"All I can say is we're not going to do it this way again."
--State Sen. Jonathan Dismang
You know things are gettin' confusin' at the Ledge when reporters start their stories by saying things are gettin' confusin' at the Ledge. The first few words in Hunter Field's front-page article on Thursday were, "Surprising lawmakers and education groups alike . . . ."
So the bill that's been debated all week--Senate Bill 620--would create a scholarship program/voucher system for just Pulaski County students and just Pulaski County's private schools. But the surprise bill--SB539--would expand the voucher idea to include more people and territory outside Pulaski County. Is that the drift?
For all the confusion at the Ledge--one administration official appeared to speak against SB539 before he was told the administration favored it--and for all the opposition to any voucher idea, the governor, once again, put things plain. He has that habit.
A statement from Asa Hutchinson's office said: "I fully support the passage of a school choice demonstration project this session, be it SB620 or SB539. My preference is for SB620 and the Pulaski County option, but we will see which bill receives the most consensus from the Legislature. Right now there are two options for the General Assembly to consider."
There is an advantage to the new surprise bill: SB539 takes away one of the opposition's arguments. By not limiting a voucher system to Pulaski County, opponents to any voucher idea, period, can't claim it's all a social experiment on minority kids.
Yes, that was one of their arguments. Giving money to poorer kids in more challenging parts of Little Rock and environs so they could pay for tuition at private schools was called "a social experiment" on them. As if getting a better education was any kind of experiment at all. (Is nutrition an experiment, too?)
SB620 would be paid for through the governor's discretionary fund, as a pilot project, for five years. SB539 would offer dollar-for-dollar income-tax credits to individuals and corporations making donations to the voucher system. Those tax credits may be used to offset all of the income tax due in a given year for individual taxpayers.
"Anybody can participate that owes income taxes to the state of Arkansas," said the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Blake Johnson. And the benefits--the vouchers--would go to lower-income families.
The unions for teachers and school administrators can always be counted on to oppose any change in education, outside just putting more money into the traditional public schools. They even oppose public charter schools. Of course they oppose both of these voucher bills.
But the rest of us should praise any system that puts the priority on children and their education. Which vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools, great teachers, great principals, stocked libraries and fun classrooms do. Vouchers give parents one more option.
As far as choosing between SB539 and SB620, we think SB620 is the better choice. First, it only applies to families whose income qualifies for free and reduced lunch, generally 185 percent of the poverty level. SB539 raises that by 50 percent. We would prefer to see this going to the lower income families, whose educational needs are the greatest. We think Pulaski County is better suited to this experiment, since there are a lot of private schools offering lots of choices. Outside Pulaski County, there are far fewer private schools to choose from. Pulaski County also has the largest concentration of low-income students who need better educational options. Also, the governor was wise to limit the funding to his discretionary fund. SB539 is funded with a tax break to taxpayers. But how much of a tax break? For example, is there a limit on how much you could deduct? If not, we could see some very high income Arkansans eliminating most or all of their Arkansas income taxes. And once that tax break is in the law, it could be hard to remove it--much harder than eliminating money from a governor's discretionary fund.
SB539 would be better than no bill at all. But between them, SB620 is a far better choice. The Legislature should approve it.
Editorial on 03/29/2019