School Leader

Superintendents make debunked arguments against school choice amendment

In my latest column for the Bowling Green Daily News, I take on recent arguments made by area superintendents against Kentucky's upcoming school choice ballot initiative:

Public school superintendents – who are smart enough to know better – continue to make debunked claims against Kentucky’s upcoming school choice constitutional amendment.

At a recent event, four superintendents from the region condemned Amendment 2, which will appear on Kentucky’s November 5 election ballot. Amendment 2 asks voters to change the state constitution clarifying that lawmakers may, at some point in the future, pass legislation providing support for eligible families to access education options outside the traditional public schools.

The superintendents claimed that the passage of Amendment 2 would have devastating consequences. They said, among other things, that the Bowling Green Independent School district will lose $9.5 million and the Warren County Schools will lose $27 million.

But these figures come from a report by the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, an outfit deeply backed by teachers’ unions, that includes preposterous assumptions inconsistent with the way school choice programs work in other states.

Kentucky economist John Garen, my colleague on the Bluegrass Institute Board of Scholars, has already issued a paper exposing the KCEP report for its bogus claims.

In “The Fiscal Effects of School Choice: Doomsday Speculation Versus Reality,” Garen debunks all the central arguments made by KCEP and parroted by superintendents, starting with the assumption that Amendment 2 would lead to a voucher program.

Amendment 2 does not set up any program. Future lawmakers could consider a range of school choice policy options, including charter schools and scholarship tax credits, both of which were already passed in Kentucky until courts ruled the state’s constitution forbids all such legislation.

But if Kentucky did adopt a voucher, there is no evidence it would have the economic effects on public schools claimed by superintendents. KCEP’s report makes the absurd assumption that all of Kentucky’s 98,000 students currently homeschooled or enrolled in nonpublic schools would receive a voucher. Only 10 states offer programs to support homeschooling families and those are typically separate from voucher plans.

Furthermore, there is no state in which every nonpublic school student receives a voucher. Instead, voucher programs usually have an income eligibility requirement or some other stipulation of need, such as for students who have disabilities. The doomsday numbers cited by superintendents are based on these false premises that do not exist in reality.

Even Arizona, which has a universal education savings account, a policy mechanism different from a voucher that would not be constitutional in Kentucky even if Amendment 2 passes, disproves the claims of Amendment 2’s opponents. The KCEP report falsely says that Arizona’s ESA has blown a hole in the state’s budget.

As John Garen’s report shows, Arizona’s school choice program, like those of other states, has a positive effect on the state’s finances. Students who participate in school choice programs are educated for far less money per pupil than those in the traditional public schools, saving the state’s education budget millions of dollars that offset the cost of school choice.

If superintendents don’t know the KCEP report is a fraud, their constituents should let them know. If they do, they are deliberately trying to mislead voters about Amendment 2.

Read the original article here.

A reckoning is coming for higher education

In a recent column for the Bowling Green Daily News, I discussed a Gallup survey that shows public confidence in higher education is cratering. Only a third of respondents they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in colleges and universities, down from 57% in 2015. 

I discussed reasons for this fall in confidence revealed by the poll, concluding that...

A reckoning is coming for colleges and universities, which need to recommit to the traditional mission of forming men and women for lives of service and virtue, not just as economic producers. And for their own financial future, higher education leaders also need to be mindful that the taxpayers and tuition payers expect a high-quality education free from ideological extremism and coercion.

Read the whole thing here (may be behind paywall).

 

School choice opponents are confused or trying to confuse voters

In a recent op-ed for the Lexington Herald-Leader, I took on the habit of Kentucky's school choice opponents to pretend the upcoming Amendment 2 ballot initiative is a "voucher" plan.

In fact, Amendment 2 does not create a program at all, but simply asks voters to change the state constitution making it clear that the state legislature may, at some time in the future, adopt programs that help more Kentucky families access new education options. A constitutional amendment is needed because state courts have previously ruled all such programs unconstitional, making Kentucky one of only states in the country wihout school choice. (See Amendment 2 frequently asked questions on the Bluegrass Institute website, where I serve on the Board of Scholars).

Lawmakers could adopt a voucher plan, but they could just as easily institute charter schools or a scholarship tax credit program, both of which have previously been approved by the General Assembly, only to be struck down by courts in decidely ideological rulings.

Read more here about the various options available to state legislature when Amendment 2 passes.

