PHOENIX — State senators voted Wednesday to make more taxpayer money available to more parents to send their children to private and parochial schools.
The 16-12 vote, with only Republicans in support, sends Senate Bill 1657 to the House for consideration.
Senate Democrats said the measure is built on a fallacy that vast expansion of the voucher program is designed to help students from poor families. They pointed out that much of the proposal, sponsored by Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, has no income caps.
Boyer did not dispute some of what detractors were saying.
For example, he acknowledged that the measure would grant automatic vouchers to children of first responders and first-line health care workers. It would also make vouchers available to any student living in the boundaries of a Title I school — those serving a large percentage of low-income students — regardless of their own financial status.
Also eligible would be children of veterans. The measure also would provide vouchers to any student in a school district that is spending more on a per-student basis than the approximately $11,000 that state universities charge in tuition.
Still, Boyer said, it would provide a “lifeline” to students in schools that are not meeting students’ needs.
Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, D-Tucson, said that ignores the fact that many students who come from poor families won’t be able to take advantage of the $7,000 vouchers, and not just because the tuition at many private schools is higher than that. Gonzales said those in rural areas simply don’t have the option of a nearby private school.
Then there’s the transportation issue.
“This doesn’t work for families that are working two jobs, sometimes three jobs, just to keep food on the table and a roof over their families’ head,” Gonzales said, referring to parents who lack the time to drive a child to a private or parochial school.
“They can’t just hop on a city bus,” added Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Glendale.
There’s also the fact that private schools need not take all applicants.
“Eligibility does not equate to the ability to use it,” Quezada said. The “choice” in this program is not for parents but for the schools that get to pick and choose who to admit, he said.
“It’s not our ELL students,” he said, meaning students who need additional instruction to learn English.
“It’s not our kids with disabilities, it’s not our kids with discipline issues, it’s not our kids that are behind in their classes,” Quezada said. “They’re going to pick the kids that are easier and cheaper to educate and so that will raise their scores and make them look like a high-performing school.”
Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, said the opposition to making more vouchers available ignores what already is happening.
“Parents are not walking away from public schools,” he said. “They are absolutely running.”
He said that’s why existing law provides vouchers for students attending schools that are rated D or F.
Foes of Boyer’s measure argued the solution is spending the money to fix schools with low academic achievement. But Leach said that often is fought, as school boards call it an issue of “local control.”
Ultimately, he said, there’s nothing wrong with the state providing funds so parents have more choices. “Parents know best,” Leach said.
Quezada said Leach’s arguments undermine his point. “If it’s happening already, why do we need to expand it?” he asked.
A prior bid by the Republican-controlled Legislature to vastly expand the voucher system was rejected by voters in 2018.
But Boyer said that was because some voucher supporters feared ratifying the legislation would impose a permanent limit on how many vouchers could be provided in the future. He cited polls he said show strong support for what he is proposing.
The question of whether the poor would be helped aside, Quezada said he sees vouchers as a method of promoting segregation, as some parents with the means will take advantage of them to move their children to private schools.
Boyer called that contention “preposterous.” Vouchers are just the reverse, he argued, in providing parents and their children alternatives to neighborhood schools. “Assigning families to inferior schools based upon their home address is true segregation,” he said.
