Illustration by Getty Images.
“School choice” proponents are pressing Montana lawmakers to approve legislation they argue would offer children more educational options with the financial support they need.
Private school can be so expensive, some parents have to choose which of their children will attend, and a bill to offer tax credits for donations and educational expenses would help, proponents told the House Education committee at a recent hearing.
Tuition at Loyola Sacred Heart High School in Missoula will top $14,000 next year, said Tom Noonan, president of Missoula Catholic Schools. Noonan said parents need financial support to attend, and the bill will help students achieve.
“School choice is not just a policy, it is a remarkable tool of empowerment,” Noonan said.
Opponents, though, said in just a decade, the credits could cost the state nearly $100 million in combination with an earlier education tax credit, given the way the bill allows a cap to continue to increase.
Opponents also argued the bill creates a new separate system of education even as public schools struggle, and it fails to allow public school students the same opportunities as private school students.
In recent years, parents who support “school choice” have pushed for state support for private schools. In 2020 in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the U.S. Supreme Court found the state’s prohibition on allowing religious schools to participate in a tax credit in the state to be unconstitutional.
The Montana Supreme Court had invalidated the tax credit program altogether based on a prohibition against aid to schools controlled by churches.
In a hearing last week, bill sponsor Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, said the program in House Bill 320 is written to align with the Espinoza case, and he pushed back against criticism it would hurt public education in Montana.
“I’m a 43-year public school educator, and I have no interest in harming public schools whatsoever,” Deming said. “In fact, I want them to be the best public schools in America, and I think this is one of the ways we can do it.”
But Lance Melton, with the Montana School Boards Association, said the bill, “ironically enough,” runs contrary to Espinoza by discriminating against people who choose to enroll their children in public school and excluding them from participation.
He said a bill adopted last session offers tax credits for both public and private schools, “equal measures on both sides,” and he helped it pass.
“This bill is not that. It actually bypasses the very equality that we’ve previously agreed upon,” Melton said.
***
The bill would create Montana’s Academic Prosperity Program for Scholars, or MAPPS.
In its first year, it would offer an aggregate tax credit for up to $4 million for taxpayer or corporate donations toward educational expenses, and it would offer another $4 million in credits for which parents can apply.
If the programs reach 80% of their limits, both can bump up 25% each succeeding year.
The bill would offer an incentive to donor taxpayers or corporations to contribute up to $200,000 for education expenses and receive an equal credit, Deming said.
It would allow families at or below 500% of the poverty level to apply for support for education expenses up to $7,000 a year, he said.
Qualified expenses include tuition, textbooks, fees, and other resources approved by an oversight council.
Parents also can apply for an education tax credit.
“The $8 million aggregate for MAPPS is a small expense for a life changing program for families seeking education choice for their children, just like the current tax credit scholarship,” Deming said.
A fiscal note has been requested to assess the cost of the bill but was not available at press time, although the bill also is expected to be amended.
The bill also would create a council with members appointed by the governor to oversee MAPPS.
The legislation would apply to “qualified education providers,” defined in part as nonpublic schools and nonprofits, which may or may not be accredited.
At the hearing, Chair Linda Reksten, R-Polson, estimated at least 75 and as many as 100 people wanted to testify, and proponents and opponents shared their perspectives on the bill in light of other “school choice” legislation.
Sen. Sue Vinton, R-Billings, told the committee demand for a separate program adopted earlier, the Big Sky Scholarship Program, is high, but that program allows support only for tuition and tutoring.
Sometimes, parents want to customize education a different way, and Vinton characterized MAPPS as a “universal program that offers all children all the educational options available in our state.”
Additionally, Vinton said some “significant school choice” programs adopted by the legislature have yet to take effect.
“Many of these new laws are tied up in court, and thereby Montanans, like those sitting behind me, are being denied the freedom to direct the education of their own children,” said Vinton, a co-sponsor of the bill.
Critics of the bill, however, said it would eventually cost everyone.
Jenny Walsh, a mom of three in Missoula, said the program is a handout for rich families, and families already have many educational choices in Montana.
“This is a way for families, wealthy families, to pay less in taxes and would ultimately cost us all more,” Walsh said.
Kim Popham, with the Montana Federation of Public Employees, said public schools already work with scarce resources.
The bill would divert those resources, and it runs contrary to other legislation aimed at increasing teacher pay and widely supported, Popham said. The committee heard House Bill 252 earlier in the week.
“This committee is poised to make significant progress in addressing Montana’s school funding crisis,” Popham said. “This bill would set us back by siphoning those tax dollars away from the general fund.
“Many of our rural schools are already operating on a shoestring budget. Starting a new parallel system of funding education could have devastating effects, especially in those rural schools.”
The Montana Rural Education Association also spoke against the bill.
Melton, with the school boards association, calculated that the pair of credits, in conjunction with a tax credit already in law, will reach a cost of roughly $100 million in a decade if the triggers on a cap in the bill are reached each year.
But organizations that favor “school choice” spoke in support of the bill, including the Alliance for Choice in Education, Ed Choice, and the Montana Family Foundation.
One proponent, Henry Kriegel, with Americans for Prosperity Montana, said many dropouts fall through the cracks, and the impact of their decision is not studied, but he said they cost society as a result.
“I’m not saying that every kid who falls through the cracks can be helped by alternative education, but a number of them can, and it’s up to us to be able to provide that for these kids, which is why we stand in support of this particular bill,” Kriegel said.
And outcomes are good, said Lisa Russell, with ACE Scholarships of Montana. Russell said since its founding, the organization has provided more than 10,400 partial student scholarships through nearly $22 million in private funding.
“I’m incredibly proud to report that of those 10,411 students, we have a 100% graduation rate for scholars,” Russell said. “The best part of my job is getting to talk to those families and hearing their stories about how the right school and a scholarship has completely transformed their child’s life.”
Opponents, though, raised questions about the lack of oversight allowed by the bill.
Doug Reisig, with the Montana Quality Education Coalition, said the legislation delegates to the MAPPS council the power to define “qualified educational expenses with no guiding principles or guardrails,” and as such, is unconstitutional.
At least one opponent pointed to foibles in Arizona’s “school choice” program, and Rob Watson, with School Administrators of Montana, said this state isn’t immune to fraud and waste.
A records request of expenses approved under a separate bill, House Bill 393 from last session, showed “a lot of acceptable expenditures,” but also some questionable ones, Watson said. He pointed to reimbursement for a circus camp, likely a quality program, he said, but questionable as a taxpayer expense.
“We do have an issue of using taxpayer money to fund a circus camp when everyone else would probably fund that out of their own pocket,” Watson said.
The committee had yet to take action on the bill at press time, and draft amendments had not been posted.