logo
How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families

How school choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families

Yahoo6 hours ago

School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs.
In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships.
More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption.
School vouchers have a long history in the U.S.
The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts.
After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration.
More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options.
As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children.
Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students.
Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools.
School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations.
Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students.
States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows.
This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities with lower tax bases to fund public schools.
Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools.
In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today.
For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools.
School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students.
As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources.
In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state's voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools.
Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools.
Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding.
This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools.
Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black.
Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the 'Corridor of Shame,' known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area's low tax base due to a lack of industry.
On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year.
In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year.
By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000.
Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education.
Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent.
It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students.
These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Kendall Deas, University of South Carolina
Read more:
Trump order boosts school choice, but there's little evidence vouchers lead to smarter students or better educational outcomes
States are favoring school choice at a steep cost to public education
School vouchers expand despite evidence of negative effects
Kendall Deas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment

The Hill

time6 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.

AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest
AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest

San Francisco Chronicle​

time7 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest

President Donald Trump's ban on travel to the United States took effect Monday. Demonstrators outside Los Angeles International Airport held signs protesting the ban affecting citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. At Miami International Airport, passengers moved steadily through an area for international arrivals. Tensions are escalating over the Trump administration's campaign of immigration enforcement. The new ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.

California says Trump's deployment of National Guard violates state sovereignty
California says Trump's deployment of National Guard violates state sovereignty

Politico

time8 minutes ago

  • Politico

California says Trump's deployment of National Guard violates state sovereignty

California will ask a judge to reverse President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, arguing that the use of the military to suppress immigration protests is an illegal and unconstitutional intrusion on state authority. The state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, a Democrat, unveiled on Monday the basis for the lawsuit, which he said would be filed imminently. The state will ask a federal judge to 'set aside' Trump's Saturday move to 'federalize' California's National Guard troops, part of an order to defend federal property and personnel carrying out Trump's deportation policies. Gov. Gavin Newsom told POLITICO on Monday that federal law requires Trump to coordinate his call-up of the National Guard with the state. 'There was no communication through our office, period, full stop. So, by definition, it's an illegal act,' Newsom, a Democrat, said, adding that the president failed to meet other key prerequisites for the deployment. Bonta alleged that Trump's action violated federal law and the 10th Amendment, the Constitution's provision that protects state sovereignty and rights. At a press conference Monday, the state attorney general said Trump's order 'skipped over multiple rational, commonsense' steps and wound up escalating the unrest while trampling on California's sovereignty. Trump invoked a provision of federal law that gives the president the ability to deploy National Guard troops in limited circumstances, including to suppress 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion' and to help 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Bonta argued that the provision requires Newsom's concurrence. 'The governor's agreement and consent needs to be part of any calling in of the National Guard. That didn't happen,' the attorney general said. The statute says that a president's order to deploy the Guard under the provision 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It does not expressly mandate consultation with or approval by the governor. Newsom contends that the provision requires at least some communication with the governor's office. Trump indicated over the weekend that he warned Newsom prior to Saturday that he intended to send in troops if he deemed Newsom's response to the protests insufficient. Trump has repeatedly described the L.A. protests as stoked by 'insurrectionists' and has vowed to 'liberate' the city. Bonta and Newsom say the streets had been largely calm when Trump's deployment and inflammatory rhetoric reignited the protests.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store