Opinion: The Basic Contradiction Exposed In Indiana's Debate Over Charter School Funding
Political debates in education often boil down to which type of schools and education initiatives should receive public funding – and how much of it they should receive. These conversations sometimes expose a level of hypocrisy that is hard to ignore.
For example, a bill was filed this year in the Indiana General Assembly that put forth a novel concept: allow local communities to raise property taxes via a referendum to pay for universal pre-kindergarten. These property tax funds would pay for pre-K programming in settings such as churches, community-based organizations, district schools, charter schools, and private schools.
State Rep. Blake Johnson, an Indianapolis Democrat, authored the legislation. Voucher-like early childhood education programs that use public money to fund schools of all types – including private, religious schools – are widely popular with Democrats in states like Indiana and elsewhere. Ironically, the mechanisms in these programs would make the late conservative economist Milton Friedman smile.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
While HB 1622 did not receive a hearing this year in the GOP-controlled Indiana House of Representatives, it raises an interesting question. What if something like this was proposed for K-12 schools? Well, it turns out there's an answer to that.
Another piece of legislation this session in Indiana calls for property taxes to be shared with public charter schools (not religious or private schools). That bill has garnered support from Republicans and is working its way through the legislative process. Democrats, in contrast to their support of similar efforts for pre-K, have assailed SB 518 as an attack on public education even though charters are public schools. They've called it reckless, a stalking horse, and an unprecedented destabilization.
Related
They have argued, often in hyperbolic terms, that property tax dollars shouldn't be shared with schools that lack elected boards, ignoring that if their argument was consistently applied they would be advocating for the abolition of publicly funded libraries, hospitals, and universities. They were so upset by the bill that every Democratic senator present for the floor debate voted for an amendment that would 'dissolve' and 'terminate' 70% of charter schools in Indiana, leading to the closure of dozens of public schools in largely Democratic Senate districts. That amendment failed on a party-line vote.
The inconsistencies don't stop at K-12. There is bipartisan political support for the Federal Pell Grant program, which provides critical scholarships to undergraduate students from low-income backgrounds to attend public or private higher education institutions. Just last year, Congressional Democrats proposed doubling the size of this program, which is largely indistinguishable from a means-tested voucher program.
Currently, Congressional Democrats are also pushing back on the Trump administration's efforts to cut National Institutes of Health funding, which disproportionately goes to private research universities to conduct important research.
This raises the question: Why is it okay to use public funding for private or nonprofit early childhood and higher education providers, but it's suddenly the end of democracy when similar mechanisms are used in K-12?
Ashley Berner, Director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy, eloquently makes the case that 'educational pluralism' is countercultural to the United States' K-12 education system. She argues that in America, even the term 'school choice' assumes that the traditional school district is the default education provider. She also points out that U.S. schools were standardized, in part, to uphold traditional Protestant beliefs in publicly funded 'nonsectarian' district schools even as the number of Catholics and immigrants continued to grow.
I visited Sweden, certainly not a bastion of U.S.-style conservatism, several years ago to learn more about education systems in other countries. I was surprised to learn that the Swedish education system provides public funding to schools of all types. What we call a 'school district' in our country has no meaning in Sweden. There are municipal schools and independent schools, all of which receive public funding. In fact, once you study education globally, you quickly learn that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to educational pluralism.
Related
There is also another, more straightforward, answer. Teachers' unions.
In terms of political power, few advocacy initiatives hold a candle to teachers' unions. Where are these unions most powerful and active? K-12. Where are they less active and powerful? Early childhood and higher education.
I've talked to elected officials who explained to me that the most important day of the year is when they learn how large the union's political donation will be. Many have told me privately that they support K-12 school choice, but they could never vote for it because it would lead to a union-funded primary opponent. In other words, voting for increased schooling options for children is political suicide.
Interestingly, this reality doesn't exist at nearly the same level for local elected officials in Indianapolis, as the last two Democratic mayors and the majority of the Democratic-controlled City Council consistently support charter schools. Why the difference? Perhaps it's because the teachers' unions largely stay out of local races, allowing elected officials to vote with their conscience.
To be clear, I'm not anti-union. I've seen the value of unions first-hand. Growing up, my father had a blue-collar union job that afforded my family a middle-class life. But kids aren't widgets and don't have an organized political force advocating for their interests.
This dynamic is certainly not confined to Democrats. Both parties are attached to various special interest groups that make it politically difficult to prioritize sound policy over political expediency.
