Archives for category: Education Industry

A reader who identifies as “Retired Teacher” sees the school choice juggernaut as a deliberate plan to destroy our common good: public schools. Thomas Jefferson proposed the first public schools. The Northwest Ordinances, written by the founding fathers, set aside a plot of land in every town for a public school.

The origin of the school choice movement was the backlash to the Brown Decision of 1954. Segregationists created publicly-funded academies (charters) for white flight and publicly-funded vouchers to escape desegregation.

What replaces public schools will not be better for students, and it will be far worse for our society.

So much reckless “choice” will make the public schools the schools of last resort for those that have nowhere else to go. Choice is a means to defund what should be our common good. How are the schools supposed to fund the neediest, most vulnerable and most expensive students when so much funding is transferred to private interests? How will public schools be able to pay to maintain the buildings, hire qualified teachers and pay for all the fixed costs like insurance, transportation and utilities?

The billionaires and religious groups behind so-called choice would like to see public schools collapse. Choice benefits the ultra-wealthy and segregationists. Choice empowers the schools that do the choosing, not the families trying to find a school for their child. If public schools become the bottom tier of choice, they will become like the insane asylums of the 19th century where the unfortunate were warehoused, ignored and abused. This dystopian outcome would be the opposite of what the founding fathers envisioned. Their vision was one of inclusion where all are welcome, a place serves the interests of the nation, communities and individuals with civil, social and individual benefits. A tiered system of schools is neither ‘thorough or efficient.’ It is a nightmare, and nothing any proponents of democracy should be supporting.

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, analyzes the behind-the-scenes infighting between extremist MAGA Republicans and traditional conservatives, who don’t use inflammatory rhetoric and prefer to know the cost of new programs before they pass them.

He writes:

Across the nation, voters are following the battles between former-President Donald Trump and Governor Ron DeSantis. There is no way to know how that conflict between extremist Republicans will play out, but I find it hard to believe it won’t damage their party’s chances in 2024. Even in Oklahoma, Trump’s unfavorable rating has grown to 47%, and conflicts between conservatives and MAGAs are becoming more public.

And as Oklahoma Republicans, such as State Superintendent Ryan Walters, Governor Kevin Stitt, and House Speaker Charles McCall, ramp up their irrational, inflammatory rhetoric, there seems to be both a growing behind-the-scenes and public responses by some traditionally conservative Republicans against the far right. This post will focus on two issues where it seems like the Republican leader of the Senate, Greg Treat is pushing back on the MAGAs.

To understand these disputes, however, a confusing aspect of the Oklahoma constitutional system must be understood. Oklahoma has two statewide education leadership positions; the Secretary of Education is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is elected by the people.

The Oklahoman now reports on a behind-the-scenes issue that could be an important response to Walters. Walters was first appointed as Secretary of Education by Gov. Stitt, and was quickly confirmed by the Senate. Walters was then elected to the State Superintendent office, and reappointed by Stitt as Secretary of Education.

This time, however, there is no movement towards his reconfirmation to that position. The Oklahoman explains, “Walters is still waiting, and it there has been little or no work done to shepherd his nomination through the Senate, even though his previous term expired on Jan. 9.” It adds that the job is mostly to advise the governor and has “few legal responsibilities.” However, the confirmation delay “highlights the ongoing political conflict between the executive and legislative branches of Oklahoma’s government.”

Given the pushback by some influential Republicans against Walters’ bizarre rhetoric and overreach (not to mention his misuse of federal funds), the lack of movement toward confirming Walters is not good news for Walters and his rightwing allies. Whether or not Walters loses his Secretary of Education position is obviously unknown. It might just be a threat serving as a “bargaining chip” for advancing the Senate agenda, as opposed to the Walters’ and the Speaker of the Houses’ extremism. But, either way, the MAGAs’ agenda is threatened by such publicity.

Moreover, this happened as Walters, as the Tulsa World reported, emailed all legislators “images and text [that] depict gay sex and ambiguously gendered bodies. The email provides no context to the images.” The World also reported, “Some of those receiving the emails said Walters quickly tried to ‘unsend,’ or retrieve them.” Walters was invited to the Appropriations and Budget Subcommittee on Education to provide evidence for the email’s claims but he didn’t respond. Instead, as the Oklahoman reported, he sent “lawmakers a list of four books he deemed “pornographic,” four more ‘books in the marketplace to monitor’ and 190 children’s books focused on LGBTQ+ themes.” School system leaders denied Walters’ claims about four pornographic books that allegedly were in their schools. These continuing behaviors have made Walters more vulnerable.

