pretax income goes to the child. even in prison inmates are paid a stipend for working, half should go to the child's benefit. the mother should not be allowed to sit home and "raise her kids" my mom had 5 of us and she was also a school teacher.noone should be allowed to have others totally support their children while the parents do nothing. it just isn't fair to everyone else.

6) Comment by Chucky - 23/12/2012

Free money ? i know about that. Do we all not pay for education ? ? Free money it is tax money that all who pay tax's ( so few of us ) pay. Who is to say it all goes to the broken schools do not the parents of 'private' schools pay the tax the fine the fee ?

7) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 23/12/2012

See Louisianavoicedotcom on Dave Lefkowith and DOE, John White

8) Comment by bourbon-soda - 23/12/2012

Contempt for the US Constitution trickles down to contempt for the state constitution. "Compelling" sounds to me like "more tax money."

9) Comment by Scrooge - 23/12/2012

Doesn't the concept of a duly enacted constitution compel adherence to its precepts, otherwise what would be the point? Hypocrisy rules the day, while self-interest and money stoke the flames of absurdity and damnation.

10) Comment by Scrooge - 23/12/2012

1) Its really not that hard to understand 2) see 1)

11) Comment by bourbon-soda - 22/12/2012

1) If something is "compelling," does it means it compels some conclusion or action? If so, to what action or conclusion does the "compelling correlation between educational and professional achievement of children and their parental status" compel? 2) One way to suppress a form of parenthood strongly correlated with illegitimacy and its disadvantages for children, might be enforcement of laws against statutory rape.

12) Comment by Scrooge - 22/12/2012

for once I agree, tradewinns. But unfortunately in our country there is a fine line between requiring parental licenses and accountability for children while also respecting personal freedom. And there lies the paradox. One measure would likely yield tremendous results: make birth out of wedlock illegal. But that could never happen. Why is is acceptable for single young women to have children? I submit that there is a direct, compelling correlation between educational and professional achievement of children and their parental status.

13) Comment by tradewinns - 22/12/2012

from one ultra conservative, fix the public educatin system. the problem is well known, noone has the backbone to stand uop to the useless parents and make them correct their ways, or pay the price (fiscally).

14) Comment by Scrooge - 22/12/2012

Such a concern for literal meanings of the constitution! This is earthshaking news coming from conservatives like you guys and one can only speculate whether it is a sudden change of philosophy or if it is merely hypocritical lip service because it suits you this time? Ad hominem tu quoque. The plank in the eye, the glass houses, etc. Before finding find fault with others might it be wise to look within ourselves first? Isn't that the Christian creed?

15) Comment by bourbon-soda - 22/12/2012

You mean like "gaming" versus "gambling?"

16) Comment by phil - 22/12/2012

One problem is that many people cannot really read anymore and figure out what simple laws really mean. I think sometimes the wording CAN be ambiguous, but sometimes the wording is just plain straight forward and does not need the interpretation of any attorney.

17) Comment by phil - 22/12/2012

We pass laws and the Constitution, and they should be followed. Society collapses when people think they are above the law and think they can get away with it. Now to add to that, I also have to say that some laws are not well thought out and may not always be fair, so there is a legal process to get those laws (or the Constitution) changed. I personally think the voucher system is just a way to bust teacher unions and to set up a public school system based on profits that some people will, in the long-term, make a lot of money on. I say quit playing around with all of these schemes and just fix the EXISTING school system. And yes - I do pay property taxes in EBR Parish so I do have a dog in this fight.

18) Comment by [e-mail] - 22/12/2012

Such a concern for literal meanings of the constitution! This is earthshaking news coming from liberals like you guys and one can only speculate whether it is a sudden change of philosophy or if it is merely hypocritical lip service because it suits you this time?

19) Comment by jdk944 - 22/12/2012

The Advocate's "views" become more humorous!! When are you interested in what the constitution actually says?? You are part of those in the corner always trying to tell us it's a "living document". The publc education system in this country is a travesty and what is the big concern - the unions who want to protect their power and turf. Doing so in public sector jobs which provide for mediocrity and money laundering opportunities to politicians!!

20) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 22/12/2012

Yes, there is that issue of wanting some strict interpretations one day, and not the next. And again, this tendency is not just on one side of the political spectrum. There is a major hurdle in trying to overcome the constitutional language, and perhaps, like in every other state where this has been tried, the Governor and "reformers" knew that the voting public would NOT vote to change the constitution to divert money from the public schools. The fact that they did not try tells me that they understood the history of voting for vouchers. It has never happened in a general vote of the people. It always happens by legislative fiat. With enough money plugged into campaigns, and enough money spent on public relations and astro-turf "non-profits" one can purchase legislation. The vote of the people actually takes more. Lest we forget, our Louisiana Constitution also calls on the legislature to suppress gambling. So, in this state, we don't have gambling, instead, we simply redefined "gambling" at casinos and called it "gaming." I note that the large billboards around the state do NOT say, "Gaming Problem?" followed by a phone number to call. We don't have vouchers, we have "Scholarships" and highly paid marketers and spin doctors at the Department of Education and in the "non-profits" who are paid to keep you from knowing the truth. And as far as The Advocate is concerned, there is enough talk about of both sides of their mouth. It is not The Advocate that leads the fight for truth when it comes to the "reform agenda" that includes vouchers. The Advocate has NEVER acknowledged the incredible lies of this "reform" movement, and still holds that we have to do something about "failing schools" without ever honestly examining the accountability system itself (which would clearly illuminate the FACT that their is nothing in the accountability system that comes even close to actually identifying when a school or the teachers within it are actually responsible for student scores). To do so would undermine their position. Finally, I was told many, many months ago that The Advocate was going to be writing about the many, many ways in which charter schools are violating the rather liberal laws under which they operate. Yet, since The Advocate is in favor of Charter Schools, they fail to expose the failure of the state to monitor and enforce the laws, and they mostly fail to expose charter school misdeeds. Shame on them.