All of this speaks to the need for much more robust local, state, and federal political advocacy strategies to move toward an educational system that values diverse schooling preferences. It also speaks to the power of entrenched customs and political interests in our country that ought to be questioned every once in a while in a nation as large and diverse as ours.
The next time you see a politician advocating for publicly funded educational pluralism for 4-year-olds, ask them if they support a similar approach for 5-year-olds. Their answer will be telling.
Disclosure: The Mind Trust provides financial support to The 74.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: A timely courtroom rebuke for dirty campaigning
Unflattering attacks are common in politics — but a court just ruled that one campaign went too far. Cook County Commissioner Toni Preckwinkle's 4th Ward Democratic Organization and Lamont Robinson's aldermanic campaign have been ordered to pay $1.475 million in punitive damages over a series of attack ads sent during Robinson's 2023 race against Ebony Lucas for the City Council. (In a statement, the 4th Ward Democratic Organization and the Lamont Robinson for Alderman Corp called the verdict an 'unprecedented misapplication of the law' and said they are confident it will be reversed on appeal.) Among other smears, the mailers labeled Lucas a 'bad landlord' who 'can't manage her own business' — a collection of accusations a jury deemed defamatory. The mailers also claimed Lucas 'doesn't care about doing the right thing,' a particularly broad and insulting claim. Preckwinkle previously defended the mailers, saying, 'They were carefully footnoted, so lots of luck to her.' In campaign mailers, the bold print does the damage — not the fine print. Any political operative knows that. Voters see the headlines, not the citations. We empathize with Lucas and all candidates who face baseless, harmful personal attacks as a consequence of running for office. As Lucas told the Tribune, she is a wife and mom of three. Her kids saw these mailers. Their friends and neighbors and teachers saw these mailers. Perhaps this can be a turning point, because our political culture certainly needs one. Political ads that spread hateful, demeaning rhetoric attack people's humanity and do nothing but fuel people's worst impulses when it comes to how they view anyone with whom they disagree. You can have a different point of view from someone on public policy and still treat them with respect. It's unfortunate we even need to point that out. Partisanship has become so toxic that people are cutting off family members, shunning neighbors, and labeling political opponents as either stupid or evil. We've seen that ugliness on the national level — and it's infecting local elections, too. We all felt it leading up to November 2024's presidential election. During that cycle, mailers for the Chicago school board races went negative, with candidates not backed by the Chicago Teachers Union hit with ads calling them 'right wing' and 'MAGA,' inaccurately tying many candidates to political beliefs and causes they in no way espouse. Board member Ellen Rosenfeld was one of the candidates who dealt with those ads. She's a Democrat and her husband is the 47th Ward Democratic committeeman. But this animosity and culture of distrust and disrespect lingered into 2025. We wrote about this phenomenon during endorsement season for local elections, as exemplified in a bitter mayoral race in Orland Park between two former neighbors. Because of the personal nature of local politics, it usually breeds a healthy dose of decorum and respect. Not so in this race, during which former Mayor Keith Pekau was attacked with ads calling him and his wife racist. 'Dirty politics makes bad policy,' Lucas wrote in a Facebook post after the ruling. 'When voters are inundated with false information about candidates, we lose out on electing the best and most qualified.' We agree. In addition to spreading falsehoods and increasing vitriol, hateful campaigning is one of the reasons people check out of politics altogether, a problem that weakens our political system. We hope the Lucas decision has a chilling effect on the kind of nasty, ad hominem attack ads that all too often end up in our mailboxes and on our TVs, finding their way into our kids' hands and ruining our enthusiasm for our representative democracy. Voters deserve campaigns that respect truth and dignity, not ones that poison the well of public trust. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda
By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to enact his tax-cut agenda in a political push that has largely abandoned longtime party claims of fiscal discipline, by simply denying warnings that the measure will balloon the federal debt. The drive has drawn the ire of Elon Musk, a once-close Trump ally and the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election, who gave a boost to a handful of party deficit hawks opposed to the bill by publicly denigrating it as a "disgusting abomination," opening a public feud with Trump. But top congressional Republicans remain determined to squeeze Trump's campaign promises through their narrow majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by July 4, while shrugging off warnings from the official Congressional Budget Office and a host of outside economists and budget experts. "All the talk about how this bill is going to generate an increase in our deficit is absolutely wrong," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo told reporters after a meeting with Trump last week. Outside Washington, financial markets have raised red flags about the nation's rising debt, most notably when Moody's cut its pristine "Aaa" U.S. credit rating. The bill also aims to raise the government's self-imposed debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, a step Congress must take by summer or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. "Debt and deficits don't seem to matter for the current Republican leadership, including the president of the United States," said Bill Hoagland, a former Senate Republican aide who worked on fiscal bills