Also during the week, Speaker Charles McCall, who apparently hopes to run for governor, doubled down on outrageous demands and claims against the Senate Republican leadership. Previously he demanded that the vote for his education funding bill, including vouchers (called tax credits), be passed without amendments, which the Senate refused to do. So when the Senate defied McCall and Gov. Stitt by putting an income cap of $250,000 on families for school choice tax credits, McCall called it “class warfare.” Sen. Treat replied, “The speaker seems to be intent on torpedoing meaningful education reform… It is unfortunate and I hope he comes to his senses.”

Then, illustrating the depth of the conflict between the Senate and House leaders, the Speaker’s office made the bizarre claim that under the Senate’s $285 million a year plan, “The Senate amendments to House Bill 2775 would only require public school districts following the state minimum salary schedule to give full teacher pay raises, neglecting over 43,000 teachers in over 400 districts.” (Oklahoma has around 45,000 teachers) Sen. Treat’s office replied “that every teacher in the state would get a pay bump based off years of service,” and that “The speaker is operating in a fantasy land.” Again, these behaviors are making the MAGAs more vulnerable.

And that leads to the second major story which seems to represent the best pushback by the Senate leadership against the behaviors of rightwing ideologues. As I explained previously,the Oklahoman’s Ben Felder reported, despite a $700 million incentive, Volkswagen chose to invest in Canada with its “strong ESG (environmental, social and governance) practices,” rather than Oklahoma where Gov. Stitt had said, “don’t expect support from us unless you reject ESG.”

I must stress that counter-attacks by conservative, pro-voucher Republicans are not an answer to continuing assaults on public education, and neither can we merely trust pro-corporate Republicans’ call for rethinking the reasons why corporations reject Oklahoma’s subsidies for investing here. But, Senate Pro Tem Treat and many or most Republican legislators must understand that such extreme rhetoric is making it harder to attract corporations that invest in Oklahoma.

Sen.Treat formed a panel to study why Volkswagen and Panasonic rejected subsidies up to $700 million, and he cited the lessons of recent history. After United Airlines rejected incentives for investing in Oklahoma City because it lacked the cultural institutions that its employees would want, in the early 1990s the city made a plan, raised taxes, and invested in social and educational institutions.

While I praise Treat’s initiative, I’ve wondered whether his predominantly Republican effort would be transparent and open-minded. I have been urging the panel members I know to listen to the leaders who succeeded in transforming Oklahoma City. Number 1 on my list has been Cliff Hudson who led the bipartisan MAPS for Kids which saved the Oklahoma City Public School System from collapsing. I have never participated in a greater, evidence-based process which truly listened to researchers, educators, students, parents, and the community. So, I was thrilled to see Hudson’s guest editorial in the Oklahoman.

Hudson explained that “many business leaders who aren’t from here” understand that “Oklahoma is committed to providing competitive financial incentives and that our tax policies are considered pro-business.” But, Hudson notes, “they also hear the hateful rhetoric that can make people feel unwelcome, either because of their gender, their religion, their skin color or their orientation.”

Hudson knows that “Oklahomans are, overall, kind, welcoming and loving.” But he rejects “the negative voices … [that make] things harder for all of us.” It “means fewer companies will want to bring their jobs here. It means the best and brightest may choose not move here — or that they grow up here and leave as soon as they can.” So, “we miss out on great executives, exciting creatives and dedicated medical professionals when we don’t make clear that everyone is valued and welcomed in Oklahoma.”

In other words, especially if Republican leaders listen to Hudson and others who transformed the Oklahoma City (and Tulsa) metropolitan areas, we can build on our strengths. But first, I believe, they must reject these hate-filled MAGAs and learn from our history, and the values we once praised as “the Oklahoma Standard.” And at some point, traditional conservatives, as is true across the nation, must explicitly condemn the rightwingers who are spreading hate, and threatening our democracy and its norms.

The Texas Signal has figured out the Republican plan for education. Defund the public schools. Send public money to greedy charter operators who have their eye on the bottom line. Send public money to voucher schools that indoctrinate their students. The goal: Dumb and Dumberer. Members of the Texas House of Representatives—both Democrats and Republicans—voted against public funding for private schools just a few days ago (after this article was posted), but the Governor is likely to try again.

For decades, Texas Republicans have been hoping you won’t notice how much public education is underfunded. Now that the far right is in the driver’s seat, we can see it was a failure by design.

Under Republican leadership, Texas has long underfunded our teachers and schools. For a while, this worked for Texas Republicans – at least politically. If someone complained, they could always point their fingers at the need for property tax relief or blame our failing schools on underpaid teachers. And if that didn’t work– blame Black and Brown communities. And if that didn’t work – hell blame the kids themselves. 

Of course, they could also avoid the topic altogether. Instead of allowing the light to shine on our school, they could simply redirect their high beams to some unfortunate Texas group as a distraction in their signature Texas Republican culture war two-step. Anything to avoid responsibility.

