Republicans Expand Vouchers Statewide
Despite promises and denials, budget amendment applies beyond Racine
After all, out-of-state voucher backers have poured millions into favored candidates' campaigns over the years; Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans are big fans of pumping taxpayer money into private and religious schools with little state oversight; and state leaders of national voucher groups include Scott Jensen and John Gard, two former Republican legislative leaders.
So the question was never if Republicans would expand voucher schools, but just how far they would take it.
And according to the details of a late-night amendment slipped into the state budget, Republicans are going to take it very far indeed—to every corner of the state.
The budget amendment was promoted as a way to expand voucher schools into Racine—something that had been promised by state Rep. Robin Vos (R-Burlington), the co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee—while removing Green Bay from the program's potential expansion following objections over that city's inclusion.
But upon closer inspection the amendment actually paves the way for voucher expansion to moderately sized cities throughout the state, including West Allis, Appleton, Madison, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Sheboygan and Superior.
Vos and Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) have promised to clean up the amendment's language in a separate bill and single out only Racine for vouchers, though that easily could have been done last week. Walker's spokesman promised that the governor would not use his line-item veto powers to play with the budget's wording and immediately expand vouchers statewide.
Middle-Income Families Can Receive Vouchers
Expanding vouchers beyond the city limits of Milwaukee isn't the only change Republicans made in the budget, which passed on party-line votes in both houses of the state Legislature.
The budget also increases a family's income eligibility for vouchers, which originally had been offered only to Milwaukee's lower-income families. Previously, a family of four would have to earn less than $39,113 to be eligible for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP).
Thanks to the new budget, however, a family of four headed by a single parent could earn up to $67,050 to qualify for vouchers; a family of four with two parents could earn up to $74,050 to qualify.
The budget also eliminates the enrollment cap on MPCP.
In addition, any religious or private school in the state is now eligible to take voucher students from Milwaukee.
State Superintendent Tony Evers blasted the voucher program's expansion statewide at the same time Republican lawmakers have slashed $1.6 billion from funding for public education.
“There have been no public hearings, nor disclosure of these plans,” Evers said in a sharply worded statement after the amendment's passage in the state Assembly.
But Betsy DeVos, head of the Washington, D.C.-based pro-privatization group American Federation for Children—which has a long history of meddling in Wisconsin elections and now employs former Republican Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen—had nothing but praise for the voucher expansion.
“We thank the leadership in the Legislature for delivering this victory to low- and middle-income families across Wisconsin,” DeVos wrote in a press release.
A Serious Legal Challenge
While Republicans are eagerly repaying their campaign donors for their support over the years, a coalition of civil rights groups has filed suit in federal court over the MPCP's failure to adequately include and educate children with disabilities.
The groups allege that since 83% of students in voucher schools pay their tuition with taxpayer-funded vouchers, these allegedly private schools are really public schools that must adhere to anti-discrimination laws.
These private schools currently discriminate against students with disabilities, the suit alleges. While almost 20% of the Milwaukee Public Schools' (MPS) student population has at least one disability, only 1.6% of voucher schools' students have a disability. The statewide average is 14.3%.
“Wisconsin's creation, implementation and expansion of a private school voucher program in Milwaukee has resulted in a dual system of education in the city,” the suit argues. “There is essentially one option for students with disabilities: MPS. Students without disabilities have a publicly funded 'choice': They can attend private schools with a publicly funded voucher or choose to stay in public schools.”
The suit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation Racial Justice Program, ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Disability Rights Wisconsin, and parents whose children with disabilities were turned down by a voucher school or expelled from a voucher school after a disability was discovered.
Voucher supporters have played down the seriousness of the suit's allegations, saying that voucher schools admit more students with disabilities than the state recognizes and that efforts to increase state funding for voucher students with disabilities hasn't been supported by voucher opponents.
I would go more with the argument that it's a private school and not a right but a privilege. That they have a right to deny service to anyone and do not "need" to allow certain folks into their classrooms.
