Susana Martinez
Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez told me last year that she supported vouchers. At the time, I assumed that meant what the word traditionally means – that she supported allowing tax dollars allotted for a student’s public education to instead be used for tuition at another public or private school.
Martinez has made a handful of statements on the campaign trail that seem to back that up, including this statement from a candidate forum held in April in Otero County:
“We find that school choice is very important, parents having a say so in whether or not they’re going to have their child attend the local elementary school that may be failing their child, or if they get to receive a tax credit, voucher, whatever it is you want to call it, that that child should have in order to select a charter school, a Christian school, a Baptist, whatever kind of school that parent decides their child should go to. The dollars that are set aside for that child should follow that child, and the parent knows best as to where that child should go to school.”
Now that she’s released a formal education plan, Martinez still supports increasing school choice – but the details are somewhat different than what she’s been saying on the campaign trail. She does propose vouchers for students with disabilities who have Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in place. If parents of those students aren’t satisfied with their children’s progress, according to Martinez’s plan, “they will then become eligible for a scholarship which will allow them to transfer to another public school or transfer to a private school.”
Martinez is calling it a scholarship instead of a voucher, but the ticket to another school would equal the funding the local district received to educate the child or the cost of tuition and fees to attend the private school – whichever is less.
For all other students, however, Martinez isn’t supporting traditional vouchers. She’s instead calling for the state to provide tax credits to nonprofits that provide scholarships to low-income students who can’t otherwise afford private school. That’s different than her previous statement that “The dollars that are set aside for that child should follow that child.”
Explaining the shift
Here’s how Martinez explained the shift in a statement to NMPolitics.net:
“I have long said it is morally reprehensible to trap kids in failing schools and that we also have a moral obligation to turn failing public schools around. My plan for education reform addresses both principles by targeting the lowest-performing students and schools with additional resources and reforms and creating a scholarship program to increase school choice to ensure kids are not trapped in failing schools.
“My scholarship plan would provide tax credits to businesses who donate to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations. These scholarships would increase school choice to help economically disadvantaged children out of failing schools, but would do so with private donations, rather than public school monies. This would ensure resources are available to enact the necessary reforms to improve the failing public schools.”
Martinez said her plan “accomplishes both of my earlier stated principles while also encouraging the type of partnership between schools and business that is critical to creating a world-class education system in New Mexico.”
Democrats attack
Democrats are jumping on Martinez’s shift away from traditional vouchers. On Wednesday, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Diane Denish began airing a radio ad stating that Martinez “would cut public school funding that means larger classes and less one-on-one attention for students.”
Martinez responded at a news conference about her education plan by saying Denish is “lying.”
“I would not take any money from the schools. I would not take any tax dollars from the schools to place it into private schools,” she said at the news conference.
Martinez also said she would exempt public schools from budget cuts.
Denish is on shaky ground if she’s saying that Martinez’s tax-credit plan for low-income students would lead to budget cuts and larger classes in public schools. It’s true that fewer students equals fewer dollars under the school-funding formula, and it’s logical that public schools would lose some students with an improved private-school scholarship program.
But in theory that would also mean fewer costs to run the public schools. And, most importantly, fewer students means fewer students. It’s a stretch to say fewer students would lead to larger class sizes.
The same is true of Martinez’s “scholarships” for students with disabilities. Such a program would, in theory, lead to fewer dollars and fewer students in the public schools.
Denish also claimed in a news release that Martinez’s tax-credit proposal “already exists.” She’s referring to Educate New Mexico, which is similar to what Martinez is proposing – individuals and corporations can give tax-exempt donations to the nonprofit to fund partial scholarships for students to attend private schools.
But there’s an important difference: While donations to Educate New Mexico are tax-exempt because the organization is a nonprofit – which would also be true under Martinez’s proposal – Martinez is proposing an additional state tax credit for those who give. That’s an incentive that doesn’t currently exist.
In addition, Martinez is proposing scholarships that would cover the full cost of attending a private school.
What about the pre-K program?
While we’re on the subject of vouchers, it’s worth noting that Denish is a definite opponent of vouchers in K-12 education. But she’s also been a champion of the state’s pre-K program. And, interestingly, here’s what the Foundation for Educational Choice has to say about that program:
“New Mexico school choice advocates should note New Mexico’s current pre-K voucher program, established in 2005. By having the Children, Youth and Families Department reimburse eligible private providers and by creating a separate voucher fund from which those payments are made, the pre-K program avoids New Mexico’s Blaine Amendments and its public school funding clause.”
The Denish campaign says the foundation’s characterization of the pre-K program as a voucher system is inaccurate. Spokesman Chris Cervini said the program is more comparable to a charter school system. From Cervini:
“This was not a voucher program. First, half the funding was allotted to private, nonprofit early-learning centers because they have the facilities to accommodate the additional volume of students coming into the system. Second, Pre-K funding was awarded through an RFP process where schools wanting to take part could apply for the funding. This is clearly different from a voucher program where public funds are taken out of the system and given to individuals so that they can put that money toward private school tuition.”
“… Essentially, the reason the program was undertaken in this manner was that there are not enough public facilities and trained K-12 staff to accommodate the influx of a whole new age cohort.”