Texas Republicans have been happy to keep up this understanding during their 6-month stay in Austin every odd year. The Texas Republican culture war two-step: bully some women or LGBTQ kids and do the bare minimum so that they can say they’ve done their part for our kids while they find ways to build personal wealth. 

That worked for a while until the failures of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) started to show. 

Republican failures, TEA Takeovers, and Privatization

In 2018, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) was placed under federal oversight by the Department of Education for its failings regarding special education. This was due to the illegal actions of the Texas Education Agency that put a limit on the percentage of students it would allow into special education programs, impacting countless kids.  

This normally would be a wake-up call for any elected official who had the interests of their constituents at heart. But then again, we’re dealing with Greg Abbott. 

Instead of fixing the root of most issues, underfunding, Governor Greg Abbott made a hard right turn led by party extremists. Greg Abbott decided to turn to Republicans’ trusted distracted dance, except now he created a new cultural war two-step. Step 1: Blame teachers at struggling schools in our most diverse cities and 2) funnel money into the pockets of his rich donors who put their kids to private Christian schools through the scheme known as vouchers.

While Abbott has been on a statewide tour pushing his voucher scheme, he simultaneously had TEA take over the Houston Independent School District (HISD) takeover earlier this year. The takeover was blasted by civil and racial rights advocates, including the ACLU of Texas. “The state takeover of HISD is not about public education — it’s about political control of a 90 percent Black and brown student body in one of the country’s most diverse cities,” they wrote on Twitter.

Then in late March, Abbott continued his strategy with a new diverse (and Democratic-run) city: Austin. State Representative Gina Hinojosa (D- Austin) is a leading voice on public education and sits on the prominent House committee. And late on the last Friday of March, she sent an explosive alert on social media to activate pro-public education Texans. She announced that the TEA recommended conservatorship over Austin Independent School District (AISD). 

This means that a team selected by Commissioner Morath will have the power to take action over our local school district indefinitely, similar to the Houston Independent School District (HISD) takeover earlier this year. 

According to Rep. Hinojosa, the agency has cited the district’s failings regarding students receiving special education. And in November, the voters of Austin elected four new trustees and an interim superintendent has since been hired. Most folks agree AISD is heading in the right direction. “Specifically, we know that many of AISD’s challenges are due to staffing shortages, “ said Hinojosa. “Additionally, the TEA has acknowledged that the state underfunds special education in AISD by close to $80 million annually.” 

Of course, facts would only matter if Republicans cared about improving the lives of children. The solution seems simple: more funding equals better results. However, this is all a ruse toward the larger direction right back to the voucher scheme pushed by the extreme right. 

As we’ve noted, current proposals that could become law give families enrolling in private or parochial schools $8,000 per student, per year to cover tuition and other related expenses. 

This would be devastating to our public schools. Texas ranks near the bottom of national rankings of per-student funding, with the basic allotment totaling around $6,160 per student. 

The Governor and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick are fully on board, leaving only the Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan left as a question mark. While Phelan generally is a pushover when it comes to right-wing agenda items, some rural Republicans may force his hand into a fight. 

The solution to most of our public education problems is simple: funding. Simple solutions are usually welcome news. However, with the growing issues of sexual assault problems for Texas Republicans and other issues that plague the state, Republicans go for what they’re most familiar with for answers. The ole’ culture war two-step.

Are you tired of Texas Republicans pushing big lies and trying to steal your vote? So are we, that’s why we’re fighting back against the right-wing lie machine. Our commitment to ethical, fact-based journalism is vital to our democracy, and we can’t do it without you. Consider donating today to help us stay in this fight.

CONTINUE READING

Musings: How Ted Cruz helped turn politics into pro wrestling

Peter Greene has written several columns about the U.S. Supreme Court’s step-by-step effort to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. With its June 21: 2022, decision called Carson v. Makin, the High Court ordered the state of Maine to pay the tuition for students at two religious schools. Under Maine law, districts that do not have a public high school must pay tuition for high school students to attend a private non-religious school. A majority of the justices ruled that Maine violated the students’ free exercise of religion rights by denying them the same benefits as those who go to private schools at the public’s expense.

The decision was 6-3. The majority were all appointed by Republican presidents (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett). The minority were appointed by Democratic presidents (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan). All six of the Justices in the majority were born Catholic; Gorsuch graduated from Georgetown Preparatory Academy, a Jesuit school (Brett Kavanaugh was two years behind him.) Gorsuch and his family now attend an Episcopal church. The minority bloc consists of two Jews and a Catholic (Sotomayer).

Before the case was decided, Peter Greene expressed concern that the two religious schools openly discriminated against student, families, and staff by refusing to accept into the school’s community.

