Yes, we are still talking about school choice here in Tennessee and most likely, we will be talking about it for some time as this effort is Governor Bill Lee’s legacy piece of legislation. It is the source of FBI raids and investigations going back to 2019 and a state Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the introduction of the education savings account (ESA) in Tennessee.
Setting all of the past turmoil aside, Lee is now pushing for an expansion of school choice across all 95 counties. The hardship around this conversation is that there are good intentions that are worthy of support in terms of parental control over a child’s education and accountability for failing public schools. And I echo those sentiments.
But where I would hope this does not lead is to the very same end we found ourselves in during the ill-conceived special session on gun control just a few short months ago. Why? Because in Governor Bill Lee’s own words, “we have to do something.”
Simply doing something is not the way to fix our education woes. And to be quite honest, I seriously question the legitimate intentions of a governor who replaced one woke commissioner of education with another, appointing Commissioner Reynolds who states that one of her main goals in education is to make our schools “less racist.” I ask you an honest question here. How do you take a governor seriously who would appoint such a woman to lead education in Tennessee? Does Bill Lee really want to fix education?
As I have studied the pros and cons of the move towards school choice, or education freedom as they now call it, I am becoming more and more wary of both the intentions behind this kind of legislation and the real outcomes.
For one, the great majority of Americans have no idea that we are currently funding free and public education for illegal immigrants including right here in Tennessee. That point alone should be alarming and enlightening as to why the migration crisis is ongoing here in America. The fully funded education for illegals stems from a 1982 US Supreme Court ruling called Plyer v Doe which, in effect, states that public schools cannot discriminate against students based on their immigration status. There is more, but essentially this means that a child here illegally is legally entitled to the same public-school education as any other American child. Make sense?
Now here is the dirty little secret about school choice that its proponents do not want you to know. With education savings accounts (ESAs), these same benefits will be available to illegals because of Plyer v Doe. Succinctly put, your tax dollars are going to fund private education for illegal immigrants. And apparently, there is nothing you can do about it.
In fact, proponents of school choice here in Tennessee like Americans for Prosperity (who also recently endorsed Nikki Haley for President), are saying it out loud like Tennessee’s AFP Deputy Director, Michael Lofti, who seemingly just sees this as a cost of doing business.
Hey @garyhumble, I know you’re not from around here, but surely you are aware that TN (and every other state in America) has been funding education for children of illegal immigrants since Plyler v. Doe was decided by SCOTUS more than 4 decades ago? I think you’re a smart guy &… https://t.co/loFu5mZYP6— Michael Lotfi (@MichaelLotfi) December 4, 2023
But here is what I find to be the most fascinating point in this debate. None of these organizations who are pushing school choice seem interested in working to stop the education spending on illegals. They, along with Governor Bill Lee and GOP leadership seem perfectly content to expand education spending for illegals into the private sector in order to push their school choice agenda.
But here is a question. Why would organizations who claim to be for limited government not publicly support a bill like the Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act (HB 726) sponsored by Rep. Bud Hulsey? Why is the Governor and GOP leadership not interested in legislation that pushes back against unconstitutional federal overreach?
Plyer v Doe is unconstitutional hogwash that seeks to commandeer state resources by federal force in order to provide benefits to children and families who have broken our immigration laws and find themselves illegally occupying our homeland. And bills that have been submitted to our legislature in the past that would have taken the fight to this issue have been killed in committees time and time again.
So, the burning question is, why? Why are we compelled to accept that (1) school choice is the only option we have to fix education and (2) we must fund illegal immigration to accomplish that task?
Call me crazy. But I want Tennessee to do better.
Secondly, ESAs smack more of wealth redistribution than they do education freedom. Already as it is, the public education system to some degree is a socialist concept. We are all paying taxes into one large pot of money being equitably distributed in such a way as to provide equal education opportunities for all children. That is a very rudimentary description. But in theory, that is how it is supposed to work.
But ESAs seem to put that concept on steroids. We are now taking those same tax dollars and directly funding parents in order that they might control their own child’s education in the private sector. The argument is, “Those taxes are my money! And I want my money back!”
Let me dismiss that argument with a clear and concise personal example. I pay $2000 a year in property taxes on my home. All things considered equal and without adjusting for inflation, I would pay $100,000 in property taxes over 50 years.
I have 3 children. The Governor’s ESA plan would give me $21,000 a year ($7,000 per child) to send my children to private school over the course of 13 years. That’s $273,000.
For one, I’m getting years of tax payments up front in the form of a no-interest loan from the government. On top of that, I’m getting an additional $173,000 for education that I’ll never make up with my personal tax burden. So, if I am not paying for it, then who is? The answer is…someone else.
For most, this concept has become acceptable in terms of public education. It is sort of like paying into the funding of our national defense, infrastructure, etc. But with ESAs, the lines of demarcation tend to be a bit clearer. Tax dollars are no longer funding public structures, but private entities. Put a different way, private interests are benefitting from a redistribution of tax dollars in such a way that citizens through their elected representation have less say (as a whole) over how those tax dollars are spent. To some degree, both control and accountability for education will shift to the private sector. Considering the failure of the public school system, that is not a bad idea except for where tax dollars are concerned.
To that end, it is inevitable that at some point additional regulation into private schools and homeschools will become necessary to ensure conformity to certain education standards. The government (including the Department of Child Services) will need to ensure that your children are getting the proper government-funded education that we’ve all come to expect.
And this brings me to my last point, the issue of control. Is the loss of liberty worth the supposed return on investment? Let me explain.
This is similar to a proposed constitutional amendment in Tennessee that would allow the state to invest tax dollars in such a way that the state would become a shareholder (or owner) of a private corporation. Supporters of the amendment say that this will allow Tennessee to get a higher rate of return on the investment of taxpayer funds. Therefore, it is a good thing for the state to net billions of dollars in revenue while keeping taxes low.
But the problem here is not the revenue. It is the fact that the fiduciary obligation and/or financial outcomes of the state and any such private corporation become intertwined. These kinds of public-private partnerships are stepping stones to Communism and lead to a loss of liberty to individuals as government and power brokers only become more powerful. One need only look to China as an example.
Similarly, the argument in favor of school choice despite the merging of private interests and public funding is that there will be an overall cost savings in education. And admittedly, there are some studies that bear that out. However, the larger question may be to the danger this poses to introducing more government oversight into both private schools and homeschools.
In fact, James Mason, President of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) had this to say in response to the universal school choice option that recently passed in Arkansas.
“The problem for us as home school leaders in watching the trends over the years is that in the minds of many, if you are at home with your kids, the distinction about whether you get state money or not is irrelevant,” Mason explained. “State money invites scrutiny and invites regulation. When that comes, we think it will sweep in those who don’t choose the money in addition to those who take the money. So the threat is that all home schoolers, [if they] take the money or not, [will be] subject to increased regulation, reimposing needless barriers that we fought so hard to remove over the years for no reason other than some are taking public money.” 1
I would ask you to sincerely consider, when has the government ever handed out free money with no expectations? As the old saying goes, with shekels come shackles. The growing concern amongst many conservatives is that the move to bring tax dollars into the private education setting will indeed bring with it (even if in time) regulations that we do not see currently, especially in the area of homeschooling. Take a listen to this podcast from Heidi St. John to get a bit more of the national flavor happening with this conversation.
Pro-school choice organizations are running ads as we speak enticing voters to support these ESA initiatives under the guise of receiving free money for the education of their children. I would argue that not only is the money not free, but it will come at a great cost to the family, perhaps a cost we will eventually be unwilling to pay.