Liv Finne of the Washington Policy Center called the recent Seattle Times piece an attack on private schools and on low-income minority and immigrant children

Carleen Johnson
The Center Square Washington

A few days after The Seattle Times editorial board came out against school choice, or vouchers, that give families access to education funding, people – including the two candidates for superintendent of public instruction – are weighing in.

Live Finne, director of the Center for Education at the Washington Policy Center, was sharply critical of The Seattle Times piece and its contention that “private or religious schools could pick the top tier students and athletes and leave the others in public schools with even fewer resources.”

“The research shows that applicants to voucher programs are less advantaged than their peers and come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds,” Finne told The Center Square. “Many are immigrant children and lower income minority children, taking advantage of school choice.”

Finne called the Times piece an attack on private schools and on low-income minority and immigrant children.

Opponents of school choice, she said, falsely argue that traditional public schools will lose funding.

“The data all shows that when lawmakers pass school choice programs, they always increase funding to the traditional public schools,” said Finne, arguing the vast majority of students in “school choice” states stay with their local public school.

“In the 32 states with school choice, the overwhelming number of families stay with their local public school and those few who are not satisfied with their school and want to take advantage of choice should have that option,” she added.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal, who is seeking reelection to a third term, is not a supporter of voucher programs.

“School choice is a euphemism for school privatization,” Reykdal said in an email to The Center Square. “Using taxpayer money to fund for-profit schools, religious institutions, and other privately operated schools violates our State Constitution and has been shown around the country to segregate communities by race, income, religion, and disability. Our public schools offer tremendous choices for families within the law, and we should keep investing in our public schools that are lead by locally elected school boards.”

His challenger in the general election is David Olson, a longtime Peninsula School District board member.

Olson told The Center Square school choice, or voucher systems, would never fly in Washington due to Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

“I’m a supporter of charter schools, and they have elected school boards and they’re accountable,” Olson said.

“If parents have a charter school they can send their child to, rather than the struggling public school in their neighborhood, they should have that option,” he said.

Asked if he supports efforts to increase state funding for charter schools, which are not given access to local levy dollars, Olson was pragmatic.

“It would be good if they were able to do that, but with both the House and Senate in Democratic leadership I just don’t think they’ll move that forward,” he said.

Finne said school choice opponents who suggest it only benefits wealthy families are lying.

“The whole purpose of choice is to give families that are trapped in low-performing public schools an option, so they’re not stuck in failing schools,” Finne said.

She went on to say, “Why wouldn’t you give families a choice when they know the way to prosperity and a comfortable middle class existence is by getting an education. I don’t understand anyone standing in the way of giving families the best option for giving their child an education.”

This report was first published by The Center Square Washington.