charter schools

Charter schools continue to grow in Memphis and Shelby County

PHOTO: Kyle Kurlick for Chalkbeat

A gradual but seismic shift in the governance and operation of public schools is taking place in Memphis schools, as the number of charter schools run in the city by Shelby County Schools and the state-run Achievement School District continues to boom. 

Ten charter schools, some overseen by the state and some by the regular school district, will open their doors for the first time in Memphis next year, and many charters that already exist are adding grades. 

Local education leaders say they are looking toward New Orleans, where 90 percent of students attend charter schools, as a model for improving public education in a historically troubled district.

As in New Orleans, both the traditional school district and a state-run district – here, the Achievement School District, or ASD – can authorize charter schools in Tennessee. Currently, most charters in the district are authorized by Shelby County Schools and more students attend those schools, but that balance could shift over time. The ASD, which started running schools in 2012-13, can take over any school ranked in the bottom 5 percent in the state, which includes 69 schools in Memphis.

Charter schools are publicly-funded and are held to the same academic standards as other public schools. In Tennessee, charter schools are technically part of the school district that authorizes them. But they have independent boards, and the nonprofits that run them have total control over their schools’ budget, hiring, curriculum, and schedule – responsibilities traditionally taken care of by a district’s central office.

The number of charters in Shelby County has been growing since 2002, as local and national philanthropists have supported local (“homegrown”) and national charter school operators looking to set up shop in Memphis, as the state’s original law has gradually been loosened to permit more schools (a cap was removed) and to allow more students to attend those schools (initially, only students in low-performing schools could attend a charter). Federal education policy has also encouraged the growth of the sector and funded it through grant programs; a bipartisan bill promoting charters was recently floated in the federal House of Representatives.

More charters means an evolving, and likely shrinking, role for the regular school district’s central office: Managing charter schools consists mainly of overseeing schools’ performance, rather than the staffing, curriculum, budgeting, and other services the district provides to traditional public schools. More students attending charter schools means the district must support its other schools with a dwindling pool of funds, as money follows students to their new schools.

While many public school leaders and teachers have viewed charter schools as competition, Shelby County Schools superintendent Dorsey Hopson II said he welcomes the changes, as long as they are improving education for Memphis students. The district has already given some “charter-like” powers, such as school-level hiring, to some of its principals, and its budget says that approach is likely to expand.

The hope is that schools that operate outside of the current bureaucracy will be more efficient, effective, and/or innovative. The school system in Memphis, which has a majority African-American and low-income student population, has, with some exceptions, long had a reputation for unsafe and low-performing schools. Advocates say charter schools provide an option for parents and students who are dissatisfied with their regular public school, and that increasing enrollment illustrates that there is a demand for such options. They also argue that high-performing schools will attract students, while low-performing schools will be shut down.

But the long-term implications of more charter schools for teachers, students, and the existing system are complex. Other school systems with large portions of charter schools have struggled to regulate schools’ admissions and discipline policies and financial practices, and research has shown that the quality of the charter schools varies just as much as the quality of regular public schools.

And some questions remain unanswered: State legislators have been debating who should be able to run charters, who should be able to attend schools run by the ASD, what to do when boards veto charters, and what to do with charter schools who are ranked in the bottom five percent in the state, among other issues. The Tennessee Charter School Center, which advocates for and incubates charter schools, says districts need to work on being strong authorizers for the schools.

All of this change has been overshadowed in recent years as the Memphis metropolitan area has undergone a historic merger between the urban and suburban school district, and subsequent plans to “demerge” the system as suburban leaders have created their own new school districts.

But the decentralization of the school system as the charter sector grows, and competition from the ASD, may ultimately represent a more profound shift in how public schools are run and operated.

Growth in 2014-15:

  • Shelby County Schools will have 41 charter schools in 2014-15, up from 39 this year.
  • There will be four brand-new Shelby County Schools-authorized charter schools – Memphis Rise Academy, Vision Prep, City University School of Independence, and the DuBois High of Leadership and Public Policy.
  • Two schools in the DuBois network , run by former Memphis mayor and schools superintendent Willie Herenton, closed  earlier this year.
  • The state-run Achievement School District is opening seven new schools run by charter operators, five of which are taking over existing schools and one, run by KIPP, that will be a “fresh start.” The ASD is also opening two alternative schools called Pathways.
  • Thirteen Shelby County-authorized charter schools are adding a grade next year. Six schools within the ASD are also adding a grade, and Klondike Prep is adding three.