Just asking though, if someone was denied based on race, would you have the same objections? There is a reason there are disability rights and affirmative action laws.
I would also say that public school teachers don't get "big bucks" espeically with what they have to deal with.
Agree, private schools are a right. They should be like a private club, a private business, that can discrimnate based upon their criteria, not the governments. Sure the government can provide vouchers to help pay part of the tuition but parents would still have to come up with the rest. Any private school that would only charge what the vouchers pay really isn't a real private school, they would just be a pseudo public school and probably take anybody.
The government shoulg give parents, regardless of income something towards their kids private education. Afterall, these parents are paying property tax. Its only fair we help them out.
I think public school teachers do get big bucks compared to private schools. I know some teachers in the private sector making only $25k per year with no benefits at all. Then again they don't have a lot of education but somehow they turn out a big graduation % and a big % that goes to college. They blow the public schools away.
I agree, the troubled kids do go to public schools - as well as All other kids. As for private schools having better success at graduating more and better students, well, they don't have the troubled kids. Their numbers are skewed to only the kids they have. The public schools are a mix of everyone, disabled to gifted.
If a kid is making trouble and disrupting the class, the public school teacher HAS to deal with them and HAS to teach them. The private school can remove them. It's a no brainer that a private school should do better.
Unfortunately, our society has come to a point where we accuse the public schools of negligence with our children, and insult the public school teachers of their profession. If all schools could remove the "problem" children, the "slow" children, the "disabled" children - why we would have a system that works very well. We might just have a system like China. But, then, what would society do with all of the leftovers?
No money should go to schools that are not regulated. But it should be ok to provide vouchers to help pay the tuition at well established private schools. Certainly no money should go to those store front schools like the way those phony daycare centers were set up. Make is so a school has to have been in business at least 12 years, be financially sound, and have a solid track record of kids going to college. A school by me sent 92% on to a 4 year college. That's the kind of school we should have vouchers four. But we still need to make sure the vouchers only cover part of the cost. Otherwise our private schools will get filled up with low income types and whole point of going to a private school is to put our kids in a safe enviroment.
-------------------------
The point about Disability ----- I was told by an HR manager (social connection, not on the record) that they really try not to hire a disable person, it is next to impossible to fire them if they cannot do the job. That is also why businesses would rather hire a white male, because they have no defense when it is time to let them go, for whatever reason. Whites cannot claim race discrimination, males cannot claim gender discrimination, able-bodied cannot claim disability discrimination. ----- That being said, it is not wonder we do not want to educate the disabled, even if it is only a "disability of attitude". Why waste tax dollars educating a person you never wanted to hire anyway? But it would be cruel and heartless to say that these people need to be taken out of public view and allowed to starve, wither, and die, much less "euthanize" them with public knowledge. Allow that to happen, and who would be next to be chosen to wither?
--------------------------
I remember some blue haired little old ladies working low-skilled assembly jobs in a factory (probably forced to work because their living or deceased husband somehow failed to set them up for life). They were quite vocal about the early days of school choice in MPS, pointing to a black woman working next door "How come she gets help to send her kids to private school? She makes good money here and she has a husband." ----- Mind you that back in those days, a voucher school was regulated, forbidden to teach a "religious based" education to the voucher kids, and if the voucher student had a disability, MPS had to pay to send over qualified staff for the disability support.
---------------------
At the beginning of MPS school choice program, the internet talk in other states was that school choice was about getting your child-prodigy athlete into a school that the talent scouts were watching, it was never about race. In MPS, it was all about race. ----- In this case, they say it's all about money, getting the kids out from under expensive union-salaried teachers, and putting them under private (parochial) teachers at less then half the salary. ----- My suspicion is that it is about getting rid of probably the only campaign money that is pro-public education. I heard WEAC put Doyle in as governor, not the UAW. The working class will soon have absolutely no affordable way to contribute towards their campaigns to their choice of candidate. While money does not unconditionally buy an election, it does buy the exposure needed to coalesce enough support behind a single candidate to win a majority vote.