Lifeline fracas
You may have heard about the historical court case in Pennsylvania this year. After more than a decade of fighting, the Education Law Center won its class action law suit against the commonwealth's school funding regime. A judge agreed with the group of plaintiffs--school districts from all over the state--that the way the state funds schools is unconstitutional. It was, and is, a big deal.
But there are no guarantees in history, and when you push a significant repressive apparatus like a state government with moderates and conservatives at the helm, you really don't know what might happen. In court cases like this, a judge said: "hey, state legislature, what you're doing with money and schools is illegal. Change!" There's no guarantee that (a) the legislature will change anything and (b) that what they actually do will be a good change.
Case in point, the current debate over education spending in the Pennsylvania state budget.
For context, a centrist governor Josh Shapiro got elected last year, and in a tumultuous upset, the Democrats--controlled by moderates--took over the state house of representatives from Republicans by one vote. The state senate remained squarely in the hands of conservatives.
This is the cast of characters that's supposed to change the state's school funding for the better. And the headlines right now are laughable: they're considering increasing public school funding alright, but for private schools!
The policymakers are trying to get their budget together. It's budget negotiations that determine how much money public schools will get from the state. The house of representatives increased funding for public schools. But since the Republicans have veto power through the state senate, they're pushing for a new "scholarship" program that routes public money into parents' pockets to spend however they'd like. Since the governor is moderate, he's saying "well that sounds interesting!" Lol.
There are some twists in the new scholarship proposal. Before I get there, remember that these "scholarship" programs are tax loophole policies that use state non-profit tax law to reimburse parents who pay tuition to private schools using public funds. These parents on average make above $200,000 and send their kids to religious schools. The way it works: they donate to a non-profit organization devoted to "charity" associated with the private school. The charity doesn't get taxed on this money, the state doesn't tax the donors, and the scholarship program even reimburses those donors some money as a tax credit for the donation. It ends up being public money for private schools. There are two programs like this in Pennsylvania already.
The "LifeLine Scholarship Program" on the table in this budget debate is similar, but has new features. First, the money comes directly out of the state's budget rather than through tax credits. That's new. Second, this program specifically targets families living in areas with 'low-performing' schools. In Philadelphia, half the schools qualify (because they're underfunded, btw). So, instead of the public schools getting money, diverse working class parents in Philly could get state money reimbursements if they pay tuition to send their kids to a private school.
Meek Mill seems to think this arrangement is a good idea, which reveals how devious a play it is by the conservatives, pushing on a wedge--that's more of an open wound that's always infected and never healing--in the Democratic political lifeworld. There is a fraction of the diverse working and middle class that send their kids to private school if they can because they've been so violently disappointed and underserved by the public systems supposedly meant to serve them.
The name of the scholarship is insidious: life line. It's as though diverse working class kids in cities are all drowning in the terrible public schools and this private school program is tossing them a lifeline. Of course, there's a wisdom in this ideology since racial capitalism has indeed suffocated public schools for generations, and shootings are so frequent and school buildings are falling apart and test scores are down...etc etc., certain parts of the diverse working class say "yeah, reimburse my private school tuition please!"
At the same time, the rest of the diverse working class--the majority of it I imagine--are attending the public schools no matter what, either out of necessity or commitment to the system for which so many waves of civil rights advocates have fought. The scholarship program weakens this larger-scale initiative meant to serve everyone by appealing to individuals, in the short term. The kicker from the article I cited above gets right to the heart of the issue:
“I understand why a parent who is desperate to get their child a better education might see a lifeline scholarship as something promising,” Reyes-Kaura said. “But it’s also a program that has the power to really detract from a moment where we could be rebuilding the public education system, to make it fair for everyone.”
But there's one last element I want to point out here, which is that there's no telling what could happen when you win a state school funding case. There's no way for the court to hold the state lawmakers accountable for what they end up doing to comply with the constitution. This lifeline fracas is a perfect example.