PHOENIX β State senators voted 16-13 Thursday afternoon to allow all public school students to get state money to attend private and parochial schools.
But the plan, now being debated by the House, would not mean every child would be able to get one of these vouchers, at least not yet. Instead, it would have a cap β though that could be removed by lawmakers in the future.
Sen. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, had originally sought universal vouchers. Her plan was built on the fact that the cap on enrollment, currently about 5,000 students, is scheduled to self-destruct after 2019, making vouchers available for every one of the 1.1 million students now in public schools.
But Lesko could not get the votes for her plan, with objections ranging from philosophical issues of state aid to private schools to the fact that her legislation would have increased the cost to the state by $25 million a year by 2021.
The stalemate was broken when Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, agreed to go along. But Worsley insisted on a series of changes, including the cap he said should keep the number of vouchers at probably no more than about 30,000 by 2021.
That proved little comfort to Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, who pointed out it would take only a simple majority of a future legislature to remove that cap and create universal vouchers.
Worsley conceded the point. "I think it's the best deal we can get,'' he said. Worsley also said that's not necessarily a bad thing, and that the next six years will be an "experiment'' to show whether vouchers result in better education.
Vouchers were first approved in 2011 to help parents whose children with special needs could not get the services they need in public schools.
Foes sued, charging that it violates a state constitutional provision barring public dollars from being used for religious worship or instruction.
But the state Court of Appeals said the money goes to the parents who decide how to spend the funds, making who ultimately gets the dollars irrelevant. And the judges said the vouchers do not result in the state encouraging the preference of one religion over another, or religion over atheism.
Since that time, proponents have repeatedly added to the list of who is eligible. It now includes everything from children of people in the military on active duty and foster children to all children in failing schools and those living on Indian reservations.
And supporters have made it clear from the beginning the ultimate goal always has been universal vouchers, which was precisely where Lesko was headed.
Worsley insisted he's neither a supporter or foes of vouchers, formally called "empowerment scholarship accounts,'' describing himself as a "pragmatic arbitrator'' between supporters and foes.
Farley scoffed at that contention, saying this "compromise'' does not acknowledge there are many lawmakers who believe public dollars should not be used to send children, in whatever numbers, to private and parochial schools.
"This is no compromise at all,'' added Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs. "This is lipstick on a pig.''
Worsley said his amendment does more than cap the number of vouchers β at least unless and until future lawmakers decide otherwise.
He said the amount of the voucher given to a student will be based on the amount of state aid given to students in that district. Worsley estimated that average figure at $4,400 a year, versus the current $5,600.
What that also means, he said, is if the maximum number of children eligible can get vouchers in 2021 there will be a net savings to the state of $3.4 million, versus the $25 million cost.
Worsley said that's nothing to be sneezed at, pointing out that $28.4 million swing is twice as much as Gov. Doug Ducey, who lobbied in support of this plan, put into this year's budget for teacher raises.
That still leaves the question of who benefits.
There is some evidence that many of the 3,800 students who are now getting vouchers have moved from schools in affluent neighborhoods. That leads to charges that vouchers help defray what parents pay to have their youngsters attend private schools where tuition can top $15,000 a year.
"They're just having the taxpayers of Arizona subsidize that tuition,'' said Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Phoenix.
Worsley did not dispute that. But he said the cost to taxpayers under his plan would be no more than if the student stayed in public schools. And Worsley said there's an argument to be made that all parents are taxpayers.
"Getting an equivalent amount of those taxes to apply toward your choice for education is not immoral,'' he said.
That reduction in the amount of the voucher was enough to gain the support of Sen. Karen Fann, R-Prescott. Fann said while she believes in parental choice, she feared the higher cost of vouchers to the state under Lesko's original measure.
"I did not feel it was appropriate to ding the public schools,'' she said. The new version, she said, is essentially revenue neutral.
And Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said it's wrong to see vouchers as a loss to public schools. He said if a child moves to a private school that's one less child for the public school to educate, meaning its costs should decrease.
But there is a loophole of sorts: That requirement to switch from a public school does not apply to kindergartners even if parents always intended to put that child into a parochial or private school. That child then would have his or her entire 13-year private education paid for with public dollars.
Lesko said she sees the issue in simpler terms.
"That's one of the good things about parental choice: not forcing students to stay in failing schools,'' she said.
Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, said that ignores the fact that private schools, unlike their public counterparts, can pick and choose who to take β and who to reject.
But the Republican majority rejected his amendment to require private schools that want to be paid with voucher dollars to accept all students.
"We're dividing up the haves and have-nots in Arizona,'' said Farley.
Democrats also complained the legislation lacks "means testing'' to focus the dollars on students from low-income homes.
Worsley said he could not get supporters to go along with that. But he said there is a provision which says students from homes where income is less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level β about $50,440 a year for a family of three β would get vouchers that are worth 10 percent more.
He also said his amendment also adds something that does not exist now: a form of accountability. Schools that accept at least 50 students who are using vouchers will have to administer the same kind of achievement tests now required of students in traditional public and charter schools and make the results public.
