The opinion and rebuttal: Opinion: (published in NJ Spotlight) Scholarship Act Puts Strange Spin on ‘Opportunity’; Proposed voucher legislation redirects funds away from the very students who need help most. By Gordon MacInnes, The Christie administration and the bipartisan sponsors of the Opportunity Scholarship Act say the legislation represents an effort to lend a hand to “low-income” students trapped in failed public schools and to mount a new “innovation” fund to repair the failed schools.
But in fact it’s just the misleadingly named New Jersey version of a private school voucher bill.
Put aside that the program would transfer $360 million — maybe more — from the state treasury to religious schools while public schools are losing hundreds of millions in state aid. Consider also what it says about “opportunity” to the 1.3 million public school students and their parents.
Failed public schools have dogged education reformers for almost a half-century. Even if we don’t know how to fix them, we know a lot about their characteristics. Most are found in very poor neighborhoods and are asked to educate concentrations of very poor children. If those children come from families where English is not spoken or read, the challenge is compounded.
One would hope that legislation that targets the poorest children in the worst neighborhoods would offer a reasonable chance for those students to receive a better education. Instead, the sponsors chose to concentrate on bailing out religious schools that operate in districts with at least one failed public school. In particular, the bill aims to assist the 67 yeshivas that serve the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Lakewood and the six in Passaic.
Here’s how it works: At least 25 percent of all funds may go to students who are already enrolled in nonpublic schools, as long as they meet the income requirements and there is at least one “chronically failing school” in the district. This emphasis raises several important questions:
First, if nonpublic schools are thought to be more effective at educating poor children, why subsidize students who are already enrolled in one? Presumably, their opportunity at a better education has already been realized.
Second, if nonpublic schools are already educating a significant number of very poor students, then why not set the income eligibility at a level that encourages very poor parents to apply? Instead, the bill sets the income at 2.5 times the federal poverty standard. This means that a New Jersey family of four can qualify with a household income of $55,125; a family of six can benefit with incomes of up to $73,824. No one would say that incomes at this level constitute extravagant wealth, but they are hardly those of desperately poor families. In fact, the median salary of a Lakewood teacher with seven years of experience is $50,296.
Put simply, if teachers in Lakewood were married with two children, more than half of them would be eligible for taxpayer-paid scholarships.
Third, if tax dollars are so scarce that state aid to public schools has been slashed by almost a billion dollars, why should taxpayers be asked to provide full scholarships to children from families that exceed even the generous income limits in the bill? The bill mandates that once a scholarship is granted — say, when a student is in third grade — that it be maintained through high school graduation, even if the student’s family income comes to exceed the ceiling. So, a family of four struggling to survive on unemployment benefits in the Great Recession would be subsidized even after one or both parents return to work.
Fourth, why should scholarship aid be targeted to a community of religious persons who have opted for a life of study and contemplation at the cost of working full time to support their families? Lakewood may be the only district in New Jersey where the poverty rate for white households is twice that of black and Latino households. Eighty-three percent of married white couples live in poverty; 68 percent of white families have one spouse working part-time or neither working at all.
Finally, by targeting aid to Lakewood, New Jersey taxpayers are supporting schools that are segregated by gender. This is the free choice of Lakewood families to make and it should be respected as such. But “respect” need not be converted to “encouragement” by way of taxpayer subsidies.
These questions cover only provisions governing 25 percent of the funds sought by the Opportunity Scholarship Act. Subsequent commentaries will focus on equally serious issues raised by the rest of the bill.
Rebuttal to Opinion of Gordon MacInnes piece
Opinion: Scholarship Act Puts Strange Spin on ‘Opportunity’
Proposed Opportunity Scholarship Act delivers hope to children condemned to a failing education
By: Josh Pruzansky – Executive Director of Agudath Israel of New Jersey
I had the opportunity, no pun intended, to read an article by Gordon MacInnes that questioned the rationale behind the Opportunity Scholarship Act.
While I welcome dialogue on the proposed legislation, I believe his questions smack of borderline bias against a community that he has singled out as being the main recipient of the proposed scholarship dollars – Orthodox Jews living in Lakewood.
There are arguments that can be made for and against this bill. The fact that parents enrolling their children in Non-Public Schools in New Jersey save the tax payers of this State over 4 Billion Dollars per year is never mentioned. The argument for some form of State funding for all children regardless of which school they attend has been made in the recently released report by the Non-Public Education Funding Commission as seen below.
Common Sense/Philosophical Rationale
- • All schools serve the public good.
- • All children are part of the public.
- • Not every school is right for every child.
- • The long tradition of nonpublic schools excellence must be retained. Without
Non-Public schools diversity and opportunity is lost.
- • Taxes derived from the public should benefit all the children of the public.
- • Nonpublic schools collectively serve a diverse universe of students, culturally and
ethnically.
- • Concern for the most vulnerable of our society is a valued common goal. Urban
children are among the most vulnerable. Nonpublic schools have a proven record of
success with urban students.