He wrote six months before the decision was released:

Bangor Christian Schools require adherence to a code of conduct; trans or gay students will be expelled, even if celibate. Their religious indoctrination is inseparable from their academic instruction. A fifth grade social studies objective is to “recognize God as Creator of the world,” while a ninth grade objective is to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s word.” Teachers at BCS must certify that they are born again Christians.

Temple Academy is an extension of the Centerpoint Community Church. TA is unlikely to admit students that do not come from a Christian family; that family must sign a Family Covenant saying they agree with TA’s views on abortion, marriage, and homosexuality. Again, only born again Christians may be hired to teach; teachers also sign an employment agreement acknowledging that the Bible says that God considers “homosexuals and other deviants as perverted.”

The issue, he wrote, was not about freedom of religion or free exercise of religion, but about whether taxpayers should pay for schools that discriminated against defined groups of people.

For several years, fans of school choice have been pushing the argument that a religious school is not free to exercise its religious faith if it does not get to share in taxpayer dollars. The wall between church and state has thus been characterized as discrimination against religion. Turns out you can’t be really free without taxpayer funding.

A few weeks ago, Peter returned to the subject and reviewed some of the Justices’ arguments. Quite simply, he wrote, the Supreme Court was ordering the state of Maine to pay tuition at schools that engage in discrimination.

Justice Breyer asked:

What happens once “may” becomes “must”? Does that transformation mean that a school district that pays for public schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools?

Justice Sotomayor said:

In 2017, I feared that the Court was “lead[ing] us . . . to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.” Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.

But the case goes on, because Maine passed a law stating that it would not fund schools that discriminate. The Bangor Christian Academy sued the state and asserted its right to discriminate.

Bangor Christian Schools is now suing the state of Maine, asking first for an injunction against the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) restriction that bars them from receiving state money as long as they continue to discriminate. Their assertion is that the “poison pill” of human rights law in Maine violates their religious liberty, that they cannot exercise that liberty unless they can both receive state funds and continue to discriminate against students and prospective faculty that don’t meet their religious requirements.

The state of Maine insists that it will not fund schools that discriminate:

Attorney General Aaron Frey said that “all Mainers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, whether it be in their workplace, their housing, or in their classrooms. The Maine Human Rights Act is in place to protect Mainers from discrimination and the Office of the Attorney General is steadfast in upholding the law. If abiding by this state law is unacceptable to the plaintiffs, they are free to forego taxpayer funding.”

Peter continued his dissection of the decision in a third post, wherein he debated the libertarian Neil McCluskey of the CATO Institute. McCluskey asserts that secular schools are hostile to religion, and the only way to secure true freedom of religion is to fund all choices, all religions.

Peter writes:

First, I don’t accept the premise that “secular” requires hostility to religion. If you play in the percussion section, you aren’t hostile to melody–it’s just not your job to handle it. A secular education system doesn’t try to fulfill any religious functions, for a variety of reasons we’ll get into.

There’s another issue in that first point, which is the newly revived idea among some folks that they cannot fully and freely practice their religion unless they are free to discriminate against people of whom they disapprove, like the Mom who objects to having her child taught empathy because she believes there are some people her child should not feel empathy for. This is a whole other post, but my short answer is this–there is no placating these people as long as circumstances find them in a pluralistic society.

But where I really disagree with McCluskey is in his central notion that by allowing everyone to retreat to their own personal bubbles, we can end all the various battles over culture and religion…

The whole choice thesis is that by not using taxpayer funds to support private religious choice, the government is discriminating against religious folks (with the newest legal test of this theory coming to a courtroom in Maine). Again, this reasoning goes, I am not fully free to exercise my religion if the taxpayers aren’t subsidizing my choice.

I should get to practice in my little bubble, and the taxpayers should help pay for the bubble.

That’s how this vision of choice leads to religious discrimination on an unprecedented scale and takes us all the way back to the question of separate but equal.

Peter demonstrates a variety of scenarios that show how thorny this issue is.

A variety of secular schools realize that if they re-configure themselves as religious schools, the “free exercise” clause is a ticket to the Land of Do As You Please and they can start discriminating against students and faculty in pretty much any way they wish as long as they claim that it’s an essential part of their religion. This will force taxpayers to fund all sorts of things that they (and not just liberal especially) object to, from aryan supremacists to gender theory schools. One worst case scenario will be a government agency given the task of figuring out which religious schools are “real” religious schools and which are just playing games. The other worst case scenario will be states figuring out how to regulate these schools so that they can’t discriminate in ways that would be illegal for anyone else. Or maybe we’ll just have a government office of educational equality that makes sure that every religion gets an equal shake in the school funding/free exercise department. No way that could end badly. None of these “solutions” will be popular.

Now that we’re establishing that I can’t have freedom to exercise my religion without enough of a taxpayer subsidy, who is going to decide how much subsidy is enough?…

I can imagine taxpayers rejecting bond unissued because they don’t to subsidize all those religious schools.

