School Leader: March 2019

The Kentucky General Assembly is wrapping up its legislative session, and for two years in a row, lawmakers have utterly failed Kentucky families on the issue of expanding education options. But the lonely champions of parental, student, and teacher empowerment will carry on their struggle against the education establishment until every family has the opportunity to choose a school that best meets their child's needs. And I'll proudly count myself among them.

After passing a charter school law in 2017, lawmakers refused to approve a funding formula that would actually allow charter schools to open in Kentucky. And while we had great support in the state Senate and among House leadership for scholarship tax credits, a handful of House Republicans prevented the bill from coming to a vote, despite solid survey data demonstrating widespread voter support for the policy.

The education establishment proved itself again to be the most powerful, well-organized lobby in Frankfort. Even though they exercised no meaningful impact in the last statewide election cycle, and even though teachers are a diverse group that do not speak with one voice on any issue, some Republican lawmakers remain fearful of voting against the wishes of superintendents and educator groups. And thus Kentucky remains one of only a handful of states with no meaningful school choice policies. Families may not choose a charter school, districts strictly control access to traditional public schools, and a vast number of families are unable to afford tuition when a private school might best meet the needs of their child.

The education establishment fought ferociously against charters and scholarship tax credits, voicing a number of specious and sometimes blatantly false claims about these policies, but their highest-leverage argument was that education in Kentucky is grossly under-funded, and therefore we cannot "afford" to let parents choose an alternative to the local public schools.

I agree that we need to invest more money in education in Kentucky, and in an upcoming post I'll explore the complexities of that issue. But I reject the argument that we can't "afford" policies that help parents choose their child's school, in large part because I reject the idea that education dollars are for institutions. They are for the benefit of students, and within the realm of public schools (which includes charters), those dollars should be able to follow kids to the school of their choice, within parameters of accountability established in well-considered law and regulation. In this way, education should be like other highly-personal public goods such as health care and higher education (see more in the related links below about this argument).

I greatly antagonized many fellow educators this legislative session by publicly pointing out that their core goal here is to maintain their functional monopoly on education delivery. They seek to bar the door from families choosing another education provider because they place a greater value on the education dollars those children represent to their schools. I don't question the sincerity of their motives in doing so. They appear to truly believe such a monopoly is the best method for providing an equitable, high-quality education for all students. I just fundamentally disagree.

And I will continue to do so. I will continue to work and speak and write in support of policy and advocacy groups demanding high-quality charter schools, scholarship tax credits, and the right of students to enroll in any public school with an open seat. Even when it brings ridicule and scorn and personal attacks from people who I consider colleagues and allies and with whom I share common overall goals. It's a sad commentary that so many educators regard those who have differing opinions about school choice or pension reform or other issues as enemies of public education. There's an awful lot of room for people of goodwill to believe in different strategies for achieving the same goal.

Interestingly, I never intended for school choice to be my signature professional issue. I spend most of my professional energy training the next generation of public school administrators and conducting research into leadership and school improvement. I have deep passions for curriculum, personalized learning, better assessment practices, and helping educators develop reflective tools for improving their craft. These are the topics I'd much prefer to spend my time on.

But the fundamental injustice at work in our educational delivery system keeps me fighting on for school choice, even when it comes at some cost to me professionally. More than two decades in this business has proven to me that no school, no matter how good, can be a perfect fit for every child. Empowering families of modest means to select their child's school is not only good for kids; it's also liberating to teachers and school leaders who can be far more innovative in their approaches to curriculum and instruction instead of relentlessly being pushed into a one-size-fits-all system. But first and foremost it's about giving lower-income children opportunities they otherwise cannot access.

Contrary to anti-school choice rhetoric, there is no well-funded, organized lobby on behalf of the families who are the primary beneficiaries of school choice policies, which is why it's so difficult to complete against the powerful education establishment. Those families need a voice. And on this issue they need a voice from educators willing to stand up to their own colleagues and institutions and challenge their assumptions and arguments.

I'll try my best to always do so with civility, seeking common ground wherever possible, but without compromising the fundamental conviction that every family deserves to decide who educates their children. And I welcome every Kentuckian, educators included, to join me.