- • Unlike elementary and secondary schools, the American higher education system
makes no distinction in its support for either sectarian or nonsectarian colleges and
universities and public institutions.
The fact that families have chosen to send their children to a Religious School does not mean that those children are no longer part of the “public” nor should they not have the same opportunity to educational funding as do their Public school counterparts.
Mr. MacInnes’ arguments are flawed. Billions of dollars have already been poured into the worst performing School Districts (otherwise known as Abbott Districts) in this State. Many of those billions during his tenure as Assistant Commissioner in charge of these same districts. The result was, and is, the same failure year after year. How many more billions of tax payer dollars must be spent to get the same results? How many children must face lives condemned to economic failure due to the lack of a solid education?
Mr. MacInnes also asks why a child already enrolled in Private school should be eligible for a scholarship. Should those parents that have already made the financial sacrifice—scraped, saved, and pushed their family finances to the brink so their children have the stability of a good school—be told that they can no longer qualify while those who didn’t are to be rewarded? If this were the case, Mr. MacInnes would have abandoned the Abbott remedies long ago because they did not reach all children in poverty across the state.
However, the part of his argument that I find to be most offensive is his characterization of the Lakewood community. Would he dare make a statement like that against any other Religion or Ethnic group? One must question the commitment to equity of an individual who so freely disparages a group of fellow New Jerseyans.
The Opportunity Scholarship Act calls for 360 million dollars over 5 years. Of that amount, 90 million is earmarked for Non-Public School students – over 5 years. Of that amount only 25 million dollars at most – over 5 years— would be available for Orthodox Jewish students in Lakewood. Available, not guaranteed mind you. That amount is less than 7 percent of the total scholarship dollars that will be distributed.
Who will receive the other 93 percent? Minority students, who live in urban communities, with failing public schools.
But should a person’s Race, Ethnicity or Religion decide who is entitled to a scholarship?
Does Mr. MacInnes discuss what type of jobs parents of students in urban communities have? Does it really make a difference?
Should the fact that Lakewood has failing public schools just like all of the other Districts in the Bill, somehow be dismissed to make Mr. MacInnes comfortable?
It is time that people like Mr. MacInnes stop stereotyping and start finding solutions to the problems that affect the education of children residing in Failing School Districts in this State.
Like he said, it’s been a problem for half a century. Apparently other means used to fix the failing Public Schools haven’t worked.
Perhaps the reason for so much opposition from the NJEA and its allies like Mr. MacInnes to the Opportunity Scholarship Act is because they are afraid this solution might actually be the one that succeeds.
Josh , You are doing a great job. Thanks
MacInnes is pushing a few buttons buttons meant to inflame rather than to enlight. One, for example, is raising the issue of gender seperation in private schools. I never heard of the complaint (other than from the students) when the Catholic Schools practiced this in their heydays prior to the 1970s. It is secular law that governmment cannot force this in public schools because of theories of unequal treatment, with perhaps a dash of someone’s opinion on the value of mixed gender socialization, but this is irrelevant since private school would be a parent choice, not a government choice. Another is his view that certain Lakewood families should not be “on the dole” for scholarship assistance because the husband choses not to earn a decent living. This argument fails because the State’s purpose is, in accordance with the State’s constitution, to provide a thorough and efficient education to the children. The behavior of the parents is irrelevant to the State’s promise. I might also add that on the most basic federal level the original U.S. Constitution prohibits “corruption of blood” – meaning that a child should not be punished for the sins of the parents. MacInnes’ secular basis for discouraging aid to help education in private schools in a municipality whose public schools are failing – for whatever reason – is false. The portion of his article quoted above does not offer realistic alternatives.
Just for arguments sake:
“Another is his view that certain Lakewood families should not be “on the dole” for scholarship assistance because the husband choses not to earn a decent living.” … “The behavior of the parents is irrelevant to the State’s promise.”
While I understand choosing to learn is a positive thing, this argument opens up a lot of questions in my opinion. How then can people complain about a family that “chooses” to live on welfare in the inner cities of this country instead of finding a job?? Agreed, this is not the child’s fault and the children should not be punished, but would anyone want to see their hard earned taxes go to subsidize yet another thing that the able bodied parent could provide for their children?
I mean no disrespect, this is just the first thing that came to mind as I read that part of your post.
I must disagree that this smacks of any bias , are there any statements that are not factual? While you may not agree with his perception on this issue , the statements are accurate and I’m not saying that in a demeaning way its just the way it is . is there anything that was stated that is a blatant lie?I don’t think so so if there is to be dialog on the issue lets debate on the facts not not on the emotional issue that encumbers school funding
#3. People indeed do complain about families that choose poverty, and their complaints are just in many cases. But these complainers usually do not ascribe the choice of low family income to the family’s children, and in fact our government institutions actually remove children from some such families in certain very severe circumstances. This is an austere measure, but it reflects the government’s promise to the welfare of children.
