Published Online: November 3, 2008
Published in Print: November 5, 2008, as 'Stealth Vouchers' Slammed in Texas

State Journal

'Stealth Vouchers' Slammed in Texas

It seemed pretty straightforward at the time.

Texas lawmakers last year overwhelmingly approved legislation to strengthen dropout-prevention efforts. But a pilot program to help people age 25 and under who have quit school earn a diploma has since come under fire.

The Texas State Teachers Association has described the program, as implemented by the Texas Education Agency, as little more than a “stealth voucher plan” providing money to private groups. And some lawmakers claim it goes against their intentions.

“They couldn’t push vouchers through the legislature in an above-board way,” Rita C. Haeker, the union’s president, said in a press release. “So they went through the back door to divert public dollars to private school programs, even though lawmakers warned them not to do so.”

The union has sued to block the state from sending money to the private organizations. No court date has been set.


The program allows private, nonprofit groups—in addition to other entities like public school districts, charter schools, and universities—to receive funding under the $6 million program.

And in August, three of 22 grants were awarded to private nonprofit organizations: Christian Fellowship and the Healy-Murphy Center Inc., both of San Antonio, and the San Marco-based Community Action Inc.

Barbara Scroggie Naggs, an associate commissioner at the Texas Education Agency, rejects the notion that the dropout-recovery pilot is a voucher program. She said the program doesn’t provide scholarships, but helps providers set up recovery programs.

“Three nonprofit organizations received funding,” she said. “Two of them operate private schools, but the private schools aren’t participating in this program.”

But Rep. Diane Patrick, a Republican from Arlington, said she and some other lawmakers believe the program as implemented disregards legislative intent.

“These are dollars that were intended for public schools,” she said. The money was to flow directly to school districts and public charter schools. “Public school [entities] are the fiscal agents,” she said.

Vol. 28, Issue 11, Page 13

Related Stories
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Emailed

Recommended

Commented