Long-term growth:

  • Shelby County Schools intends to turn some of its lowest-performing schools over to charters as early as 2015-16.
  • The district’s initial budget for 2014-15 outlines plans to “increase the number of high-quality charter schools where they’re needed.”
  • The ASD, which currently runs 23 schools, will eventually run as many as 50 schools in Memphis, all of them charters, according to its superintendent Chris Barbic.
  • The ASD has authorized several charter operators to run larger numbers of schools in the state, depending on how their first schools do: Green Dot, which is taking over its first school next year, can open as many as 10 schools, for instance.
  • Several charter operators already authorized by the ASD have not yet begun running schools: Houston-based YES Prep and locally-grown Artesian Community Schools are among the groups planning to run schools in Memphis in 2015-16.
  • The ASD has also received letters of intent from 10 additional charter operators hoping to open schools in Tennessee in the future.
  • Several Shelby County Schools- and ASD-authorized charters will continue adding grades.

Here’s a look at some of the numbers:

Charter school trends in Shelby County Memphis | Create Infographics

What are the budget implications?

Federal, state, and local funds follow students to charter schools, so as enrollment grows, the budget will shift accordingly and, over time, the portion of funds allocated to non-charter schools will shrink.

Charter school spending is the fastest-growing portion of the district’s budget: It grew by 15.6 percent, from $67.4 million to $78 million, between 2013-14 and 2014-15. That’s 8.1 percent of the total initial 2014-15 budget.  The only other budget categories that grew this year were contracted services, by 5 percent, and debt service, by 11 percent. The district also employs several employees focused on charter schools.

Charter schools can contract out to the school district for certain services. For instance, the district spent $7 million providing food service to charter schools last year.

Some issues have yet to be resolved: For instance, should charter schools pay rent for publicly-funded school buildings? The state’s senate has commissioned a study of charter school funding to help districts determine just what fees should be paid by charter schools to the school district. Currently, funds are passed through the school district directly to the charter operator, who may then in turn pay the district for some services or rent. (The state department of education has an FAQ on charter schools with more information.)

What are the enrollment implications?

Shelby County Schools is budgeting for approximately 117,000 students next year (some 23,000 students are anticipated to be departing  to attend new municipal district in the suburbs on Memphis), 12,000 of whom will attend charter schools. That means more than ten percent of Shelby County students would be attending district-run charter schools. An additional 6,000 students will attend the ASD – that’s 2,000 more than this year. Overall, in 2014-15, 18,000 of the 123,000 students attending public schools (ASD or Shelby County Schools) in Memphis will attend charter schools. That’s 14.6 percent of all students.

ASD schools are taken over entirely by charter operators and must serve all students who were previously zoned to attend the school, and the same would likely be true if the district contracts out to new charters for its low-performing schools. Those students can opt out and choose to attend a regular district school. (The district also already has an extensive “choice transfer” process and a system of optional schools for high-performing students.)

But schools that start from scratch, which make the majority of charters in the city, recruit students who might otherwise attend a traditional Shelby County School. Those students don’t all leave district schools in a group, which requires the district to shift its staffing and resources around to accommodate enrollment changes.

What are the oversight issues?

Providing oversight and accountability for independently-run public schools presents some challenges for authorizing bodies and creates a new responsibility for school boards.

In other cities, charter schools have been accused of enrolling an “easier-to-educate” group of students, either by having harsher discipline policies or by somehow rigging admissions policies, in order to inflate their scores. The schools have also been accused of not serving special education students or ELLs.

Not everyone thinks this is a bad thing: state representative John DeBerry, a democrat, says charters can give ambitious students a chance to succeed. But some prominent players in the charter school world, including KIPP, have taken steps to highlight attrition rates.

Still others have fought charges of nepotism and financial mismanagement.

In other districts where states have taken over schools, constituents have wondered why the groups losing elected control of their schools have tended to be in poor and majority-minority communities.

Transparency is also a concern: Individual charter schools and the state-run ASD do not have regular public meetings where constituents can voice complaints and concerns and learn about schools’ operations.

Shelby County Schools plans to create a “compact” with its charter schools, similar to agreements between districts in Nashville and elsewhere, to facilitate greater coordination between charters and the district, according to its budget.

How does having more charter schools affect students?

Charter schools’ programs vary by school, so students’ experience in the schools will also vary. Charter schools’ sizes vary, but they tend to be smaller schools: The largest, Soulsville, has 600 students, while others, such as the Arrow Academy of Excellence, are as small as 50.

Charter schools can set their own discipline policies and codes of conduct, so expectations for behavior may change for some students. Some may also have longer school days or years. Coursework may also be different than in regular public schools, though students will still have to take state-mandated tests. Students may be attending school with peers from around the city.

Research has suggested that a positive “peer effect” in charter schools may improve student performance. Results for the schools in Tennessee so far are mixed.

How does having more charter schools affect teachers?

Teachers have more publicly-funded organizations competing to hire them. Schools can offer salaries, benefit packages, school days, and career trajectories that differ from the regular school district. