Defending Amendment 2 from Homeschooler Objections
This is a guest post by Joe Tkach in which he responds to the homeschool opposition to Amendment 2.
“To…promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” – United States Constitution, Preamble
“Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” – Ephesians 2:4
On November 5, Kentuckians will go to the polls. Of the nine candidate races and two ballot measures, the last item on our ballots is by no means the least significant. Commonly called “The School Choice Amendment,” Amendment 2 (A2) asks voters to change the Kentucky Constitution, clarifying that lawmakers may pass future legislation that uses tax dollars to support education outside of the common (public) school system. Importantly, it does not create any new programs (e.g. charter schools, educational vouchers, educational savings accounts, or tax credits). It does pave the way for these to be considered in the future. Thus, a yes vote says, “Something ought to change in how we use public dollars to educate the children of the Commonwealth,” while a no vote says, “We should maintain the current monopoly of state funding going only to public schools.” A2 is asking voters to decide who should have the strongest voice when educating children: their parents or a bureaucrat? It is my contention that every Kentuckian ought to vote yes.
Predictably, the teachers’ union (KEA) has spent over 8.5 million dollars supporting judges and candidates (from both parties) that oppose any change to the status quo. Less predictably, they have found an ally in a subset of the homeschool community, most notably Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations. Bortins has consistently opposed all school choice initiatives nationwide for years. He has been remarkably consistent in his rhetoric, and while I may sympathize with his libertarian sensibilities, I find the substance of the arguments unfounded. The scope of this apology is limited to Classical Conversations’ objections, which differ from those of KEA and the public schools’ bureaucracy.
I would first like to clarify that I have tremendous appreciation for Classical Conversations; they make quality home education an attainable goal for over 140,000 students worldwide. I also applaud the Kentucky families that see the lackluster academics and ideological indoctrination of the Public Schools as a non-option and make sacrifices in order to homeschool their students. It is encouraging that nearly 40,000 Kentucky students are homeschooled, up 56% from 2017-2018–a trend that I hope continues. It is also wise to maintain a healthy skepticism of any new government program or constitutional amendment. Thus, I appreciate Mr. Bortins’ skepticism. His main arguments may be summarized as follows:
Parents already have a choice in how they educate their children, but they should not ask the government to pay for that choice.
Bortins attacks the pro-school-choice notion that, “it’s your money” and calls it “middle-class welfare” and “Marxist” to use your neighbors’ money to educate your children.
Bortins argues that “government money always comes with government strings,” and that, “school choice EXPANDS government control over education, it does not diminish it.”
Despite Mr. Bortins’ objections, Kentucky homeschool families should vote yes for A2 for three reasons: A2 decentralizes budgetary decisions, letting taxpayers decide how education dollars are spent; A2 ensures your neighbors’ already-mandated tax remissions are used more efficiently and/or reduced; and A2 does not threaten constitutionally enshrined parental prerogatives.
Response to Objection 1: There’s No Measure on the Ballot to Change Government Control
Mr. Bortins maintains a consistent libertarian sensibility; individual families are responsible for educating their own children, not the government. But here Mr. Bortins makes a category error. The government does not “pay” for anything; our legislators appropriate funds from the pool of public tax dollars to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” A responsible voter will vote for measures that encourage our elected representatives to appropriate funds in a manner most consistent with this end. I agree with the sentiment that we should “not ask the government to pay for [our children’s education]” and hope that in the future the government will be out of the education business. While I believe there is room for disagreement on the proper scope of government regarding education, November 5th will offer no ballot measure to that end. Tax-payers are already supporting a governmental monopoly on education. A yes vote on A2 is not asking the government to do more. A yes vote helps voters to incrementally wrest back control; tax-payers would be allowed to choose what (some of) their tax dollars support.
Response to Objection 2: School-Choice Measures are Not Marxism
Mr. Bortins’ second objection, that with school choice–“you’re taking your neighbors’ money” being party to “middle-class welfare” and “Marxism”–is related to his first. Mr. Bortins is correct in asserting that public education spending is a redistribution of wealth. Families with no children may contribute more to public education than families with many children, who are eligible for the benefits thereof. While it is worth considering the morality of such a system, any such consideration is a non sequitur to the question at hand.
Firstly, by way of reminder, A2 does not create any new programs that one could evaluate against Mr. Bortins’ libertarian ideal. Further, the two school choice bills that our assembly has passed only provide for public charter schools and tax credits for donations to voucher scholarship funds. Charter schools use public funds more efficiently than public schools. Vouchers funded by private donations that earn a tax credit have no element of compulsion or Marxist redistribution. Both result in less of our neighbors’ wealth being redistributed by public education bureaucrats. Neither law can take effect without A2 passing referendum.
Even were we to grant that A2 would certainly result in direct payments to homeschool families, we should consider the following. Of the seven states (AZ, FL, ID, NA, OH, UT, WV) that have school choice payments available to homeschool families, none have come with a greater tax burden on citizens of those states. Rather, they appropriate existing tax dollars for this purpose in lieu of providing those same dollars to public schools. In the five states (IL, IN, LA, OH, MN) that provide a tax credit (i.e. a reduction of tax burden) to homeschool families, the dollars returned to these families are truly their dollars. They do this in exchange for the homeschooling families reducing strain on public schools, to which they are also contributing. In summary of my response to these first two objections, a yes vote on A2 does not ask your neighbor to pay for your student’s education; it allows our elected representatives to consider how they might best use tax-dollars outside of the public school system to advance education across the Commonwealth. If and when we are offered a ballot measure to reduce our neighbors’ tax burden, I will gladly link arms with Mr. Bortins in supporting it.
Response to Objection 3: Amendment 2 Does NOT Expand Governmental Control
Mr. Bortins’ last objection is, in my opinion, his most salient. He wisely approaches a constitutional amendment that will likely lead to new government programs with skepticism. His claim that “government money always comes with government strings” may be a prescient one. However, while we do not yet know that any future legislation will make funds or tax credits available to homeschool families, we would be wise to approach such legislation with caution. Should the legislative majority that asks us to pass Amendment 2 completely reverse course and threaten homeschool autonomy, our caution may be warranted. However, of the states that have such legislation, no extant example of a restriction of parental prerogatives exists. Further, Kentucky’s Constitution explicitly protects parental prerogatives and asserts that the Kentucky Department of Education may not prescribe standards for homeschooling. We also know that, should any forthcoming legislation appear to come with a risk of government strings, families are free (and would be wise) to opt out of such programs; nothing would change.
Conclusion
Given that there will remain an option of continuing privately-funded, private Christian education, we ought to ask what potential good A2 can do in Kentucky. The status quo of education in the Commonwealth is dismal; we continue to sound the depths of academic failure while summiting the peaks of ideological indoctrination. Our highest court has (rightly) ruled that, without amendment, our Constitution only allows our tax dollars to be used within the public school monopoly. Meanwhile, twenty-nine states plus DC have some form of school choice. Forty-six states have charter schools. In all of these states, students that are given a path out of public schools, enabling them to outperform their peers. More importantly, families are given a voice in how their children are to be educated. Because we face no ballot measure infringing on parental prerogative to homeschool, we ought to ask how our votes might “promote the general Welfare” and “look also to the interest of others.” Mr. Bortins’ objections notwithstanding, Kentucky voters will be asked a question on November 5: “Who should have the strongest voice when educating children: their parents or a bureaucrat?” You can vote yes and answer “their parents” without expanding the scope of government, engaging in “middle class welfare,” or tying yourself to governmental strings.
The post Defending Amendment 2 from Homeschooler Objections appeared first on Remembrance of Former Days.