A silver lining for voucher opponents and skeptics

Reforms only require a simple majority vote in the legislature. At least one should be adopted.

For voucher opponents and skeptics, there is one silver lining to the failure to refer universal eligibility to the 2024 ballot and prevent it from going into effect until then.

The failure of the referendum drive means that universal eligibility for private school vouchers is entirely a legislative creation. That means that it can be amended or reformed at any time by a simple majority vote in the legislature.

If the referendum drive had been successful and voucher supporters had won the 2024 election battle, that wouldn’t have been the case. If the current law was approved by voters, it would be voter-protected under the state constitution. Any amendments or reforms would require three-quarters approval in both chambers of the legislature and must further the purposes of the original law.

Critics have a valid and important point about the lack of accountability and transparency in the current law. In short, there is none. 

I’m a supporter of universal eligibility for private school vouchers. If there is a common pot of taxpayer money for the education of children, families preferring private schools, or wanting religious as well as academic instruction, shouldn’t be denied their share of the common pot.

But if taxpayers are partially footing the bill for private school instruction, they have a legitimate interest in the quality of the education being delivered. At a minimum, voucher students should take the same state-mandated assessment tests as district and charter school students take.

This is in keeping with the school choice paradigm. If the state is to be neutral as to the choice of families between district, charter, and private schools, families should have comparative data about all the options. Requiring district and charter students to take publicly reported state-mandated assessment tests, but not gathering comparable data about voucher students, violates rather than advances sound school choice principles.

There are other possible reform topics. For instance, should voucher schools be required to comply with curriculum requirements imposed on district and charter schools? At this point, I would argue no, that publicly reported assessment tests and parental choice provide the necessary accountability. But there’s a reasonable argument that if a decision has been made that a taxpayer-supported education should include particular components, that should apply to all modes of delivery, including private schools accepting voucher students. 

Voucher opponents regularly invoke the possibility of kook schools getting taxpayer support. I think this is a red herring. I don’t think kook schools would attract enough students to make a go of it. But, if experience with universal vouchers proves otherwise, some sort of state credentialing for schools to enroll voucher students could be discussed.

Any of these reforms would obviously be easier to enact with simple majority approval rather than having to muster a three-quarters vote in both chambers. However, if the current law were sustained in a referendum election, an argument could be made that none of these reforms “furthers the purposes” of the original law. That voters wanted universal eligibility without any additional restrictions or accountability and transparency requirements.

The universal voucher eligibility bill was hastily passed in the closing days of the session without any thoughtful discussion or debate about these issues. The referendum would have frozen the current law in place, with an electoral shoot-out scheduled for 2024 with high stakes and potentially unintended consequences.

With the failure of the referendum drive, Arizona’s universal voucher program can be a work in progress. These philosophical questions about what should be required of voucher students and voucher schools can be raised, debated, and reconsidered at any time. The program can be adjusted based upon experience.

I think the state is better off both having universal vouchers and having the maximum scope for the legislature to amend and adjust the program at any time. 

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.