Nevada’s legislature enacted the most sweeping voucher legislation in the nation. The state courts have affirmed its constitutionality, although last September the Supreme Court of Nevada struck down the funding portion of the voucher program. Meanwhile, the state continues to send out applications for “education savings accounts” as though the latest ruling from the highest court never happened.
It was an odd ruling. Figure out the logic here:
The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state’s education savings account law, ruling that while the premise of using taxpayer money for private education was constitutional, the method used to fund the ESA program was not.
The high court ordered a permanent injunction against the law — viewed as the most sweeping school choice legislation in the country — that was passed last year on a party-line vote by the Republican-controlled Legislature.
What is especially odd about the ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court is that the state constitution of Nevada has clear, explicit prohibitions against spending public money on sectarian (religious) schools:
Article 11 of the state constitution includes this language:
Sec: 9. Sectarian instruction prohibited in common schools and university. No sectarian instruction shall be imparted or tolerated in any school or University that may be established under this Constitution.
Section Ten. No public money to be used for sectarian purposes. No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.
Could it be any clearer? No public money to be used for sectarian purposes. No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.
What part of this does the Nevada legislature and voucher advocates not understand?
As it happened, Democrats recaptured control of both houses of the legislature last month, with slim majorities. They have a chance to defund the ESA program altogether, if they have the will.
Nevada still has a Republican governor who wants to keep vouchers alive. The ACLU of Nevada is challenging the state for continuing to invite applicants for a program that has been enjoined by the state Supreme Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has taken issue with the state treasurer’s office for continuing to accept Education Savings Account applications, two months after the Supreme Court had struck down the funding part of the program.
The ACLU argues that the treasurer’s office shouldn’t be accepting new applications on its website for a program that was found unconstitutional.
“I think it’s particularly misleading to parents to ask them to sign up for a program that isn’t funded and can’t be funded,” said ACLU of Nevada Legal Director Amy Rose.
The ruling further divided both sides in the debate over the school-choice law, which creates state-funded savings accounts for parents who seek education outside of the public school system.
A group that supports public education called Educate Nevada Now declared that the legal ruling against “Education Savings Accounts” made it possible to address the real needs of children in the state’s schools.
An Education Savings Account (ESA) is a voucher that diverts taxpayer money constitutionally allocated for public schools to private schools. The voucher program threatened to strip away nearly $40 million from Nevada public schools. The same funds could be better served if they were allocated to fund Pre-K, Special Education, ELL, and the many programs that are currently underfunded.
Educate Nevada Now wrote:
On November 18, 2016, Judge James Wilson of the Eighth Judicial District Court issued an order ending Lopez v. Schwartz, the case that challenged Nevada’s controversial Education Savings Account (ESA) voucher program. Judge Wilson entered a permanent injunction halting the program based on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling declaring the ESA funding scheme unconstitutional.
In its ruling, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Judge Wilson’s earlier decision, finding the voucher program “violates Article 4, Section 19 and Article 11, Sections 2 and 6 of the Nevada Constitution…” These are the sections of Nevada’s Education Article that expressly prohibit the use of public school dollars for other purposes – including vouchers for private education.
A little over a year ago, a group of courageous parents from across the state took a stand in court against ESA vouchers. They were concerned that millions of dollars would be diverted from the public schools to pay for private schools and other private education expenditures. With many public schools woefully underfunded, the voucher bill meant Nevada’s nearly 440,000 public school children would face further cuts to the critical programs, staff, and services they need to succeed in school.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on September 29, 2016, and Judge Wilson’s order permanently blocking the voucher law put an end to the ESA voucher program. The law in our state is now clear: funds appropriated by the State Legislature for public education can only be used for one purpose – funding our public schools.
It’s time now to renew the effort to strengthen Nevada’s public schools. Yet voucher proponents are still trying to find a way to resurrect the failed ESA program. They are asking legislators to find $40 million in the state budget to subsidize private school tuition for children in families that previously signed up for vouchers, even though most of those children already attend private schools, and their families can afford the tuition without a government subsidy.
Nevada faces a $400 million dollar budget deficit going into the 2017 Legislative Session. Our state consistently ranks near the bottom of the nation on measures of educational success. For example, Nevada offers very limited access to high quality preschool, a research-proven program to boost academic progress. The state’s school funding system ranks at or near the bottom in funding fairness, according to an annual report released by the Education Law Center.
We are now at a crossroads. We simply can’t afford to spend scarce education dollars on subsidizing private education for a handful of students. Instead, we need to join together to lift up all students. This starts with a serious investment in public education to fund urgently needed initiatives, especially in those schools serving high numbers of at-risk students.
During this Legislative Session, let’s do the right thing for all Nevada children and make sure our neighborhood schools have what they need to provide every student with the opportunity to succeed.