Peter concludes:

I can imagine plenty of awful scenarios. What I can’t imagine is how vouchers + religious schools results in a free and adequate education for every child or greater harmony and cohesions for our pluralistic nation. Yes, yes, I understand we haven’t exactly mastered either of those things currently, but I don’t see how vouchers + religious schools does anything except make matters worse.

Peter Greene has moved his wonderful blog Curmudgucation to Substack. Here is his first Substack submission. It describes the importance of Congressman Jamaal Bowman’s proposal to end the federal testing mandate, which was enacted 22 years ago. The tests have proved to be useless (the results come in after the students has moved to a different teacher); the ratings on the test are based on NAEP achievement levels, which is confusing and inaccurate. Most people think that most students should rank “proficient,” but NAEP Proficient is equivalent to an A. Most students are never at A performance unless standards are dumbed down.

Greene writes:

Ryan Cooper writes in The American Prospect that the anti-woke frenzy among Republicans is a purposeful smokescreen. While their followers rant and rave about WOKE targets, like books and drag queens, the Republican legislators will continue to pass legislation to protect the interests of the rich.

Cooper writes:

It’s long been a truism among liberal political writers that a great deal of conservative culture-war politics is misdirection that disguises the GOP’s real policy agenda. By far the most consistent laws the Republican Party has produced in office since the 1980s are tax cuts for the rich and deregulation. This type of thing is unpopular, even among Republican voters, and so a regular supply of shiny objects is needed to distract them.null

That is of course true of the latest conservative hate frenzy: the crusade against “wokeness,” which the right increasingly uses as a catchall slur for everything they dislike—diversity, reproductive rights, accurate history, climate policy, the dissolution of a failed bank, and so on. Meanwhile, beneath the din, typical pro-rich policy is quietly written up.

Yet not only is the anti-woke frenzy covering up the oligarchic economics of the GOP, it is also directly profiting the allies of Republican politicians. Helping corporate CEOs and anti-woke grifters: Like the gif says, why not both?

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies are rushing through a law that would force banks not to use “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) criteria in their investing decisions. This is a version of a resolution that Republicans passed through Congress recently, leading to what’s expected to be President Biden’s first veto. As Jason Garcia writes at Popular Information, the Florida law would forbid any bank with accounts from state government from making banking or investment decisions based on a company’s “business sector,” or based on “support of the state or Federal Government in combatting illegal immigration.”

This idea is wildly impractical, as ESG or “business sector” questions must include many factors that directly affect the profits of an investment—like when Norfolk Southern spilled a huge amount of vinyl chloride in East Palestine, Ohio. (Would they get civil rights protections because of that in Florida?) Taken literally, DeSantis’s law would outlaw virtually half of all banking.

Of course, it is not meant literally. The subtext is that Florida banks better start lending again to DeSantis’s favorite immigrant detention camp company, or else. A private prison firm called GEO Group, based in Boca Raton, got cut off from mainstream banking in 2019, thanks to protests over its appalling treatment of detainees. The company has been one of DeSantis’s biggest campaign contributorssince 2018, as well as of Florida Republicans, and it stopped paying dividends in 2022. That is likely to weigh on company stock, unless those “woke” rules turn around and GEO Group can get its financing back.

In short, DeSantis would force Wall Street to once again fund his political cronies, and thence his own political campaigns.

Or in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott recently announced that the state government is taking control of the 200,000-strong Houston school district, supposedly because one of its 50 high schools has struggled academically. (The district as a whole was recently given a “B” by the state education agency.) It’s not a coincidence that, as Forrest Wilder writes at Texas Monthly, Abbott has recently been touring overtly right-wing private religious schools touting the benefits of his school voucher plan. These luxurious schools typically cost over $10,000 per year in tuition. The wealthy, ultra-right-wing families that use them—and the highly paid right-wing administrators and teachers who run them—would benefit from a voucher that might cover about half the cost, while undermining public schools. All that is needed to get the job done is to delete a provision in the Texas constitution separating church and state, which Texas Republicans have proposed, helped along by the fearmongering that woke schools are ruining children’s lives, no doubt.

Not only is the anti-woke frenzy covering up the oligarchic economics of the GOP, it is also directly profiting the allies of Republican politicians.

Perhaps most telling of all is the situation in Hungary, increasingly considered as an anti-woke utopia by American conservatives. CPAC invited Prime Minister Viktor Orban to their conference last year, and prominent conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Rod Dreher make regular pilgrimages.

Hungary is a quasi-dictatorship, and Orban has used his power to turn the country into a colony of international capital. When he took power in 2010, he made Hungary extremely attractive to foreign investors by slashing taxes on the rich and corporations while raising them on the working class. Together with Hungary’s low wages, this set the stage for a decade-long economic boom, concurrent with an explosion in domestic inequality. Orban’s latest plan is to entice a Chinese company into building the largest battery factory in Europe, though the idea is reportedly not popular among locals, who correctly suspect the company is not going to take proper precautions against pollution, and that workers and the local economy will see very little of the benefits.

