It was surprising to learn, from Nat Malkus of the American Enterprise Institute, that some opposition is brewing from the Right against a new scholarship plan proposed by U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.
One must assume that conservatives who oppose the plan must not understand it.
As explained in this space two weeks ago, the proposal would give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for any donations made to state-based nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to elementary- and secondary-school students. The plan is based in large part on a successful state scholarship program in Alabama, the home state of Republican Rep. Bradley Byrne, who will introduce the bill in the House.
The DeVos plan would take not a single penny away from public schools. Rather, it would encourage funding, and thus individual choice, to parents or guardians to choose the best educational options for their children. It is a thoughtful, pro-liberty plan that achieves the benefits of school choice while giving the Left no grounds to make their tired argument that giving parents control means diverting money from public education.
Yet, according to Malkus, some conservatives “fear federal involvement in choice will inevitably end in federal intrusion in private schools and existing state choice programs.” This fear is entirely misguided. As Malkus correctly explained, the program is designed as a tax credit through IRS filings rather than as a grant or expenditure through the accounts of the Department of Education. It then goes through private charitable organizations in the states and then to parents. Thus, the feds have no direct oversight role at any point. The Education Department also cannot attach conditions on schools or otherwise use the program to intrude on local prerogatives because it isn’t a federal program.
If there is a classic example of a “no strings attached” proposal, this is it.
Meanwhile, these state scholarship programs actually work. The Wall Street Journal recently editorialized on Florida’s version of a scholarship plan, noting that an Urban Institute study found that Florida’s scholarship-program participants are more likely to pursue any higher education, more likely to attend a four-year college, and more likely to get a bachelor’s degree.
In fact, the biggest problem with the Alabama, Florida, and similar state-based scholarship programs is not that they don’t work, but that they are underfunded. That’s why Malkus writes that the new federal tax credit “could be the shot in the arm that underfunded programs need in order to deliver more support” to low-income students.
All in all, the DeVos proposal is wise, far-sighted, and well-designed. It should draw support both from the thoughtful Left and especially from every sector of the political Right which believes in local and parental control, and in encouraging states to make education, but not bureaucracy, a priority.
