Public money for private school scholarships is bad policy

The fact that two recently elected state representatives, Representatives Steven Jackson and Joy Waters felt the need to vote with the Republican majority, is troubling and ill advised. The people who they represent will be the families most negatively affected by this law. Parents in their districts are not going to send their children to private schools. They are just not going to do it. The question is, what were they thinking, and who are they representing?

Frankly, they both should be ashamed of themselves for going along with people like Governor Landry and others, who have publicly and systematically tried to starve public schools of much needed funds. This governor and his friends in the legislature have been committed to the idea of these private school scholarships for a long time. We are talking about payments that range from 5,100 to 15,000 dollars.

That is a lot of money being taken out of public schools and it will inevitably hurt the children whose schools are already struggling. The scholarships will also be available to wealthy families that can afford to send their children to private schools, which makes no sense at all.

The best thing that we as parents, teachers, and policymakers can do for children is to assure that they have access to a quality education. Educating young people and instilling in them the love and appreciation for learning should be the primary mission.

Although that is a noble mission, we know that not all our children have had access to a quality education. We all know the historical underpinnings of education, broadly in America, and specifically in the south, where there have always been two systems.

Growing up, I saw the disparity in the education infrastructure that was apparent in the past. And yes, the past is the past, and the education of our children should be equitable, but we all know that has never been the case for poor and minority children.

When Louisiana schools were integrated, many families took their children out of public schools and sent them to the new private schools that immediately sprang up all over the south. They were all “exclusive” and did not accept all children early on. Schools like Cedar Creek in Ruston and Trinity Heights in Shreveport were forerunners.

During this time, many of these schools were created under the guise of being “religious schools.” And although the schools now accept “other” students, their history of being beacons of education for all children leaves a lot to be desired. Now, the legislature is bound and determined to make it possible for these schools to get public funds.

Providing public funds to religious schools can be seen as a violation of the principle of separation of church and state, a foundational concept guaranteed by the establishment clause of the First Amendment. No, the words church and state are not in the Constitution, but it is understood that government should not be in the business of religious tests or loyalties.

Using public money to support religious education can blur the lines between government and religion, potentially favoring certain faiths over others. Private and religious schools often have the autonomy to set their own admissions criteria and educational practices.

This can lead to situations where students are excluded based on factors such as religion, socioeconomic status, or academic ability. Public funds should ideally support inclusive and equitable education for all students, regardless of background.

Diverting public funds to private or religious schools can weaken the public education system by reducing the resources available for public schools. This could exacerbate existing inequalities in education, as private schools often cater to wealthier families who can afford additional tuition fees.

Public schools are subject to various regulations, standards, and accountability measures to ensure they provide a quality education and use public funds responsibly. Private and religious schools may not be held to the same standards, which raises concerns about transparency, academic quality, and the use of taxpayer dollars.

All the representatives that are pushing these so-called scholarships know that public schools serve as a common ground where students from diverse backgrounds come together to learn and interact.

Channeling public funds into private or religious schools could fragment society along religious or socioeconomic lines, undermining social cohesion and fostering segregation.

As I have often said to anyone who would listen, instead of funding private or religious schools, resources should be directed towards improving existing public schools and addressing systemic issues such as underfunding, overcrowding, and unequal access to educational opportunities.

It just does not make sense what these politicians are trying to do to public education, which is why school boards like Bossier Parish, Caddo Parish and others are staunchly against this transferring of resources to private and religious schools.

In the long run, this is all about money and privatization. Many of the critics of public funding to private schools warn of the broader implications for the privatization of essential services. The truth is that education is a public good and should be primarily funded and governed by the government to ensure equal access and accountability for all our children.

Many of the proponents of public funding for private or religious schools often argue for greater school choice, parental empowerment, and educational innovation. I am concerned about what it does to society and how it systematically over time erodes public education.

Ultimately, the debate revolves around balancing individual choice with the collective goals of equity, inclusion, and social cohesion in education. As I said earlier, the best thing that we as parents, teachers, and policymakers can do for children is to assure that they have access to a quality education. Educating young people and instilling in them the love and appreciation for learning should be the primary mission. And that’s my take. smithpren@aol.com