See you in Frankfort.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else affiliated with Western Kentucky University (where I am professor of educational administration, leadership, and research), or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I am a member and chairman of the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Committee).

The battle to give more Kentucky families choices in who educates their children rages on, as lawmakers continue to consider a scholarship tax credit bill, introduced to the legislature this year as HB 205/SB 118. Eighteen other states have such a policy, which creates a tax credit that encourages private donations to scholarship that help eligible families pay tuition at non-public schools.

I've written extensively about how this policy works, how it does not threaten public education, how it does not violate the state or federal constitutions, and how it uses private money to give more families the chance to find a school that best meets their child's needs, the same kind of privilege affluent parents enjoy every day. You can read some of my most recent posts on these topics here, here, and here.

As to be expected, the education establishment in Kentucky has ferociously opposed scholarship tax credits, arguing that education is underfunded and a reduction in state revenues would further harm public schools, despite an abundance of analyses that show such policies work out to be revenue neutral in other states. Superintendents have argued that they would be terribly burdened even if only a handful of students left their assigned public school because they have fixed costs that cannot easily be absorbed.

Many of these arguments are condensed in a blog post by Anna Baumann of the Kentucky Economic Policy Center, an organization that opposes school choice policies. Ms. Baumann makes three major claims: 1) the cost savings of scholarship tax credits depends on the number of students switching from public to nonpublic schools; 2) schools will suffer because of the "fixed costs" argument noted above if students do switch, and 3) the income eligibility level for families applying for scholarships under this proposal is too high.

In this post I'd like to respond to some of these specific claims. As always, let me be clear that views I express on this website are mine alone do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else affiliated with Western Kentucky University (where I am professor of educational administration, leadership, and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I am a member and chair of the Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Committee).

First, regarding switchers, this issue is only relevant for calculating cost savings at the state level (not the district level). What we know from other states is the switcher rate does not impact the bottom line on state-level fiscal impact - which is that the state winds up saving money in the long run because of this tax credit. And that is the case regardless of whether students switch or choose private school from the kindergarten forward. Any time families opt out of public schools, you generate a net savings because these families continue to pay taxes but the state doesn't have to educate their kids. Currently there are about 72,000 kids in Kentucky who attend private or homeschools. If they all showed up tomorrow wanting a public education, we'd need almost an extra $300 million a year. That's almost 3% of the state's general fund. Scholarship tax credits do not drain revenues from public schools that would otherwise be used to increase education spending.

At the district level things get a little more complicated, because when a local school is no longer educating a student, they no longer get state education dollars (SEEK funds) for the student (and shouldn't; they aren't educating him/her any more). Note that every argument that follows from the anti-choice crowd is essentially based on the idea that these students shouldn't be allowed to leave, because this will generate a loss of revenue for the district. I reject that kind of thinking outright.

But taking the fact of lost revenues seriously, it is still unclear what impact this has on students who stay. If large numbers of students leave, then you actually increase the likelihood of the district being able to reap savings through reduced fixed expenses (cuts to personnel and other large overhead costs), which contradicts Ms. Baumann's argument. And if large numbers leave, you don't have a school choice problem; you have an internal problem to the school that is causing so many families to want another alternative. Moreover, we know that per-pupil calculations are the most relevant revenue/cost issue at hand for schools (rather than fixed costs) because that's why we fund schools based on enrollment.

If small numbers of students leave (which is much more likely), on the other hand, then we're talking about management adjustments that districts can and should be able deal with all the time. You can, in fact, reduce some expenses when small numbers of students leave (fewer software licenses, instructional materials, etc.), but unless you're willing to argue that no student should ever be able to leave a school, districts must have the management sense to deal with small enrollment fluctuations. And they do.

When I looked at this issue in the past, I tried to apply some of this to a specific example: the Warren County School district, one of my two local districts. For FY 16, that district had $122 million in revenues; only $47 million of that was from SEEK (Kentucky's state per pupil educational allotment), or 38.5%.

Warren County has just under 15,000 students. It's anybody's guess as to how many students would leave for a private school if a scholarship opportunity presented itself thanks to scholarship tax credits, but currently there appear to be less than 1,000 students attending private schools in the county. Let's be extremely generous and assume that STC increases local private school enrollment by 10%. That means no more than 100 students leave the district (this isn't taking in account students who may leave other nearby districts instead). Warren County's FY 16 adjusted SEEK allocation was $3,647 per student. So SEEK funding for the district would decline by about $364,700...which accounts for only .002% of the district's revenues. And in a district of 15,000, I suspect total enrollment fluctuates by far more than 100 from year to year.

Perhaps I have more faith in our superintendents' abilities to manage such tiny budget changes than they do themselves. And if my math is incorrect here, I'm sure helpful readers will point that out. But even if my calculations are slightly off, the point remains: scholarship tax credits are not going to decimate the budgets of local schools.

What Ms. Baumann's analysis also doesn't consider in terms of costs at the local level is that parents who use private schools still pay local school taxes, partially offsetting any "loss" to the local district (which wasn't due those SEEK dollars to begin with!). This is an incalculable number of course, because it's based on the amount of taxes paid by each family. But it further illustrates the fact that the costs to districts for "switchers" or "never users" is small and should be something they can deal with. Districts are never in a position to do anything about affluent families who choose another option. It's only when it comes to policies like this that they try to stop families of more modest means from leaving. Which brings me to the last point of Ms. Baumann's blog post.

Scholarships funded by the private donations encouraged by HB 205 are needs based. Dollars go to the neediest families first and the bill puts kids with special needs, foster care kids, and kids on free or reduced lunch first in line. If money is left over, scholarships may then go to families whose income rises to 200% of the FRL level (remember this is all privately-donated money). Typically these families don't need full scholarships, but may need a little extra help making the full tuition payment, especially if they have more than one child in school. We can get into endless arguments about who is "upper income," but the fact is that, in my old school district, two married teachers with two kids are too "rich" to qualify for any scholarship help under this bill after just 5 years of teaching service if they also happen to have Master's degrees.

Conventional wisdom holds (and I agree), that teachers are underpaid, and yet the Courier-Journal reports the average Kentucky teacher salary is just under $54,000 per year ($63K in JCPS); the vast majority of teacher households would never be eligible for even a tiny bit of scholarship help under this proposal. The bottom line is that scholarship tax credits benefit families who otherwise could never access these schooling options.

At the end of the day, the argument that we should oppose school choice because education is underfunded is an excuse to defend local school districts' monopoly on education delivery. Scholarship tax credits will not cause damage to public schools, and ultimately the education establishment is always going to oppose school choice policies, no matter how much we increase education spending. Philosophically, many superintendents and teacher groups are just opposed to giving families choices in who educates their kids. They can't do anything about affluent families who always have the resources to make choices for their children, so they oppose policy mechanisms that help those who don't.

To help these families we'll always have to do it over the opposition of educator groups. That's a shame, but that's the way it is, and I'm willing to stand up to colleagues I admire and with whom I otherwise share so many common goals, and disagree.

Update, 3/8/2019: I keep hearing repeated arguments that scholarship tax credits are somehow a violation of either Kentucky's Constitution or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. This allegation seems to be premised on the notion that tax credits use "public" money to support private, religious schools.

If the opponents of scholarship tax credits think this policy uses "public" money to support religious schools, then I hope they didn't take a charitable deduction on their taxes for any donations to their church or other religious organizations. By their own logic, this, too, would be using "public" money to support religion. But it is not of course.

If you don't want to allow a tax credit because you simply don't like what people are going to do with their own money if they get to keep more of it (in this case, use it to help kids afford private school tuition), that's at least a logical position. But it is NOT the same thing as using "public" money to support religious schools, anymore than your charitable deduction for church donations is. (Which is why scholarship tax credits have withstood multiple constitutional challenges).

School Leader

An education administration blog by Dr. Gary Houchens, Western Kentucky University.

Recent Posts

Archives

Education Policy

March 2019

03/17/2019

The fight for school choice in Kentucky goes on

03/07/2019

How much do scholarship tax credits "cost" public schools?

About

Pages

Search

Categories