Parents criticize politicians for prioritizing corporate welfare over free public education

After New Jersey legislators introduced a bill diverting funds from public schools to private and religious institutions, parents and activists are voicing their outrage at what they perceive as a betrayal of free public education.

Dana M. Patton, a Jersey City resident, artist, and community organizer who starred in the 2014 film “Pearl,” expressed her disgust over the introduction of the legislation, A4414/S3035.

In a social media post, Patton said the bill, which claims to establish a program providing tax credits to taxpayers contributing to organizations that award scholarships to nonpublic school students, is “attacking public schools the way Republicans are.”

“I am so disgusted by the fact that 14 Democratic Legislators have introduced a private school voucher bill,” said Patton, questioning the value of a Democratic majority that mirrors the education policies typically associated with Republicans.

“Our tax dollars belong in public schools,” Patton asserted, echoing the sentiments of many parents and educators across the state.

The proposed bill known as the “New Jersey Student Support Act” has sparked a wave of criticism.

Julia Sass Rubin, a professor at Rutgers University’s Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, joined the chorus of disapproval.
Rubin lambasted the move as a betrayal of the public trust, accusing the legislature of prioritizing corporate interests over the welfare of New Jersey’s children.

“(New Jersey’s) machine-controlled legislature exhibit A: 14 Dems just introducing voucher bill that would siphon $250 million a (year) from taxpayers for private & religious schools that can discriminate by race, religion, gender & sexual orientation & are totally unaccountable for results,” said Rubin.

“This is not an April Fools joke. It’s the very real way that New Jersey’s transactional, machine-controlled politics work,” Rubin lamented in a social media post.

The introduction of the bill comes at a time when New Jersey is grappling with issues of educational equity and funding adequacy. While proponents argue that the bill offers parents greater choice in education, critics contend that it will exacerbate disparities and divert crucial resources away from underfunded public schools.

In response to concerns raised by Patton and others, legislators will face mounting pressure to reconsider their support for the bill.

“One of the most alarming aspects of the proposed legislation is its potential to exacerbate existing disparities in education access and quality,” said Lisa McCormick, a public schools advocate. “By directing public funds to schools that can selectively admit students and discriminate based on various criteria, including religion, disability, and LGBTQ+ status, the voucher program would further marginalize vulnerable populations and undermine the principles of equity and inclusivity.”

With grassroots movements gaining momentum and citizens demanding greater accountability from elected officials, the battle over the future of education funding in New Jersey is far from over.

Parents who advocate for fully funded and equitable public schools say any victory for ‘educational choice’ is a betrayal of the principles of free public schools because it diverts limited funding necessary to ensure a quality learning experience for all New Jersey children.

The sponsors of the “New Jersey Student Support Act” include Vin Gopal, Joseph A. Lagana, and Paul A. Sarlo in the Senate, and Lisa Swain, Gary S. Schaer, Reginald W. Atkins, Margie Donlon, Luanne M. Peterpaul, Robert J. Karabinchak, Alexander Schnall, Julio Marenco, Rosy Bagolie, Chris Tully, and Eliana Pintor Marin in the Assembly.

The bill is supported by the MidAtlantic Christian Schools Association, Council of Islamic Schools in North America, New Jersey Catholic Conference, Agudath Israel of America, and other religious and corporate entities.

“Parents in New Jersey have waited long enough,” said Rabbi A.D. Motzen, Agudath Israel of America’s national director of government affairs. “We thank the bill sponsors and urge all legislators to support this common sense policy.”

“Agudath Israel recognizes the tireless efforts of New Jersey Assemblyman Avi Schnall who has invested countless hours in bringing this bill to its current form,” said Rabbi Shlomo Schorr, director of legislative affairs for Agudath Israel of America’s New Jersey Office. “We look forward to working with parents, school leaders, policy makers and other education advocates, particularly TeachNJ and United Education of New Jersey (UENJ) in the coming months.”

Critics say voucher programs often have very limited accountability and have a history of fraud. Schools accepting voucher students do not have to make their budgets public, do not have to adhere to open public meeting laws, and are not required to have Boards elected by tax-payers.

A report by the Southern Education Foundation found that Georgia’s law, which is similar to legislation that has been proposed in NJ, “lacks public accountability and allows widespread abuses.”

Conservative economist Milton Friedman first proposed vouchers in the 1950’s. Friedman saw vouchers “not as an end in themselves” but as “a means to make a transition from a government to a market system,” to enable “a private, for-profit industry to develop that will provide a wide variety of learning opportunities and offer effective competition to public schools.”

The first state-sponsored voucher programs arose in Southern states starting in the late 1950s, as a way for white families to avoid sending their children to racially integrated schools.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional, private, all-white “segregation academies” opened throughout the South.

Southern state legislatures adopted public voucher programs, to enable white students of all income levels to attend the segregation academies and continue receiving a publicly-funded, all white education.

New Jersey is engaged in litigation with a variety of parents’ and civil rights groups that allege the schools are plagued by extreme racial segregation.

Latino Action Network brought the lawsuit in 2018 with the NAACP, the Latino Coalition, the United Methodist Church of Greater New Jersey, the Urban League of Essex County and two Jersey Shore school districts. Since then, others have joined the suit.

The Education Law Center, a longtime school funding and legal advocacy group, joined attorney Lawrence Lustberg and the lawsuit as a co-counsel.

The lawsuit says the current arrangement violates the state’s constitution by preventing students affected by de-facto segregation from receiving a “thorough and efficient” education and equal protection.

Studies indicate New Jersey’s schools are among the most segregated in the nation, with the fifth-highest level of segregation among Black students and the fourth-highest level among Hispanic students, the Education Law Center said in a statement.

A coalition of organizations across New Jersey and the nation penned an open letter vehemently opposing the proposal.

Addressed to Governor Phil Murphy, Senate President Nicholas Scutari, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, and the entire state Legislature, the letter denounces the bill as a dangerous initiative that would establish the state’s first and only private school voucher program.

The letter, signed by a diverse array of groups including the New Jersey Education Association, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, pulls no punches in its critique of the proposed legislation.

It warns against being misled by euphemistic language such as “scholarships” and “student support organization,” asserting that the bill’s true intent is to funnel public funds into private institutions under the guise of tax credits.

According to the letter, the proposed voucher program would allow corporations and individuals to claim substantial tax credits, amounting to a staggering $250 million annually. This diversion of funds, the signatories argue, would directly undermine crucial public services such as K-12 education, senior care, healthcare, and property tax relief.

Moreover, the groups raised concerns about the lack of accountability and oversight in the bill. It points out that participating private schools would not be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws, quality standards, or curriculum requirements as public schools.

Furthermore, the letter highlights the absence of mechanisms to assess the academic impact and effectiveness of the voucher program, citing studies that suggest such initiatives often fail to improve education outcomes.

The letter also underscores the legal and constitutional challenges associated with voucher programs, citing precedents in other states where such initiatives have been struck down for violating mandates for adequate public education. It urges New Jersey lawmakers to learn from these examples and resist the pressures of special interest groups advocating for privatization at the expense of public education and civil rights.

In conclusion, the signatories assert that public funds should be reserved for public education, which they describe as the bedrock of communities and democracy. They call upon elected officials to reject the proposed voucher program and uphold their commitment to strengthening and supporting New Jersey’s public school system.

The open letter, signed by a coalition of local and national organizations, represents a unified front against the privatization of education and serves as a rallying cry for safeguarding the principles of equity, accountability, and inclusivity in New Jersey’s educational landscape.