Postliberalism in Western Kentucky

I was honored to recently be featured as a guest on the American Postliberal podcast. 

The American Postliberal was launched in 2023 by a group of young Catholic intellectuals who are seeking to help articulate a vision of Catholic realism to guide Americans in this unique political and cultural moment. I've been pleased to serve as a contributor for the American Postliberal over the last year. My essays published there so far include the following:

• Beyond the laptop class (September 8, 2023).
• Catholics and "Red Caesar" (November 22, 2023).
• Liberalism leads to Marxism (January 24, 2024).

The American Postliberal offers a youthful, pragmatic take on the larger postliberal movement. Postliberalism is a political philosophy, closely associated with the work of professors Patrick Deneen, Yoram Hazony, and others, that helps explain the current political and cultural crisis facing Western Civilization through a critique of liberalism, how liberal assumptions have shaped and distorted the perceptions of thinkers on both the political left and right, and how liberalism inevitably leads to its own demise in the forms of various kinds of totalitarianism. Rather than just diagnosing doom, however, postliberalism, especially of the variety offered at the American Postliberal, also seeks to articulate a vision forward, and how a common good conservatism can restore a healthy social and political order. 

We discuss some of these concepts, and especially how they apply to my work in education, on the podcast. You can also listen via YouTube, below.

 

 

Biden wants to impose radical gender views on Kentucky schools

In my last column for the Bowling Green Daily News, I discussed the Biden administration's attempt to rewrite the federal Title IX law in a way none of the original authors of that legislation ever imagined: that "sex" is whatever gender identity a person claims to be. 

This means schools in every Kentucky community will be forced to let students use the facilities of the opposite gender, and for school employees to treat students as if they were a gender different than their biological sex. Biden is working on a separate set of regulations that will force female athletes to compete against biological males in school sports.

Schools that don’t comply could lose their federal funding, including special education services and access to the free and reduced lunch program.

All of this contradicts Kentucky law, which, despite vetoes from Gov. Andy Beshear, has been amended in recent years to protect the privacy of children in Kentucky schools and the rights and dignity of female athletes.

Read more about the legal fight over Biden's Title IX rules and the implications for Kentucky schools in the full op-ed.

10 Commandements laws are about education, not evangelization

In an op-ed for Kentucky Today, I defended Louisiana's new law mandating the display of the 10 Commandments in classrooms in K12 schools and public universities:

Making sure every student is aware of the Ten Commandments is not an attempt to indoctrinate them into a specific religious belief. As evangelism, such an effort would be clumsy and ineffective. The Ten Commandments law is, rather, about forming students with an accurate historical understanding of the American system of government and its patrimony...

Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law, like Kentucky’s before it, does not infringe on any student’s right to believe whatever they choose about any religion. But it does recognize that students need to know the history of their government, and the civilization from which it emerged, and the religious ideas that informed it.

Read the whole thing here.

Enemies of school choice need better slogans

In my latest op-ed for the Bowling Green Daily News, I took on the slogan being used by opponents of this year's school choice constitutional amenment that "public dollars are for public schools." This argument fails to convince on multip fronts:

 

Kentuckians’ ballots this November will have more than just a contentious presidential race. Parents seeking a broader range of options for their kids’ education will be paying close attention to a state constitutional amendment to enable new learning options for families. For those families to win the day, the flawed but pervasive arguments in favor of the status quo need serious scrutiny.
Already those opposed to robust choice in education are repeating their familiar slogans, most notably that “public dollars are for public schools.” Slogans are often simplistic, but this one truly falls apart when confronted with some overwhelmingly inconvenient facts.

First, public dollars are already used in private colleges and universities. Pell grants, the GI Bill, and government-subsidized student loans all follow beneficiaries to the college of their choice, including private, faith-based institutions. Even the Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship (KEES) program, which gives high school students money for college tuition based on their grades, can be used in private colleges. Many opponents of school choice have championed preschool programs that would empower Kentucky families with resources to choose from both public and private early childhood options.

Outside of education, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the WIC program, Section 8, and Social Security are all programs that allow beneficiaries to choose from a wide variety of providers, almost all of which are private entities. It’s only in K-12 education that we systematically deny low- and middle-income a choice in who educates their children.

The second reason the “public dollars for public schools” argument doesn’t work is it assumes education tax dollars automatically belong to public school districts and the state. Instead, school choice is based on the idea that, like the other programs just described, education is a highly personal public good. Education dollars are for helping children thrive intellectually. Families should be able to direct those resources to the provider that best fits their needs in the same way Medicare beneficiaries choose their own doctor and hospital.

