- Home
- Josh Cowen's Newsletter
The Private Eye: Josh Cowen’s Newsletter on School Vouchers and Right-Wing Politics
Three Kinds of Voucher Billionaires—and Other Big Questions
Hey Friends, The team at Public Funds Public Schools recently hosted a webinar on education issues in the upcoming Trump Administration. Specific topics were school vouchers in general, a renewed voucher push in places like Tennessee and Texas, and the plan to create a federal voucher scheme through the tax code. That federal plan, a version of which has been proposed by GOP legislators in the past several congresses, would be modeled on existing state voucher tax credit schemes. The goal: nothing short of pushing publicly funded private school vouchers into every state. I want to use this newsletter to answer a couple of questions that came up during that webinar. First up: Why do right-wing billionaires care so much about school vouchers?I get a version of this question everywhere I go to speak. It’s a key question I ask in my book, The Privateers, and I try to give some answers there. But it’s especially important now with Linda McMahon replacing Betsy DeVos as Donald Trump’s voucher-backing billionaire Education Secretary, with news that Elon Musk wants to create his own private school in Texas, with TikTok billionaire Jeff Yass giving $10 million to try to push vouchers into that state, and with the various Koch-backed organizations continuing their own voucher agenda. These are all very different billionaires. But they have one thing in common in their demand for school voucher schemes across the country: vouchers fit into the way they think the world ought to work and, being billionaires, they’re used to getting what they want. Nonetheless, the differences are helpful to understand. I see these billionaires and their associated advocacy organizations falling into three categories representing three different areas of public policy that billionaires want to influence. The first, and oldest, are the Christian Nationalists—the folks behind the idea that a far-right notion of Christianity should form the basis of American law and policy. This is the Betsy DeVos version. And the Linda McMahon version. Betsy DeVos has said she wants vouchers to literally “advance God’s kingdom” on earth. It’s why her 501(c)(4) is pushing a voucher campaign to “save Catholic schools” and why more regional, billionaire-founded groups like the Herzog Foundation are pushing vouchers in the heartland to help fill seats in church pews. (There’s high-quality research evidence, by the way, that when vouchers pass they become the dominant source of funding for churches that run private schools). Next are the zero-government folks. This is mostly Koch Network groups like Stand Together, and Yes Every Kid. As I recount in The Privateers, the Koch brothers had longstanding ties to Milton Friedman himself. They want school vouchers because they see public schools as “government” and—being from oil and gas money—they associate government with “regulation.” Not for nothing do many of these groups hold up the voucher scheme created by the Pinochet regime in Chile—which coupled economic deregulation with rollbacks to civil liberties—as a policy model. Voucher godfather Milton Friedman, along with other University of Chicago colleagues, advised Pinochet in the 1970s. Third, and finally, there are the tech bros like Musk and Yass. These guys are new players in the billionaire voucher shell game. Without the long histories of the DeVos or Koch groups it’s hard to identify a coherent aim or ideology that ties them to vouchers. Except for one thing: the privatized, monetized idea of education as just another commodity. I’ve compared school vouchers to crypto-currency—something in which both Musk and Yass have emerging interest. If your world view draws from an every-bro-for-himself mentality, stoked with the conviction that you’re a genius investor (and to be fair, your billions seem evidence to that effect!), it makes some sense that a check from taxpayers to go speculate on an open education market has some appeal. We’ll see how dominant that appeal becomes—and how it interacts with the older DeVos and Koch ideologies in the coming years. If Trump’s victory coalition on other issues is any indication, they’ll find much to draw from one another. Now for the Second Set of Questions:Do you have advice on how to talk with law and policymakers about crafting state legislation that keeps public funds for public schools in light of the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue decision and how that impacts no-aid clauses? Have any states enacted pre-emptive legislation that protects public schools and public school funding from voucher programs? For these I’m going to ask Jessica Levin, ELC’s awesome Litigation Director and the head of the PFPS campaign, to weigh in. I’m learning so much from Jessica this year while I’m at ELC, so let’s just go to the expert: Thanks Josh, and great questions from our webinar audience. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Espinoza decision dealt with Montana’s “no aid” clause, which barred public funding specifically to religious schools, and a majority of the Court found that provision problematic under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. But there are a number of states that have a different type of no aid clause that is not limited to religious schools, but rather bars public funding of private schools in general. These are very powerful bulwarks against voucher programs. In fact, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently struck down the state’s voucher program under a no aid clause of that very type. We at Education Law Center were proud to help represent the plaintiffs in that case, Eidson v. South Carolina Department of Education. So, what can states do to erect legal firewalls protecting public schools and the resources they need to serve their students? Even better than pre-emptive legislation are constitutional protections like the South Carolina style of no aid clause that preserve state funds for public schools. These are not necessarily products of long-ago times; Michigan enacted such an amendment to its constitution in the 1970s. We just saw Kentucky voters reject a constitutional amendment meant to open the door to vouchers. This indicates potential to enact voucher-blocking constitutional amendments. Thanks, Jessica, and with that, we’ll wrap up this edition of the newsletter. Stay tuned next time! Josh P.S. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, please consider joining the PFPS distribution list so you can receive future editions directly in your inbox. P.P.S. Don’t forget to check out the first webinar in the ELC series “What Do We Do Now?” that featured Josh and Jessica on private school vouchers. The second in the series is on Dec. 16; more info here. During this time of giving, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Education Law Center, which directs the PFPS campaign. Follow @EdLawCenter and @pfpsorg on Facebook, X, BlueSky, and LinkedIn.