I also agree that I would not like to see my hard-earned tax dollars spent to subsidize adults who chose not to work. But the children MUST be educated. I used to criminally prosecute parents who would not ensure the child’s attendance at school. Perhaps a state-takeover of the Lakewood School district may be in order. If it were up to snuff, there would be no need to consider scholarship alternatives. I would not support a scholarship program for private schools if my tax dollars were in fact supporting a public school system that provided a thorough and efficient education.
In this regard, I suspect that many of the Lakewood parents who elect to send their children to the private schools might very well still insist on private school education for religious reasons, even if the public school system became successful from an educational standpoint. In that case, I would not support a scholarship. The parents would have to either send their children to the successful public school that I support, pay to send them to a private school (or send them through private charity), home-school them in accordance with the state’s laws, or be prosecuted for not sending them to school. But as of now, we are not at that point, and that point is not going to be reached soon.
Public school shave enough money theyr are not the answers the parent are unfortunaltely most dont have more than one parent no one will talk about the disappearance of the family and the “coincidence” of the lack of education. Money is not the answer. when there was the money it never helped
#4 just because it might be factual dosent mean its not biased
I find Josh Pruzansky’s article disturbing at best and a very sad sign for what our community has become. While I believe he is technically correct and that there does seem to be bias, it is a very sad commentary on us. These tax dollars are indeed intended for urban youth who are failing in the school system. In many cases they have few role models to encourage them to succeed and to be educated. In many cases they come from single family homes and are the products of under-educated parents who are either unemployed, un-employable, or chose not to work. The bottom line from a legal perspective is that children in failing districts who meet the poverty criteria should all get the same support regardless of why they are in that situation. So much for the technical, legal analysis. How embarrassing for us, a Mamleches Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh to be equated with the dire situation of this most unfortunate urban community. How embarrassing that our Torah institutions need to rely on poverty to receive funds to stay afloat! Have no more shame? How many times have we looked at failing public schools and broken communities and have said why should we the tax payers pay for their poor decisions in life? Why should we pay for children having children, single parent families, mothers and fathers that chose not to work or don’t make the effort to be educated enough to support their families? And now we the Am Segulah, have become what we have always decried. How embarrassing, how shameful. We have become so accustomed to taking, taking from Government programs, taking from our parents, taking from in-laws, and grand-parents that we have lost the self-respect of providing for our families and for Limud HaTorah. Whatever happened to the dictate from Chazal to train our children in an Umnos? Have we lost all sense of perspective? It is appalling to see Yeshivos of the highest caliber shut their doors because there is no parent body to support them. I’m sorry to say this is not Kavod HaTorah, it is a Bizayon HaTorah! Think of what a Mamleches Kohanim is and ask yourselves if we portray that. Please, don’t get me wrong, I am ecstatic that we have so much Gemulas Chasadim and a safety net for people in need, but it has moved from a safety net to a way of life! True Talmud Torah Kineged Kulam, but that doesn’t shirk our other responsibilities. It does not say Talmud Torah Zeh Kulam, but Kineged Kulam. It must be the priority but it is not nor was it ever intended to be exclusive. So in summary, while Mr. Pruzansky’s article is technically correct, it is a sad commentary on what we have become. We should aspire to much, much more and be that shining example, Ohr LaAmim that we are intended to be.
As a hard working parent I think that they should make vouchers… only available to students with at least one full time working parent or both part time working parents… if the numbers are correct about the statistics of whites in lakewood not working… While I commend learning and a parent being there for their children… once the children are in schools that charge tuition that one can’t afford it is time to move on from full time learning to working and being koveah itim… And then we can say if there is still financial hardship that they may be eligible for something…
Josh,
Did you publish your rebuttal anywhere else besides the Scoop?
My comments are still not up…. hmmm 🙂
I have a simple question – Why doesn’t Lakewood Public schools make the parents provide proof of address? I think they would lose 15-20% of their students… Save tax money…
replying to
address says:
“I have a simple question – Why doesn’t Lakewood Public schools make the parents provide proof of address? I think they would lose 15-20% of their students… Save tax money…”
Who in there right mind would send their kids to the lakewood schools if they did not live here?????
To Torah Truth:
Wow. You have described my own feelings in a wondeful, eloquent manner.
Halevai that people should even pause for a second and contemplate the depth of your points. Thank you.
Thank you Torah Truth. You have said it beautifully what many of us are thinking.
Torah Truth:
You are missing the point, or you are very naive. The issue has nothing to do with poverty, it is a basic question, should the state pay for non-public school students. The rest is all excuses. And for that the obvious answer is yes! There is no reason to double tax all parents who are sending to private school. The same rationale that there is to fund public schools, apply to private schools. All the ones who fight against it, are either liberals who hate religiouns, or failing public school teachers.
Therefore your comment about Jewish poverty, is missing the boat!