By Rep. Maria Chappelle-Nadal
Missouri House of Representatives
District 72

February 24, 2004

Dear Friends & Neighbors,

The topic of school choice has been buzzing around the capitol this week. Rep. Jane Cunningham (R-St. Louis County), a well-documented fundraiser for pro-voucher organizations, is getting ready to submit a bill enacting a tax credit to individuals and businesses for donating to Educational Assistance Organizations. These organizations collect money from private entities for the purpose of distributing scholarships to students to attend private schools. This bill would put into place the entire structure for collecting and distributing the scholarships as well as a state tax credit to the donors for 90% of their contribution.

As of right now, I am opposed to this legislation for the following reasons:

It is unconstitutional to use state money to fund religious institutions. Article 9, Section 8 of the Missouri state constitution expressly forbids state funding of religious schools, stating that no government body ?shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever.? I?m personally unclear as to how reimbursing private individuals for contributing money to send children to private/religious schools equates to it being non-governmentally funded. If the bill had a provision limiting the types of schools the scholarships could be used for, excluding those controlled by religious interests, then I might feel differently. I?m sure that we?re all aware of the dangers of mixing Church and State. I?m sure that we would all adamantly agree that mixing Church and State is not a good idea if directly asked. Just because this bill creates an intermediary for State money before it reaches a religious institution does not mean that Church and State have been kept exclusive.

Personally, I would not want the State to come into a place of worship and start regulating the beliefs or practices of that community, the same as I would not want a Religious institution to come into a public school and dictate the way the children were taught, regardless of their individual beliefs.

This bill does not help low-income families. It is being touted as a way for lower income parents to exercise control over their child?s education, enabling them to move outside of the public school system so that their children have a chance at a better education. In states across the country, putting more emphasis on the quality of education in public schools has raised the academic outcome of public schools more than the competition of tax credits that pull money and resources out of the public schools. This bill also has numerous loopholes that would allow families with children already in private schools to receive the scholarship as a way to defray costs. In the past, programs like this have been used to subsidize families that are capable of paying out of pocket, not families who need the program to afford it.

This bill will not reduce public education costs. In fact, this bill sets up two school systems to be funded, one public and one private, both with operating and marketing costs, pulling money from the state to promote using state funds at private institutions.

This bill is an opportunity to use public funds for private discrimination. The rules in Rep Cunningham?s bill state that an institution cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. I think that?s great, but I?m sure we could all name a few categories that were left off of the non-discrimination clause. This bill does not give the option to go to the best school academically, but the best school academically that will accept you.

There is no way to guarantee that the scholarship will cover the cost of the private school. There are numerous examples from other states of schools charging scholarship recipients more than other students. The bill being proposed in Missouri does not have a clause to prevent it from happening here. The scholarship has a ceiling, and if the school of your choice charges more, that?s for you to work out, not the scholarship fund.

I am still researching the proposed legislation and gathering information so I can make a decision that reflects my commitment to supporting public policy that?s best for our children.

UPDATE - FIRST STEPS

Yesterday, an amendment to House Committee Substitute for House Bill 468 was passed that takes $1 million out of the Treasurer?s office and puts it into First Steps. While this does not restore all of the funding that the governor has cut from the program in his budget, it does guarantee that this program will remain in the budget. Now we can continue working on ways to restore its full funding knowing that the program will still be there to receive the funds.