More on the Election: State Results and the Emerging Trump 2.0 Education Agenda (a.k.a.: What Do Billionaires Want?)
Hi everyone,Well, we’re into the holiday season, and in the post-election period that means cabinet and other appointments (I know, nothing says holiday spirit quite like it, right?). Over the last few weeks, it’s become clear that Donald Trump’s appointments mainly come from a roster of his personal loyalists.Linda McMahon and the Billionaire Education AgendaTrump has followed exactly that pattern by naming Linda McMahon his nominee to head the U.S. Department of Education. McMahon ran the Small Business Administration during the first Trump term, and media reports have already made much of her thin education record. To me those resume items are far less important than her most recent role as chair of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI)—a dark money, vaguely focused outfit founded in the months following January 6.What this pick means is that, perhaps even more than the right-wing obsession with dismantling the very department McMahon is slated to lead, school vouchers will be item number one for Trump’s education agenda. McMahon founded AFPI with at least $20 million of her own money, partnering with Texas billionaire Tim Dunn in the effort. Dunn is the Texas-specific force working, as the New York Times put it: “to send public funding to private schools and to increase Christianity’s role in civic life.”My take on all of this is that the McMahon pick is about creating space to push these kinds of policy priorities while making sure the nominee doesn’t embarrass Trump. Expect to see a host of right-wing idea people and political hatchet-men coming in and out of the Department of Education. They’ll be looking to carve up, reorganize, and shut down programming they don’t like. They’ll reduce the Department’s budget ask to Congress and try to push the limits of any and all discretionary authority they have on, say, Title IX protections on gender-related discrimination. But the point of McMahon is to reward a long-time Trump loyalist who will let all of those things happen while the big, chief policy goal of a federal, tax credit voucher scheme gets priority. That scheme, currently called the Educational Choice for Children Act, which would establish a broad federal voucher program, is currently in play in Congress.It’s important to remember that Congress doesn’t belong to Donald Trump. So federal vouchers are hardly a foregone conclusion—especially if members of both parties stand up for their districts, like they did at times during the first Trump administration by rejecting cuts to public education.More on Election Results and Next StepsAnd on that note, I wanted to use the rest of this newsletter to make a point about the politics of the billionaire-backed school voucher push. Basically, that vast amounts of billionaire spending are necessary to ram voucher bills through state legislatures precisely because voters hate these schemes.That argument also includes the idea that voters in places like Texas selected pro-voucher legislators. But it’s important to remember how long and how much money from right-wing billionaires even that result has taken—among otherwise friendly Republicans. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has tried for nearly two years to ram vouchers through. And just as it did in other states, the Texas voucher push has cost millions in both in-state and out-of-state billionaire funding to come even as close as they have. What do those millions buy? Mostly favorable results in Republican primaries to try to weaken conservative opponents to vouchers. But as we know, actual voters tend to reject vouchers when given a direct say on them as opposed to a choice between legislators hand-picked by billionaires. Vouchers went 0-3 on Election Day on three statewide ballots: Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska. In Colorado, the result was a bit closer, in part because the ballot language was vague and contained a statement about parents’ right to direct their child’s education (who’s against that?!). In Nebraska and Kentucky, clear majorities of voters rejected vouchers while—and this is key—backing Donald Trump for the presidency. In Nebraska, 57% of voters actually pulled an existing voucher law off the books. In Kentucky, 65% of voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have expressly authorized the state to spend public dollars on private school tuition. All 120 Kentucky counties voted against that plan, 119 of them by double digits.With those results, the streak continues: vouchers have never survived a statewide ballot where voters get to weigh in directly on these schemes. Public Schools are EverywhereIt’s really pretty simple. There are so many communities across the country where public schools hold a special place in folks’ hearts. And in their economies. Voters may not say so directly, but they’re perceiving what researchers find: that public school investments not only raise academic achievement, they also reduce crime rates, for example, and even may lead to greater health and life expectancy. And on the flip side, as voters may remember all too well from tough times like the Great Recession, cutting public school funding hurts kids and families.Look, there’s a reason real voters keep defeating vouchers even when they support Trump or other right-wing politicians on other issues. Public schools are everywhere—in red communities and blue communities. Just before the election, the New York Times published a massive new data tool showing where voters