A voucher by any other name is just as bad for the vast majority of kids who attend public schools

On my trip to Nevada , I had a conversation with a fairly educated person at my nephews wedding who said; Nevada can not attract industry because of the lack of an educated work force, as he pushed the idea of charters and privatization. My response was I guess having the lowest taxes is not the best answer to creating prosperity and you might consider raising taxes on Shelly to educate your children.
LikeLike
Such a shame that none of these adults are interested in working to support or improve the public schools children in Nevada actually attend.
Too dull, right?
LikeLike
Charter mania in ed reform will now be replaced with voucher mania.
Weird how they never get around to “improving public schools” which is what were supposedly hiring these people to do.
LikeLike
Although the Nevada law would not authorize public money to be used for homeschooling, the language in the law is vague enough to include it.
The law would also allow children to re-enroll in public school at any time, even if the ESA funds for the year have been spent. This puts an additional burden on public schools, which will have to absorb these costs on top of their budget shortfalls. And because ESAs are managed by the parents and not the school district, there will be obvious issues of fraud and lack of accountability, problems that are already rampant in the poorly regulated privatization arena.
LikeLike
“The law would also allow children to re-enroll in public school at any time, even if the ESA funds for the year have been spent. This puts an additional burden on public schools, which will have to absorb these costs on top of their budget shortfalls.”
The law is an ass. That allows double dipping, invites fraud, creates havoc in public school budgets and staff assignments.
LikeLike
The Educational Catch 22: students who return to the public schools after being kicked out of alternate school options are a notable reason why some public schools struggle (and produce lower and lower test scores); this very scenario, as it plays out, then aids those who publish their endless negative narrative of “failing” public schools, arguing the need to produce more options
LikeLike
No surprise that the Oligarchy wants to fight this. Unbelievable.
Noticed that you have had 28,973,943 hits! Congratulations, Diane.
LikeLike
Good piece on how radically anti-public school the federal government is going under Trump/DeVos:
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/2/13767668/donald-trump-education-betsy-devos-school-vouchers
Wow. It’s really a wholesale assault on 50 million kids in existing public schools and it will come from their OWN federal government. They will literally be paying thousands of adults to dismantle the schools they’re currently attending.
What a travesty. These adults should be ashamed of themselves. It’s one thing to be anti-public schools- it’s another to accept a public paycheck while decimating the schools children currently attend.
LikeLike
Didn’t this happen a few months ago?
LikeLike
Just a reflection to consider on the difference between (1) running a business and (2) running an educational establishment and the principles that underpin both.
In the first case, businesses are commonly run under the principles of capitalism–as at least assumed to be competitive, and as employed presently in most cases. Competition in business and even in, for instance, the Olympic Games, tends to render the best in each instance, category, or business field which gets the prize or the customer base, whichever. What is “the best” (the principles of intelligence and excellence) in each situation, field, or category is an open question. But it’s the underpinning idea of “branding” –whether you are actually the best or not and according to a wealth of criteria for that title.
In the second case, however, running an educational establishment is more like running a family; that is, those who are NOT the best, are the ones who need the most and, under this principle, are the ones who are helped to become better. It’s (what we can call) the principle of generation that comes first and that underpins the other two principles when they are working well.
In concrete terms, the principle of generation is evident in our own families where we may harbor our favorites, but if one child is not as good as another in math, say, then that child is the one who gets the help so that they can become better. If they are not good at soccer, then we try baseball or whatever they want or need. If you put them in competition with others, however, without adequate preparation and direction, they are already set to be “losers.”
It’s under this principle of generation, however, that we love and care for our children regardless, cradle to grave. And as they move from family to formal educational institution, it’s under this principle that we are constantly PREPARING them–ALL of them in a democratic culture–to work as well as they can when they are ready to enter the world where the other two principles (intelligence and excellence) take the reigns in their lives. (Again, what we concretely mean by those terms is analogous and specific.)
Neither of the three principles ever goes away, however, but remain in tension with one another. It’s just which is emphasized and which recedes in each situation. In families, we play games where someone wins or loses, but no one questions where they live or whether they are included. In schools, particularly in a democracy, and beginning in the early grades, competition again has its legitimate place, but again (as most teachers experience) not when it intrudes on legitimate forms that flow from the principle of generation, e.g., caring and inclusion, educational preparation for all where it is needed–that is, we do not eliminate those who fail or who are not at the top in achievements. Rather, resources are applied in accordance with need and where there is less achievement; and regardless of who they are or what group they belong to. Again, inclusion is a given. Here, applying competitive business principles alone is a gross distortion of the body politic of a democratic culture.
Too long, but just some thoughts to add to the discussion FWIW.
LikeLike
cross posted at
no modern nation in the world refuses to give medical care to its citizens . Do you r job, and remember, if you destroy medicare, kiss your seat in the legislature good-bye.
LikeLike
The court decree in Lopez (et. al) v. Schwartz can be read at
Click to access Final-Declaratory_Nov-18.pdf
LikeLike