Ben DeGrow is a Senior Policy Director of Education Choice for ExcelinEd.
Many ancient and medieval kings were served by cupbearers who ensured the royal beverage was safe to drink, many obligated to try it themselves to ensure no poison reached the king. As states weigh proposals to provide and expand educational choice, students and families similarly need someone to guard the proverbial cup.
School choice laws are vulnerable to legislative poison pills that can weaken programs, depriving the students and families policymakers intend to help. Vigilant advocates should know some common poison pills that are easy to identify and avoid.
Most states have enacted some form of private school choice. That includes state-funded vouchers or tax credits applied toward K-12 tuition parents choose to pay, as well as state-supervised education scholarship accounts, which also cover families’ expenses for tutoring, therapies, technology and curriculum, for example.
Like any policy, school choice programs are subject to negotiation and the legislative “sausage-making” process. Provisions may be added along the way as a product of compromise, but there are certain tradeoffs policymakers should avoid making to ensure they stand up solid choice programs that will benefit all students.
Not all poison pills are created equal. You’ll find a complete list at the end of this post, but some of the more serious poison pills include mandates for participating private schools and providers in such areas as the following:
Private school options offer students real alternatives that some students need. Squeezing them into the same one-size-fits-all mold as the default school system undermines the purpose of a good program. Attempts to impose monolithic standards can force many private schools to choose between accepting choice funds and preserving their mission and character.
Other less fatal, but still harmful, provisions can limit who is eligible to benefit from choice. Initially limited programs may phase in and grow to serve most or all students who wish to participate. But permanently embedding eligibility requirements like these will limit broad awareness and meaningful access:
The most benign category of irritants may almost go undetected in crafting and advancing school choice policy, but these poison pills can still cause problems for families who would benefit. Among them:
Perhaps the most notable example of a program bogged down by harmful poison pills is Louisiana’s Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence. Rigorous research has identified the voucher program as an exception to school choice’s generally positive track record. The academic outcomes of participating students declined. That result was largely driven by onerous requirements on private schools that deterred them from participating, leaving voucher students with a limited array of lower quality options.
Florida meanwhile took a different path. Over its extended history of school choice programs, policymakers have avoided weighing down schools with burdensome obligations for accepting scholarship students. Unlike Louisiana’s voucher law, the Sunshine State allows participating private schools to keep their admissions standards and choose whether to pursue accreditation. They also can use one of several approved norm-referenced tests, rather than state assessments, to measure student academic progress. The long-term success of school choice in Florida can hardly be denied.
More than 30 years of vouchers, scholarship tax credits and now ESAs have demonstrated a great deal about which provisions are more likely to advance the cause and which are more likely to derail it. Examples like Louisiana’s voucher show the dangers of overregulation, while other programs highlight the challenges associated with severe restrictions on student eligibility. On the other hand, Florida exemplifies the benefits of avoiding poison pills in a fertile environment for education options.
While poison pills can take many forms, it’s beneficial to be aware of the common varieties. Some may be introduced by groups interested in protecting political turf or financial perks; they might even sound good, but their effects on policy can be highly detrimental. Keeping the focus on students and their families can help avoid these pitfalls and ensure a healthy program that offers genuine educational options.
It has been said that bank tellers are trained to detect counterfeit cash by being given real currency to handle and study closely. In a similar way, lawmakers can look to versions of model policy from groups aligned with the mission of school choice to find beneficial provisions to replace potential poison pills. Many of these provisions balance flexibility with accountability in healthy ways to promote parent-friendly implementation.
When it comes to school choice, policymakers and advocates may not have to carry the full weight of the cupbearer’s role. But they can become more vigilant about poison pills that inflict serious harm and undermine the goal of offering more effective educational opportunities. And they can do more to champion school choice not only in name but also in the fullness of its potential to satisfy frustrated families and to give students new hope for success.
Whether through ill intent or oversight, harmful measures can be added to private school choice bills. This extensive list is broken down into three levels, from most to least severe:
ELIGIBILITY LIMITATIONS
PROGRAM-LEVEL HINDRANCES
SCHOOL / PROVIDER BURDENS
OTHER ISSUES
ELIGIBILITY LIMITATIONS
PROGRAM-LEVEL HINDRANCES
PARENTAL LIMITATIONS / BURDENS
