Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
There have been several recent letters speaking out against school choice funding in North Dakota. One of the writers even called it "theft from schools." However, an entirely opposite reality becomes evident when one looks at the facts.
Fact #1 is the constitutional responsibility of the state to educate all students. Fact #2 is that currently, approximately 7,900 North Dakota students in pre-K through grade 12 are being educated at accredited non-public schools in North Dakota - though without receiving any funding from the state for their education. Fact #3 is that the parents of these students have been and continue to pay twice for this education. First, they pay for all the costs of teachers and instructional materials for the education of their children at their accredited non-public school - and then, they also pay again with taxes that go into funding public schools - all without receiving any state funding back to help with the education of their own children. This is obviously not fair to them - and actually amounts to subsidizing the state's responsibility to the extent of educating nearly 8,000 students! And this doesn't even include the hundreds of millions of dollars that these parents have paid to build and maintain their non-public school buildings throughout the state.
Fact #4 is that nearly every other state except North Dakota has some form of school choice funding. They do so because they recognize that whether the education takes place at a public school or at an accredited non-public school - all of their state's children are being educated. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 ruled it unconstitutional to ban school choice funding (Carson v. Makin), which will apply to North Dakota's earlier constitutional ban on choice funding known as the "Blaine Amendment."
The one valid argument, however, that I've heard for a less than full school choice funding is that non-public schools do not currently have to enroll all students, such as those who may require additional and specialized staffing, etc. While some non-public schools do enroll these students, for those who choose not to, I would agree that their funding formula could and probably should be less than 100%. The proper formula and amounts shouldn't be that difficult to figure based on the percentage of total education costs for these additional staffings. Furthermore, if some school choice funding were made available, then all of the accredited non-public schools would more likely be able to provide the specialized staffing needed to be able to also enroll any extra-needs students.
Let's not discriminate against the non-public schools who are also educating our state's children and youth. As long the schools are "accredited" by the state - and with the possible "less than 100% adjustment formula" as discussed above - school choice funding is the fairest way to provide an education to all of our state's students!