including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The few remaining Senate Republican fiscal hawks could be enough to block the bill's passage in a chamber the party controls 53-47. But some have appeared to be warming to the legislation, saying the spending cuts they seek may need to wait for future bills. "We need a couple bites of the apple here," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a prominent fiscal hardliner. Republicans who pledged fiscal responsibility in the 1990s secured a few years of budget surpluses under Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Deficits returned after Republican President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the debt has pushed higher since under Democratic and Republican administrations. "Thirty years have shown that it's a lot easier to talk about these things when you're out of power than to actually do something about them when you're in," said Jonathan Burks, who was a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan when Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted into law in 2017. "Both parties have really pushed us in the wrong direction on the debt problem," he said. Burks and Hoagland are now on the staff of the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. DEBT SET TO DOUBLE Crapo's denial of the cost of the Trump bill came hours after CBO reported that the legislation the House passed by a single vote last month would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Interest costs would bring the full price tag to $3 trillion, it said. The cost will rise even higher - reaching $5 trillion over a decade - if Senate Republicans can persuade Trump to make the bill's temporary business tax breaks permanent, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The CRFB projects that if Senate Republicans get their way, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act could drive the federal debt to $46.9 trillion in 2029, the end of Trump's term. That is more than double the $20.2 trillion debt level of Trump's first year at the White House in 2017. Majorities of Americans of both parties -- 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats -- said they were concerned about the growing government debt in a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month. Analysts say voters worry less about debt than about retaining benefits such as Medicaid healthcare coverage for working Americans, who helped elect Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress. "Their concern is inflation," Hoagland said. "Their concern is affordability of healthcare." The two problems are linked: As investors worry about the nation's growing debt burden, they demand higher returns on government bonds, which likely means households will pay more for their home mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances. Republican denial of the deficit forecasts rests largely on two arguments about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that independent analysts say are misleading. One insists that CBO projections are not to be trusted because researchers predicted in 2018 that the TCJA would lose $1.8 trillion in revenue by 2024, while actual revenue for that year came in $1.5 trillion higher. "CBO scores, when we're dealing with taxes, have lost credibility," Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin told reporters last week. But independent analysts say the unexpected revenue gains resulted from a post-COVID inflation surge that pushed households into higher tax brackets and other factors unrelated to the tax legislation. Top Republicans also claim that extending the 2017 tax cuts and adding new breaks included in the House bill will stimulate economic growth, raising tax revenues and paying for the bill. Despite similar arguments in 2017, CBO estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects. Economists say the impact of the current bill will be more muted, because most of the tax provisions extend current tax rates rather lowering rates. "We find the package as it currently exists does boost the economy, but relatively modestly ... it does not pay for itself," said William McBride, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The legislation has also raised concerns among budget experts about a potential debt spiral. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the danger of fiscal crisis has been heightened by a potential rise in global interest rates. "This greatly increases the cost of having a high debt and of running high deficits and would accelerate the point at which we really got into trouble," said Obstfeld, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality
The wildest, scariest, indisputable truth about AI's large language models is that the companies building them don't know exactly why or how they work. Sit with that for a moment. The most powerful companies, racing to build the most powerful superhuman intelligence capabilities — ones they readily admit occasionally go rogue to make things up, or even threaten their users — don't know why their machines do what they do. Why it matters: With the companies pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into willing superhuman intelligence into a quick existence, and Washington doing nothing to slow or police them, it seems worth dissecting this Great Unknown. None of the AI companies dispute this. They marvel at the mystery — and muse about it publicly. They're working feverishly to better understand it. They argue you don't need to fully understand a technology to tame or trust it. Two years ago, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg wrote a story, "AI's scariest mystery," saying it's common knowledge among AI developers that they can't always explain or predict their systems' behavior. And that's more true than ever. Yet there's no sign that the government or companies or general public will demand any deeper understanding — or scrutiny — of building a technology with capabilities beyond human understanding. They're convinced the race to beat China to the most advanced LLMs warrants the risk of the Great Unknown. The House, despite knowing so little about AI, tucked language into President Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" that would prohibit states and localities from any AI regulations for 10 years. The Senate is considering limitations on the provision. Neither the AI companies nor Congress understands the power of AI a year from now, much less a decade from now. The big picture: Our purpose with this column isn't to be alarmist or " doomers." It's to clinically explain why the inner workings of superhuman intelligence models are a black box, even to the technology's creators. We'll also show, in their own words, how CEOs and founders of the largest AI companies all agree it's a black box. Let's start with a basic overview of how LLMs work, to better explain the Great Unknown: LLMs — including Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — aren't traditional software systems following clear, human-written instructions, like Microsoft Word. In the case of Word, it does precisely what it's engineered to do. Instead, LLMs are massive neural networks — like a brain — that ingest massive amounts of information (much of the internet) to learn to generate answers. The engineers know what they're setting in motion, and what data sources they draw on. But the LLM's size — the sheer inhuman number of variables in each choice of "best next word" it makes — means even the experts can't explain exactly why it chooses to say anything in particular. We asked ChatGPT to explain this (and a human at OpenAI confirmed its accuracy): "We can observe what an LLM outputs, but the process by which it decides on a response is largely opaque. As OpenAI's researchers bluntly put it, 'we have not yet developed human-understandable explanations for why the model generates particular outputs.'" "In fact," ChatGPT continued, "OpenAI admitted that when they tweaked their model architecture in GPT-4, 'more research is needed' to understand why certain versions started hallucinating more than earlier versions — a surprising, unintended behavior even its creators couldn't fully diagnose." Anthropic — which just released Claude 4, the latest model of its LLM, with great fanfare — admitted it was unsure why Claude, when given access to fictional emails during safety testing, threatened to blackmail an engineer over a supposed extramarital affair. This was part of responsible safety testing — but Anthropic can't fully explain the irresponsible action. Again, sit with that: The company doesn't know why its machine went rogue and malicious. And, in truth, the creators don't really know how smart or independent the LLMs could grow. Anthropic even said Claude 4 is powerful enough to pose a greater risk of being used to develop nuclear or chemical weapons. OpenAI's Sam Altman and others toss around the tame word of " interpretability" to describe the challenge. "We certainly have not solved interpretability," Altman told a summit in Geneva last year. What Altman and others mean is they can't interpret the why: Why are LLMs doing what they're doing? Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, in an essay in April called "The Urgency of Interpretability," warned: "People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology." Amodei called this a serious risk to humanity — yet his company keeps boasting of more powerful models nearing superhuman capabilities. Anthropic has been studying the interpretability issue for years, and Amodei has been vocal about warning it's important to solve. In a statement for this story, Anthropic said: "Understanding how AI works is an urgent issue to solve. It's core to deploying safe AI models and unlocking [AI's] full potential in accelerating scientific discovery and technological development. We have a dedicated research team focused on solving this issue, and they've made significant strides in moving the industry's understanding of the inner workings of AI forward. It's crucial we understand how AI works before it radically transforms our global economy and everyday lives." (Read a paper Anthropic published last year, "Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model.") Elon Musk has warned for years that AI presents a civilizational risk. In other words, he literally thinks it could destroy humanity, and has said as much. Yet Musk is pouring billions into his own LLM called Grok. "I think AI is a significant existential threat," Musk said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last fall. There's a 10%-20% chance "that it goes bad." Reality check: Apple published a paper last week, "The Illusion of Thinking," concluding that even the most advanced AI reasoning models don't really "think," and can fail when stress-tested. The study found that state-of-the-art models (OpenAI's o3-min, DeepSeek R1 and Anthropic's Claude-3.7-Sonnet) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero "beyond certain complexities." But a new report by AI researchers, including former OpenAI employees, called " AI 2027," explains how the Great Unknown could, in theory, turn catastrophic in less than two years. The report is long and often too technical for casual readers to fully grasp. It's wholly speculative, though built on current data about how fast the models are improving. It's being widely read inside the AI companies. It captures the belief — or fear — that LLMs could one day think for themselves and start to act on their own. Our purpose isn't to alarm or sound doomy. Rather, you should know what the people building these models talk about incessantly. You can dismiss it as hype or hysteria. But researchers at all these companies worry LLMs, because we don't fully understand them, could outsmart their human creators and go rogue. In the AI 2027 report, the authors warn that competition with China will push LLMs potentially beyond human control, because no one will want to slow progress even if they see signs of acute danger. The safe-landing theory: Google's Sundar Pichai — and really all of the big AI company CEOs — argue that humans will learn to better understand how these machines work and find clever, if yet unknown ways, to control them and " improve lives." The companies all have big research and safety teams, and a huge incentive to tame the technologies if they want to ever realize their full value.