The bottom line is that defenders of the education status quo want no possible threat to their monopoly when it comes to the education of children from low- and middle-income families. They simply do not want to compete for the dollars those students represent.

Sloganeering aside, the fight voters will witness over the coming months really comes down to one important question: Who should decide how state education dollars are directed? Should they be directed by parents to serve the unique needs of their children … or public officials managing a largely top-down system?
Kentucky lags its neighbors when it comes to empowering parents in this arena. Every single state that touches our Commonwealth has at least one robust parent-centered choice program in place.

It’s time for Kentucky to join the rest of the country and treat families with the respect they deserve. Voters should pass the school choice constitutional amendment so we can start funding students, not systems.

Read the original article here.

Campus threats to free speech

The Bowling Green Daily News has asked me to start regularly contributing a op-ed on various public policy issues of state and local interest. My first offering was this recent piece about the visit of Kyle Rittenhouse to Western Kentucky University's campus, which I considered a triumph for free speech.

But the event also demonstrated why lawmakers need to go further to ensure that college campuses remain places where a diversity of viewpoints are free to be expressed.

In 2020, Rittenhouse, age 17, took a rifle into the middle of a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was, perhaps unsurprisingly, attacked and later acquitted for shooting and killing two of his three assailants in self-defense. He now advocates for the right to bear arms on campus and was invited by a student group to speak at WKU.

Two weeks prior to Rittenhouse’s visit, WKU officials took the unusual step of sending a campus-wide message clarifying that the speaker was not invited by the university itself.

Controversial speakers often come to campus, many officially sponsored by some unit within the university, and almost all espousing far-left views that conservative students and faculty find disagreeable or upsetting.

In none of these cases does WKU issue such a disclaimer. But also in none of those cases do conservative students and faculty try to silence free speech. Sadly, that was exactly what was happening.

Read the whole thing here. 

What research really says about school choice

The opponents of school choice are just getting started as they rev up to convince voters to oppose a constitutional amendment that would give lawmakers the opportunity to establish policies that assist families in accessing non-public school education options. A recent op-ed in the Louisville Courier Journal shows the lengths to which defenders of the status quo will go to distort the truth about school choice.

University of Kentucky economics professor emeritus John Garen and I penned a response, which appeared in newspapers around the state, including the Bowling Green Daily News. Here's an excerpt:

The enemies of giving families options constantly claim that education choice will devastate public schools. But the Indiana and Ohio studies clearly show that achievement among low-income students in public schools is not damaged by school choice. In fact, the authors of the Ohio study speculate that competition with private schools improved student learning outcomes in public schools.

The various defenders of the education establishment miss the point that your tax dollars are not meant to benefit the public school system, but rather students themselves. Education freedom means that we should start treating education like other public goods where the beneficiary (in this case, families) gets to choose their provider (schools of various kinds).

Kentucky’s school choice constitutional amendment gets us one step closer to funding students, not systems.

Read the whole thing here.

Toward a conservative vision of education

Earlier this week I was honored to join some of America's most prominent conservative education reformers in Phoenix, Arizona at the invitation of the Heritage Foundation. The Conservative Vision of Education conference featured leaders in K-12 and higher education, policy experts, and advocates. I attended in my role as policy advisor to Commonwealth Educational Opportunities. As the conference name implies, the gathering was meant as the first step toward articulating a compelling vision for education reform based on conservative principles.

Heritage President Kevin Roberts and Education Research Fellow Jason Bedrick framed the day's discussion by pointing out how conservatives have long been known for things they are against in education (federal overeach, divisive ideological content in schools, etc.), but other than school choice have sometimes struggled to articulate what they are for in ways that have consistently resonated with voters and policy makers. This is not because conservatives are short on education policy ideas, however, but perhaps because we've not attempted to ground those ideas in a clear and comprehensive understanding of what education is and what schools are for.

In his opening remarks, Roberts said that a conservative vision is closely tied to the conviction that education is for the formation of a virtuous citizenry that has gratitude for its cultural inheritance.

Three broad topics framed the day's discussion:

• What is the proper role of STEM subjects in classical education?
• How can we promote rich content as a complement to science-based reading instruction?
• How do we transmit the best of our cultural heritage, especially in history and civics education, to today's youth?

