Opinion: CHOOSE Act diverts funds from public schools to private interests

The new CHOOSE Act has been a subject of concern regarding its impact on public education and the separation of church and state. The Act, which recently launched in Alabama, provides funding for private school tuition and homeschooling expenses, drawing heavily from the Education Trust Fund specifically designed to support public schools.

Statistics show that a significant percentage of applicants for the CHOOSE Act were already attending private schools or being homeschooled, indicating that families who had opted out of the public school system were now being rewarded with public funds. This not only raises questions about the fairness of the program but also highlights how it prioritizes private education over public schooling.

Advocates for the CHOOSE Act argue that all families pay taxes and should have access to these funds. However, the issue lies in the fact that this money is being diverted directly from the resources meant for public schools. These public schools cater to a diverse group of students, including those with disabilities, English learners, and students living in poverty. By redirecting these funds to private institutions, the CHOOSE Act is essentially taking away crucial support from public schools that serve a majority of students.

Moreover, this trend is not unique to Alabama. Similar voucher-style programs in other states like Iowa, Florida, Indiana, Arizona, and West Virginia have shown disappointing outcomes. In many cases, students already enrolled in private schools were the primary beneficiaries of these programs. There have been reports of academic declines, lack of access for rural families, fraud, frivolous spending, and no significant gains for students as a result of these voucher programs.

A deeper concern arises regarding the constitutional implications of using public funding to support private religious education through the CHOOSE Act. By allowing tax dollars to flow into religious institutions that have specific theological requirements and discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, there is a potential violation of the First Amendment’s principle of separating church and state.

The founders, like James Madison, cautioned against the dangers of government support for religious institutions. Madison believed that such support could undermine freedom of conscience and corrupt both church and state. The CHOOSE Act’s inclusion of schools with strict religious doctrines and exclusionary practices raises flags about the erosion of the boundary between civic responsibility and private beliefs.

While public schools certainly have room for improvement, abandoning them in favor of private options funded by public money is not the solution. Initiatives like the RAISE Act, which targets funding for students most in need, represent a more equitable and meaningful approach to education reform. This targeted support ensures that resources are directed to students facing the greatest challenges, promoting true equity and a public commitment to all children regardless of background or privilege.

In conclusion, the CHOOSE Act may be marketed as a choice, but it ultimately signifies a retreat from the promise of an equal education system. Instead of further disenfranchising public schools, policymakers should focus on strengthening and reforming them to provide quality education for all students. A fairer and more sustainable education system is one that prioritizes the needs of all students and invests in public education for the collective benefit of society.