Jane Wettach of Duke Law School’s Children’s Law Clinic is on the attack again.
“School Vouchers in North Carolina – The First Three Years” was authored by Professor Jane R. Wettach of the Children’s Law Clinic, Duke Law School in March, 2017. This month she has released another broadside. My analysis of her 2017 report is found at www.paulstam.info. under Articles for 2018. This analysis addresses the current attack but also includes an updated analysis of some of the matters addressed in her first attack and which she still seems relevant.
First, these scholarships in 2019-20 cover almost 1% (.008) of the public-school (K-12) population. This is far below the demand shown by surveys taken in North Carolina which show that 35% – 43% of parents would send their child to a private school if money were not an obstacle. In other words if parents had their preference over 500,000 children would now be in private school. I do not believe the numbers will ever reach that figure.
There are approximately 102,000 students in private schools this year (of which 12,283 receive opportunity scholarship.) At the 2027 projected levels of funding for the scholarships, that would mean approximately 138,000 students (36,000 on opportunity scholarship, over 2% of the public school population) would be in private schools.
Professor Wettach’s recent report emphasizes cumulative projected expenditures of $730 million between now and 2027 for these scholarships. That is a big number. But she does not mention that if you add those same years to the other side of the ledger there would be about $65 billion in K-12 spending for public schools in those same years.
The report fails to mention that this $730 million expense will be offset by about one billion dollars in savings to state and county taxpayers ($4,953 per child as shown by the latest fiscal research memorandum), since taxpayers would no longer be paying the operating cost of educating those same children in the public schools. Those savings do not include the capital costs of educating those children. In Wake County alone I estimate the capital savings for taxpayers on account of the children already on scholarship at about $25 million. If trends continue, the capital savings in Wake will be another $50 million through 2027.
Second, the report states that private schools need not be accredited. True. But public schools are not required to be accredited. Professor Wettach fails to recall that a vast majority of opportunity scholars are in elementary school. Accreditation for public elementary schools is rare. And accreditation is often meaningless. 43 traditional public high schools were committing “academic genocide,” declared Judge Manning in the Leandro case. These 43 schools were also “accredited.” Accreditation is a worthy goal, depending on the criteria used by the accrediting agency. It can also be a useless marker when it measures inputs rather than outputs.
Third, the report emphasizes that private schools do not administer the state “end-of-grade” tests. Right. But they do administer nationally normed tests on grammar, reading and math (annually for scholarship students). Nationally normed tests paint a truer picture than the state “end-of-grade” test. I urge our public schools to use nationally normed tests. We have had decades of problems with homegrown “end-of-grade” tests. When the public schools begin using a nationally normed test we can discuss how to compare performance on these tests with the academic performance of opportunity scholars.
Fourth, Professor Wettach, in her first report, criticized Opportunity Scholarships because they do not require that students be in “failing schools” or “low performing schools.” Some supporters of the program have used that as a rationale. I do not. But that is not a defect in the program.
A lower income student may well move from a fine traditional public school to a private school for many reasons: (A) the private school is near the parents’ employment and the parents feel that it would be better for the child to ride with them rather than spend hours on a bus, (B) the curriculum may be more interesting to the child who is on sports teams and wants to take up (for example) chess and Spanish instead of PE and Chinese, (C) the student may want to have religious instruction or worship as part of the school day. That is forbidden in public schools but is a normal and natural part of a classical education, (D) the private school may have a lower class size ratio. Parents might think that is important for their child, (E) the parents may be happy with the public school but the teacher assigned to that student for that year may not be the best, (F) the child has been bullied in the public school and wants to go where her parents believe that will not happen, or (G) the child may not appreciate the vulgar language used at many public schools, even in elementary grades.
Fifth, in her first report she recognized that in private schools quality is controlled by the parents. She claims that there is no state power to shut down a private “fringe” school. This is akin to the claim by a former superintendent that scholarships would fund terrorist training camps.
Parents are more likely to notice the lack of academic progress than will a bureaucrat in a public system. In a domestic situation or a social services investigation parents can be prohibited from sending a child to a school if the child is not being educated. In that case the representative of the state’s Division of Non-Public Education is able to obtain testing records for that child.
In a 2016 Friedman Foundation Report by Dr. Greg Forster https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-5-Win-Win-Solution-WEB.pdf, 31 out of 33 peer-reviewed studies have found that a choice program improves the outcome for public-school students in the neighboring area. One report found no effect and one found a negative effect. This profound and positive effect on neighboring schools occurs for the same reason that grocery shopping in Apex has drastically improved over my 44 years here. Then Apex had only one store with high prices, bad service and no selection. Now we have dozens of grocery stores with lower prices, excellent service and selection. Stores compete in order to make more money.
Sixth, in this report, Dr. Wettach claims that no information is available to the public about whether the students using school vouchers have made academic progress or have fallen behind. This is not true. A study conducted by North Carolina State University and the Friday Institute found that Opportunity Scholarship students score higher on standardized tests in reading, math, and language compared to their public school peers. The researchers wrote the Opportunity Scholarships Program showed a “positive, large and statistically significant” effect in math, reading and language. Study authors cautioned that test participants comprised a small percentage of the students then receiving the scholarships.
Seventh, her first report complains about discrimination and advocates that no form of discrimination should be allowed. The report fails to appreciate the difference between private and public discrimination. Should the state discriminate on the basis of sex? No. For 50 years the state has provided money to 35 four-year private liberal arts colleges to help educate residents of North Carolina. However Meredith, Bennett, Salem, and Peace served only women. No public college would be allowed to discriminate in this way. But is it really a bad thing that women students at Meredith have been educated, partly at state expense? Men only had 31 choices of schools and women had 35.
Eighth, Professor Wettach, in her latest report, complains that too many opportunity scholarships are used at religious schools and that some of them “use a biblically-based curriculum presenting concepts that directly contradict the state’s educational standards.”
While the preliminary evidence from the study above indicates that scholarship students are doing just as well on core academic subjects as their public school peers, it is true that one reason that parents might send a child to a private school is to escape indoctrination from secularists.
NOTE: The author was a member of the House for 16 years, the last 10 as Republican Leader or Speaker Pro Tem. He practices law in Apex, North Carolina and may be reached at paulstam@stamlawfirm.com. His website is www.paulstam.info. This article will be found under Articles for 2020.