Presenters with content expertise in each question provided background information and context, and then conference participants engaged in a vigorous discussion. At risk of oversimplifying the diverse and nuanced range of perspectives that surfaced, I think the rough consensus on the above questions were as follows:

• Student mastery of applied science and math (as in technology and engineering) is a natural byproduct of a strong foundation in the humanities and advocates of classical education should not shy away from STEM, even as we recognize that a solid foundation in the liberal arts helps mitigate against the pure utilitarianism that is often associated with STEM subjects.
• Rich, literature-based curricula are essential for promoting student mastery and the necessary complement to the phonics instruction that figures prominently in science-based reading strategies. Conservatives should advocate for improvements in state education standards and especially the local adoption and implementation of strong, comprehensive, content-rich curricula.
• Conservatives should not shy away from contrasting our view of Western Civilization with that of liberals. We should own that we want children to learn the best (and worst) features of our cultural inheritance, but generally be proud of our country and especially the moral and political virtues upon which it was founded.

The conversation was exciting and suggested a wide range of new directions and important questions for conservative education policy. There was insufficient time to turn all of those insights into an organized vision, but follow up activities will seek to condense the discussion into a more coherent manifesto. Personally, I had several takeaways that will inform my own work on education reform in Kentucky.

First, as I've written before, classical education is the most exciting development in the K-12 realm, but we must find ways to take the lessons of classical learning and apply them to traditional public schools. I haven't given up on the idea of a traditional public school district embracing classical education outright, but I believe for every district, we should insist on the implementation of content-rich curricula. Teachers should not be making daily decisions about what gets taught in their classrooms. Rather, schools should adopt curricula that clearly lay out the instructional materials for every grade with a strong emphasis on science, social studies, and rigorous math and science materials. Kentucky should continue to review and improve its standards, but the state should also review and recognize comprehensive curricular programs (Core Knowledge would be a good one) and incentivize districts to adopt and implement them.

Second, we should partner this emphasis on rich content with an expansion of Kentucky's science-based reading initiative. Every teacher and administrator in the state should be required to participate in LETRS, or some similar, rigorous professional development focused on the science of reading. Every university teacher education program should be required to teach this approach to reading and pre-service teachers should be assessed on it.

Third, conservatives should relentessly push for more school choice programs so that families and educators have an opportunity to offer more innovative education options, including classical learning, to every family. In Kentucky this year, that means promoting the constitutional amendment that will free legislators to adopt school choice policies without the interference of anti-school choice judges. Beyond, it means fighting to push the legislature to adopt the most robust school choice policies possible. School choice empowers parents to make schools more accountable to their child's needs, and to conservative values.

Finally, the work started by the Heritage Foundation this week should continue as we ground all of our policy efforts in a clear philosophical viewpoint about the meaning and purpose of education. This is, in part, the way I framed it recently:

Conservatives and liberals have very different views of the purpose of education. For conservatives, education involves the passing down of a civilization from one generation to the next, handing on values, ideas, and institutions that our forefathers found valuable. As G. K. Chesterton put it, “Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another. It is the transfer of a way of life.”

Of course, conservatives do not hold that everything from the past is worth conserving, nor that our institutions are never in need of updating. Repairs to our institutions must be made both because there is inevitable decay in the best of institutions due to human nature and because some institutions have proven unworkable or unjust over time. But conservatives seek to make repairs to institutions, causing as little damage to traditions as possible. Education is also about forming young people to not just honor the past, but to lead changes in the future that restore our social institutions to the original and enduring values of our culture.

And more fundamentally, conservatives believe that the primary purpose of education is to form young people for lives of virtue. Conservatives have a realistic understanding of human nature. We are born as fallen creatures in need of formation. Conservatives also believe in an enduring moral order that can be accessed through a combination of faith and reason and we can learn to better conform our lives to that enduring order. Schools in their various forms exist to help parents in their vocation of forming their children in just such a way.

That’s the conservative vision of education.

Conservative policy makers, political leaders, and education activists should regularly express our understanding of the goal and purpose of education and how it contrasts with that of progressives and liberals, who see education as either a purely utilitarian pursuit to train students to be good consumers or as a method of training them to dismantle the very foundations of Western Civilization. Parents and voters understand these differences, and we can make great headway in promoting conservative education policy by making them clear.

Related posts:

• The Conservative Reclamation of Education
• Conservatives, Liberals, and the Purpose of Education
• Here comes Kentucky's school choice constitutional amendment