live with respect to key services, industries, and professions. So, for example: lots of public relations professionals in blue areas, lots of taxidermists in red spots, lots of Lululemons in blue areas, lots of Hardee’s and Sonic Drive-Ins in red. But you know what’s everywhere? Public schools. Check it out yourself. Alongside McDonalds (really, is that a surprise?), public schools are the one spot in the Times data tool you can’t really find a political pattern for based on left/right voting. (And on the flip-side, check out the new Public Funds Public Schools data tool to explore where private schools are, and aren’t, to see where parents would actually be able to use a voucher if those schemes came to town).Look, there’s work to be done. The extent to which public schools are able to fulfill their mission to serve everyone—every child—is going to be determined to a large degree by whether they’re given the support and the investment needed to do so. The data and the evidence are clear on that. It’s also the right thing to do. Voters spoke on Election Day. They didn’t choose everything I had hoped they would, but by and large they chose to keep and improve and ultimately fight for their public schools.Have a wonderful start to the holidays, I’ll get back to you again soon! Josh P.S. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, please consider joining the PFPS distribution list so you can receive future editions directly in your inbox.
Thoughts on the Election, Answering Questions from My Recent PFPS Webinar, and a Renewed Opposition
Dear Friends, Quick Election Reactions There is a lot to be said and done about public education in the weeks, months, and years ahead. For now, I want to just call your attention to the fact that school vouchers went down in defeat in all three states where they were put to voters on Election Day: Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky. Voter opposition to vouchers remains broad and bipartisan. In fact, it’s precisely because voters reject voucher schemes that the right-wing billionaires behind them keep turning to state legislators, who are easier (and frankly cheaper) to manipulate than hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens. Privateers Q&A from the PFPS Webinar There were so many great questions from the Public Funds Public Schools webinar that featured me and my book, The Privateers. A few of those were very specific, and I’ve tried to provide useful responses. Others were about the broader political landscape, and I wanted to use the opportunity to make a few bigger comments about public education and civic engagement in our new reality. First, the technical questions: How do you see the rightwing privateers shifting their messaging in order to pass vouchers/ESAs in purple states or states with slim red majorities? Not only did vouchers go 0-3 on Election Day, including with Trump supporters, these schemes have never survived any other statewide ballot measures—being put to real voters—even in red states. I think what’s going to happen in January is that Governors Abbott and Lee will try once more to ram vouchers through what they hope are now more pliant legislatures in Texas and Tennessee, respectively. And then I think the voucher lobby, the billionaires and the Trump administration together will continue the culture war. They don’t need to convince ordinary voters, and they haven’t been able to do so. But if they can keep influencing GOP primaries and the federal courts, that will be the strategy. Where can we receive information to communicate and inform our community members? Also, what approach would you recommend that you may have observed and how do you communicate this information in very conservative based areas without creating mass conflict within the community. Well, Public Funds Public Schools has a great set of resources! I’d start there. They even have interviews with advocates in conservative states who give tips on getting out the anti-voucher message effectively. And other groups like the Network for Public Education, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Coalition for Public Education, and the National Education Policy Center all provide resources on a number of education questions. I hear from voucher supporters that they should be able to take the money for education for their child and use it however they want to educate their child. How would you reply to this parent? Public money already follows our children to school—as long as they’re enrolled in traditional public or charter schools. The only thing that doesn’t happen everywhere is tax dollars going to private, usually religious, education. But even in the states that do have such voucher schemes, remember this: it’s not really school choice. It’s the school’s choice. It’s a total myth that parents can customize their children’s education unfettered by rules and regulations. It’s that with vouchers, the private schools are doing the choosing. How do voucher recipient schools escape regulation? What is the special sauce of these programs that they escape oversight — that would be a step to prevent the failure you describe? In the old days when I first started studying this stuff as a young doctoral student (2005 or so), oversight of emerging voucher systems was still in place. The federal D.C. voucher scheme, which began enrolling kids in 2005, had real evaluation provisions. This was the era of No Child Left Behind, and lawmakers more or less extended those rules to voucher programs. Ditto with Louisiana and Indiana, for example, on the state level. In fact, that’s how we know how