Conservative politics is about creating, reinforcing, and preserving hierarchy. Oligarchic economics is only natural. Wedge issues that pit the lower classes against one another to cloak this hierarchy are also par for the course. If and when Republicans take national power again, it’ll be one more screaming tantrum after the next, while they rob the American people blind in the background.

Governor Gregg Abbott has said repeatedly that vouchers was a high priority for him. He has traveled the state, visiting private schools, to promote them. His party controls both houses of the legislature. Voucher legislation passed in the Senate. Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a bill barring vouchers by 86-52.

Edward McKinley of The Houston Chronicle reported:

The Texas House voted Thursday to restrict public funds from subsidizing private education, a major rebuke of Gov. Greg Abbott and the state Senate, which was expected to pass a so-called voucher program later in the day.

Although past efforts have fallen short in the House, voucher programs have received more support this year than ever before. Gov. Greg Abbott named them a priority in his State of the State address earlier this year, and he has toured the state calling for enaction. Abbott argues that parents are currently deprived of options for their children’s education, and he also says that public schools have become tools for progressive indoctrination.

The margin on Tuesday was 86 to 52. House Public Education Chair Brad Buckley, R-Killeen, attempted to prevent the chamber from voting on the measure at all, saying it was inappropriate considering that his committee plans to hold public hearings for several voucher policies next week.

“This process with this amendment turns things really in the wrong direction. It is the proverbial cart before the horse,” he said. In past sessions, Buckley has voted for the same amendment. If Buckley had been successful, it would have allowed the House to avoid any provocation of the governor or lieutenant governor.

Buckley’s effort failed by a seven-vote margin, with about a dozen Republicans joining the Democrats to stop it.

The House’s measure still needs approval from the Senate and from Abbott, and members could still decide to ultimately approve a voucher program later this session – but it proves there’s not a strong desire in the House to go on-record as supporting vouchers.

“These are public funds for public schools, as outlined and stated specifically in the Texas Constitution,” said Rep. Abel Herrero, a Robstown Democrat and the author of the amendment calling for the ban. Herrero has offered the same amendment in past sessions, where it has often won more than 100 votes.

In past years, the Herrero amendment has been opposed by the state Senate and ultimately stripped out during negotiations between the two chambers.

edward.mckinley@houstonchronicle.com

Stuart Egan teaches in North Carolina and blogs about the state’s politics. North Carolina has a Democratic Governor, Roy Cooper, but Republicans control both houses of the General Assembly. In the State Senate, they were one vote shy of a super-majority. And then—BOOM—a Democratic legislator switched parties, giving Republicans a super-majority, meaning they can override any vetoes by Governor Cooper.

Egan writes about the defector, Tricia Cotham, here and here.

Cotham was a teacher of the year. Her family was long involved in Democratic politics. She campaigned as a Democrat. She said she supported abortion rights. She said she was a strong supporter of public schools.

Yet now she has joined a party that is determined to ban abortion. That has spent the past dozen years attacking public schools, demonizing teachers, and introducing charter schools and vouchers.

Egan wrote in his open letter to Cotham:

Five previous terms in the NC General Assembly before running on a 2022 platform of pro-public education, pro-choice, and protections for all North Carolinians that got you elected in a heavily blue district and you…sold out.

And before you talk about that “well I had to go with my heart and my convictions” excuse, the very things you said you would champion on your campaign website just months ago seem not to be important any longer.

Many of us remember what you said on that campaign website. You seem to want to forget about it. In fact, just today that same website which talked about your “priorities” after five previous terms terms was gone. Erased.

Just like your integrity.

In an interview concerning the switch with abc11.com, you stated:

“The party wants to villainize anyone who has free thought, free judgement, has solutions and wants to get to work to better our state. Not just sit in a meeting and have a workshop after a workshop, but really work with individuals to get things done. Because that is what real public servants do. If you don’t do exactly what the Democrats want you to do they will try to bully you. They will try to cast you aside.”

Did you see whom you were standing with when you made your switch from those “bullies” to the NCGOP?

Ma’am, you just went to a party that is run by two people who happen to be right next to you: Sen. Phil Berger and Rep. Tim Moore. If you do not do what those two expect of you, then you don’t remain in Raleigh.

And you know that. You’ve been in the NC General Assembly long enough to know that you must “toe the line” with that party to remain in that party. You know exactly what is expected of you now.

You now become the vote that almost ensures that another 1.5 billion dollars goes to unproven school choice “reforms” that take more money away from traditional public schools. Remember your tenure as an educator in public schools? Sure you do. It was on your website before you erased it.

