In The First Of What Will Be Multiple Rulings, Judge Affirms Commissioner Scott’s Plan
Enter yet again into this blog Commissioner Scott’s 6 million dollar dropout prevention program. Why do I keep talking about it? Simple, teachers unions in Texas just won’t let it go.
In their latest crusade against what they call a back door voucher program, the Texas State Teachers Association asked for an injunction against the grant awards to three nonprofit entities selected to participate in the dropout prevention program. And in a related story, they were denied on the grounds that the association could not provide that its members would suffer immediate and irreparable harm at the hands of the grant program.
Kudos, Judge Yelenosky…kudos.
For the moment, the lawsuit is still on. Judge Yelenosky has decided, for now, to not throw it out. So since this issue has not seen its last day in court, lets take a look at the teachers unions’ arguments against private school participation in this program through my eyes.
We can start with the, “What do you mean you’re going to make me justify spending this money on me?” argument. But that one is just way too easy, so lets skip it and move on.
Virtually every teachers union is saying that this is political repayment for the money that Dr. Leininger has spent advocating for school choice in Texas. If that is the case and this satisfies the debt, then I strongly urge the state to take it and run. The grant money that these three private entities will receive pales in comparison to the millions and millions of personal dollars that Dr. Leininger has used to try and bring school choice to Texas.
Seriously, anyone else ready to settle with Texas for pennies on the dollar?
The bulk of teachers unions’ protest lies in their argument that Commissioner Scott has blatantly ignored legislative intent. Ah, now we’re getting to the meat and potatoes.
I, personally, have heard two separate examples of “legislative intent” used here. First, that the state has failed to enact a school choice voucher program. This is true, as of today Texas does not have a system of school choice. But I will counter with the apples and oranges theory. A school choice program where the taxes paid by parents follows their children to whatever school (public or private) they attend is far different than this state grant program.
The main difference between the two…there’s not a single school district in the state that is going to get short changed from the participation of these three private schools in this dropout prevention program. A voucher program could be a different story, but the money that this dropout prevention program is being funded with is over and beyond what the state has dedicated for general public education.
Bottom line….no school district gets harmed by this, so the comparison between vouchers and this dropout prevention program is fundamentally flawed.
The second bit of legislative intent gone ignored centeres around the Heflin amendment to our most recent budget that essentially said that no appropriations in this budget could go to fund a private school voucher program. That amendment was fine and dandy and all, and it did pass on the House floor. But that was where the parade ended.
The Heflin amendment didn’t make it into the Senate passed version of the state’s budget, and it did not make it into the version of the budget that was eventually adopted by both chambers. Bottom line…you can’t call that amendment legislative intent unless it was adopted by the Legislature. Since it wasn’t, to use it in your argument is, again, flawed.
Only time will tell if my opinion is the prevailing opinion. But for now I think this we can all agree on this…had teachers groups put half the effort into encouraging public school interest in this dropout prevention program as they have opposing the grants awarded to three private entities, then this whole mess never would have been an issue in the first place.