Republican-controlled states have been expanding voucher programs in recent years, following the lead of former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, ALEC, and the Koch network of funders.
But Kentucky just hit a roadblock. A Franklin County judge ruled last week that the state’s voucher program violates the state constitution.
The Republican-led legislature narrowly passed the Education Opportunity Account Program earlier this year. It would allow individuals and corporations to donate to a scholarship fund run by a nonprofit “account granting organization,” or AGO. The donor would receive a state tax credit of up to 97% in return. Low- and middle-income families in the state’s nine most populous counties would be able to apply to the AGO to use those funds for private school tuition.
The nonprofit public education advocacy group Council for Better Education sued to challenge the program in court in June, representing two Kentucky school districts and a group of parents.
Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd agreed with the plaintiffs that the Educational Opportunity Account Program violates provisions in the Kentucky Constitution that prevent tax dollars from going to private schools.
Shepherd cited a constitutional provision that states, “No sum shall be raised or collected for education other than in common schools until the question of taxation is submitted to the legal voters.”
Attorneys with the national libertarian think tank Institute for Justice, which intervened to defend the program, argued that because the would-be tax dollars never enter the state’s coffers, the funds should be considered private, charitable donations.
Shepherd disagreed.
“Here, applying the plain language of the Kentucky Constitution, the income tax credit at issue raises a sum of money for private education outside the system of common schools. That it does so through a tax credit rather than a direct appropriation is not relevant, applying the plain language of §184,” he wrote.…
The judge also echoed the plaintiffs’ concerns that the program could send funds to private schools that discriminate against certain students. The law prevents the state from forcing participating private schools to change their “creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum.”
“Accordingly, the funds can be paid to schools that exclude children with learning disabilities, and educational providers can discriminate on any basis they choose, and still receive EOA funds. It appears education providers are exempt from all of the safeguards and accountability measures that the legislature has enacted that apply to public schools,” Shepherd wrote.…
Meanwhile, proponents of private schools were swift to attack Shepherd’s decision.
Andrew Vandiver, president of EdChoice Kentucky, said the group was “disappointed” with the decision. EdChoice is an advocacy group that promotes charter schools and public funding of private schools.
How refreshing to read a court decision that refers to the spirit and the meaning of the law, not a tortured interpretation that turns the law on its head. That has happened in many other states, where conservative judges have ruled that the state constitution–which specifically forbids public funding of private and religious schools–does not actually stand in the way of funding private and religious schools.

Kentucky’s law is clear and specific, and the judge understood the law’s intention. The state should not be able to divert money from common schools without the public weighing in. This is how democracy should work instead of all the top down “work arounds” in states like Florida. More states need a clear statement of public responsibility like this one.
“No sum shall be raised or collected for education other than in common schools until the question of taxation is submitted to the legal voters.”
While the libertarians argued that private donations are not taxes, the court did not agree. According to the judge, the donations function as taxes when the “donor’s” tax burden is diminished due to the donation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Proponents of the program say it gives low-income and middle-income families the same private school options as wealthier families.”
That’s just not true. Does it bother ed reformers that their lobbying groups mislead like this?
The vouchers ed reformers promote are all low value. No one is going to get “the same private school options as wealthier families” unless they chip in 20k out of the family budget.
Why is the blatantly untrue statement still a major part of ed reform’s voucher lobbying? It’s not true and they all know it’s not true.
If we go to a universal voucher system like the ed reform echo chamber are all promoting, it will be a huge cut in public education funding. 50% cut. That’s the truth. They’re all supposedly “public education experts” and they can probably add and subtract so they all know this, yet in this as in everything else they do they hide the ball.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, many people fall for the sales pitch. Most of them do not realize they are substituting a low value educational option for democratic public education with rights and protections under the law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“fall for the sales pitch”: five exact words to describe the test-and-bash reform years. Would that public school leaders knew how to play the same game … we do not promote public schools so much as we passively take them for granted.
LikeLike
Hurrah, some good news! The national libertarian think tank Institute for Justice: Correction, a libertarian think tank takes the think out of think tank plus libertarians have a very skewed and malformed interpretation of justice.
LikeLike
Like the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think tank where thinking tanks.
LikeLike
“The judge also echoed the plaintiffs’ concerns
that the program could send funds to private schools
that discriminate against certain students.”NICE
“How refreshing to read a court decision that refers to the spirit and the meaning of the law…”
Sending funds to schools that discriminate against
certain students, based on their TEST SCORES,
seems to be outside the spirit and the meaning
of the law.
Yet the “work around” the “bigger fish to fry”
(testing discrimination) continues.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, comes to mind.
What has the greatest impact, on the greatest
number of students?
What is the bigger fish to fry?
LikeLike
This group believes in the old adage – “Heads I win, tails you lose” and the judge wasn’t buying it.
LikeLike