Tricia Cotham has betrayed her voters and her profession. She should be ashamed of herself.

Governor Gregg Abbott went all in and all out to pass vouchers, so that public money would fund religious schools, private schools, and homeschools. His proposal passed in the State Senate.

But it in trouble in the House of Representatives, where rural Republicans are standing with urban Democrats against vouchers for nonpublic schools. The House today passed the Herrero Amendment, prohibiting public funding for vouchers.

The Pastors for Texas Children have worked tirelessly to protect public funding for public schools. Five million children attend public schools. Three hundred thousand students are enrolled in private schools. they issued the following statement about today’s events:

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Rev. Charles Foster Johnson

210-379-1066

Johnson.cfj@gmail.com

 

Herrero Amendment Blocking Voucher Funding Passes Overwhelmingly

 

The Herrero Amendment prohibiting tax money for private school vouchers passed the Texas House of Representatives this afternoon on an 86-52 vote.

The Texas House has once again repudiated a private school voucher program, as they have many times over the past 25 years.

This rejection of vouchers is particularly powerful because Gov. Greg Abbott made the passage of a voucher policy an “emergency item” this legislative session, and personally lobbied House members on the chamber floor to advance it.

“Texans abhor private school vouchers,” said the Rev. Charles Foster Johnson, Founder and Executive Director of Pastors for Texans Children. “For public dollars to be diverted to subsidize the private education of affluent children and to pay for religious education, particularly that contrary to one’s own, is fundamentally unjust.”

“Unfortunately, Gov. Abbott has tied up the entire legislature this session, at the cost of millions of tax dollars, for in his own petty personal political agenda.”

The Texas State Constitution, in Article 7, Section 1, calls for the suitable provision for “public free schools.” There is no consideration whatsoever for public funding diverted to private schools.

Using public tax dollars, taken from our 5.4 million Texas schoolchildren, to underwrite the private education of a few, is an egregious moral violation.

We find it particularly troubling for public funding to advance and establish religious programs in private schools. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and God’s Moral Law.

Pastors for Texas Children is grateful that the Texas House of Representatives once again stood firm for the true Texas conservative value of universal education for all Texas schoolchildren, provided and protected by the public.

+++

 

Pastors for Texas Children mobilizes the faith community for public education ministry and advocacy. http://www.pastorsfortexaschildren.com

PO Box 471155 – Fort Worth, Texas 76147

http://www.pastorsfortexaschildren.com

Robert Hubbell is cheerful and optimistic in the aftermath of the huge win in Wisconsin for an open seat on the State Supreme Court. This outcome will have a profound effect on the state. He reviews the Republican threats to impeach the winner and sees them as a hollow, self-defeating strategy. He looks at the wave of handwringing articles that were published yesterday worrying about New York DA Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump and he sides with those who trust Bragg.

He writes:

Before all votes were counted in Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s commanding win in Wisconsin, Democrats began to worry that the GOP supermajority in the legislature would impeach and remove the newly elected justice from office. The panic was created by the election of a Republican to the Wisconsin senate on Tuesday, a victory that gives the GOP enough votes to convict Justice Janet Protasiewicz in an impeachment trial.

The details of the threat are described by The Guardian, as follows:

[Dan Knodl] has said he would consider impeaching Protasiewicz, who is currently a circuit court judge in Milwaukee, if she remained on the bench there. He did not say whether he would consider impeaching Protasiewicz as a supreme court justice.

Should we take the threat seriously? Of course, we would be fools not to! Should we live in fear of that prospect? Absolutely not! In the immortal words of Brendan Sullivan, “We are not potted plants.” If the Wisconsin GOP decides to disenfranchise the one million plus citizens of Wisconsin who voted for Justice Janet Protasiewicz, those one million voters will have something to say about that development—and it will not be good for Republicans. Indeed, it would be electoral suicide for Wisconsin Republicans.

Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s election demonstrated that Republicans in Wisconsin are hemorrhaging support in major suburbs, a previous GOP stronghold. See this discussion by Steve Kornacki on MSNBC. Disenfranchising the voters in the suburbs of Madison and Milwaukee will do nothing to bolster GOP prospects in those former strongholds.

And then there is this: Imagine for a moment that the Wisconsin GOP decides to overturn the mandate of the people by removing Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Would those voters “go gently into that good night?” Or would they, for example, call for a general strike? Or walk out of state, county, and municipal offices to shut down the government? Or hold continuous massive demonstrations in front of the state Capitol? Or all the above?

(Hint to Wisconsin Republicans about your future if you remove Justice Janet Protasiewicz: Look at ongoing protests in Tennessee over the GOP legislature’s callous and underwhelming response to the mass shooting in Tallahassee last week.)