terrible voucher results have been over the last decade: even conservatives wanted to know whether parents were getting the results that private schools were promising them. But since the first Trump term, when we really started to see how badly vouchers were performing on academic outcomes, there’s been a real effort to avoid that oversight by omitting these requirements from many newer voucher laws. Voucher supporters are afraid of news headlines like these. When challenged about the lack of any real assessment as to how well students are learning under our voucher program in NH, a lawmaker said recently that it’s the parents whose children are in the voucher program who are the best judges for how the program is performing. What would you say to that? That’s more or less what Ken Starr said (remember him?) on the steps of the Supreme Court after leading the first voucher defense there back in 2002. That’s what voucher advocates have been saying for years. As a parent, I’d simply say: I’m very skeptical of any school that refuses to let me check their work. If that private school—or the lobby promoting voucher schemes—is so confident in what they’re selling, basic accountability shouldn’t be a problem. The fact that they’re so terrified that parents could compare results between their voucher school and a local public school should tell you a lot about what really happens when vouchers come to town. How do vouchers impact students with disabilities? With the expansion of vouchers, do we know what the impact is on students with specialized learning needs? In the past, states have carved out some voucher programs specifically for students with disabilities. Today, the emphasis is on vouchers for anyone, regardless of income or other characteristics. In almost all these programs, whether narrow or broad, students lose most of their rights under special education and disability laws. And in today’s world, there is no expectation that individual private schools will have to serve students with disabilities. The federal Government Accountability Office has previously warned about misinformation and false promises from voucher schools to parents with special needs students. And that’s something Arizona’s own Attorney General has warned about more recently. Now for two fundamental questions about education and democracy: What steps can we take to fight back? I just keep going back to the fact that voters don’t like these schemes—even conservative voters who backed Donald Trump. In The Privateers, I talk about the fact that school vouchers are one of the religious right’s very top policy priorities, alongside rolling back reproductive rights. The parallel is especially apt because voters hate rollbacks to their reproductive freedom, too. In this past election, not only did voters reject school vouchers in three states at the same time many backed Donald Trump, they also enshrined reproductive rights in seven more states. In four of those states—including Arizona, a key voucher state—Donald Trump won a majority of votes even while voters decided to protect reproductive rights. No matter what administration is in power, these fundamental questions about freedom will remain, and I think we need to remember that on those specific questions, more people agree with us than with the far-right. Join Education Law Center/Public Funds Public Schools next week for a webinar on concrete tools and steps to fight back against vouchers during Trump’s second term. Register here. How do you warn public school supporters about the extensive web of right-wing/privatization interests you've documented without sounding like a conspiracy theorist? Educator and author Jonathan Kozol said, “I used to think I could make a difference in education, but now I realize all I can do is stand back and watch.” Dr. Cowen, what can we do besides stand back and watch the dismantling of public schools by billionaires? For my part, I get called a conspiracy theorist all the time. It’s the Heritage Foundation’s favorite insult to use against me. And coming from the same people that wrote Project 2025, it’s an honor. I also get called a union activist, because I’ve appeared on stage with Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers. And people call me woke because I spoke at a summit with Nikole Hannah-Jones. But in both cases, I am proud to have done so. Name-calling is to be expected when you’re doing the hard work. The reality is, many of these name-callers are just power-worshippers who have no problem being servient to far-right billionaires who will never know their names or care about them as people. Here’s what I’m trying to say: I’d rather be called an ally to unions that fight for working folks, journalists who ask questions about power and injustice, or educators on the front lines for our kids every day, than surrender my dignity to some of the wealthiest people on the planet. Know truth, and let it keep you free. We know that the evidence is on the side of new investments in public schools. We know that many state courts have said: “so is the law.” And we know voters are too—we just got another reminder. Standing up for democracy, and for education as a fundamental human right, is going to be an effort. And we do need to think hard about new strategies to take that stand in a way that speaks to people where they live, not just where or how we’d like them to be. So let those of us who can, get back to work. Josh P.S. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, please consider joining the PFPS distribution list so you can receive future editions directly in your inbox.