If Republicans in Wisconsin want to tell Democrats they have no voice in running the state in accordance with democratic rules, there is no reason for Democrats to support an institution that exists merely to oppress them. Do I think it will come to that? I don’t.

But it doesn’t matter what I believe about the likelihood that the threat will materialize. My point is that we cannot live in fear. We are not powerless, we are not potted plants, and Wisconsin Democrats are shifting the electoral landscape by championing reproductive liberty, protection from gun violence, and fair elections. That is a powerful combination of issues on which Democrats have the high ground—politically and morally.

We should resist every effort and all talk of impeaching Justice Janet Protasiewicz. But no one should live in fear of that development. Indeed, post-Dobbs, Democrats have been on a winning streak in which reproductive liberty has been front and center. See NYTimes, Wisconsin Rout Points to Democrats’ Enduring Post-Dobbs Strength.

But even if Republicans remove Justice Janet Protasiewicz, the Democratic Governor Tony Evers fills the vacancy by appointment. Article VII, Wisconsin Constitution – Ballotpedia(“The vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the governor, which shall continue until a successor is elected and qualified.”)

Details aside, if Republicans decide that we must have a political fight over whether elections matter in Wisconsin, then we must not shrink from that fight or live in fear. Indeed, if Republicans insist on forcing the issue, the sooner the better. They will lose; we will win.

And the same logic applies to the indictment of Donald Trump, where similar angst is driving public handwringing and second-guessing by commentators. Republican prosecutors in red-state counties across the nation are grumbling about indicting President Biden. Should we take the threat seriously? Of course! We would be fools not to. Should we live in fear of that happening? Absolutely not!

The lunatic conspiracy theories on which Biden might be indicted would be litigated through the US Supreme Court—which, as of this writing, still recognizes Article II of the Constitution. The theories being bandied about include a ludicrous allegation that Biden has “opened” the southern border when, in fact, he has (unfortunately) reimposed many of the Trump-era policies. See, e.g., Los Angeles Times, Biden’s new immigration strategy expands on Trump border policy and continues Title 42.

What about “Hunter Biden’s laptop? Be my guest! Or claims that Biden runs an international pedophilia ring? GOP prosecutors couldn’t do more to drive persuadable Independents away from their fringe political leader, Donald Trump. Or a claim that private citizen Joe Biden was (allegedly) on a single conference call with his son in 2017 that discussed a Chinese energy investment? Last time I checked, “conducting business” is not a crime.

So, we cannot permit ourselves to be dissuaded from upholding the law because Republicans threaten to break the law. This point is made in a brilliant essay by Josh Marshall in his Editor’s Blog,

But let’s address the argument head on. Will all future presidents now face a gauntlet of post-presidential judicial scrutiny?

It’s worth remembering that Donald Trump is the first and only president in American history to attempt a coup d’etat to remain in office illegally and that was before any history of presidential prosecutions. The problem isn’t incentives. It’s Donald Trump.

It amounts to the same specious argument . . . “Don’t follow the law because we’ll break the law”.

We have no choice but to enforce the law; indeed, it is our duty if we want to maintain a civilized society governed by laws rather than brute force. So, can we please stop the collective handwringing about prosecuting Trump for something that every other American would be prosecuted for if they engaged in the same conduct? I, too, regret that the Manhattan indictment was first, but that is not Alvin Bragg’s fault.

After the rash of articles on Tuesday explaining how weak the case against Donald Trump is, supporters of the case made strong arguments that it is no different than other cases successfully prosecuted by Bragg. And on the key question of whether state or federal election crimes can be used to leverage misdemeanors into felonies, commentators with extensive experience in New York responded, “Of course, they can!” SeeKaren Friedman Agnifilo and Norman Eisen op-ed in NYTimes, We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong.

With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.

So, depending on which legal commentator you cite, the case is “novel” and “weak,” or “routine” and “strong.” Here’s my advice: Let Alvin Bragg do what prosecutors do and stop worrying about bad faith attacks on the prosecution. Will Kevin McCarthy succeed in forcing Alvin Bragg to appear before a House committee? Maybe, but I doubt it. If he does, my money is on Alvin Bragg being able to handle himself.

But, as in Wisconsin, if House Republicans believe their path to victory in 2024 involves “defunding the FBI and DOJ” to rescue an indicted, twice-impeached, failed coup plotter who is raging against the trial judge, his family, and the prosecutor, Republicans have made the wrong bet. We should be confident in that assessment. After all, Trump lost in 2018, 2020, and 2022 using the same grievance-based script he repeated at Mar-a-Lago after his indictment.

So, let’s not obsess over the bad-faith, self-defeating tactics Republicans are using. If Republicans decide that we must have a political fight over whether former presidents are above the law, then we must not shrink from that fight or live in fear. Indeed, if Republicans insist on forcing the issue, the sooner the better. They will lose; we will win.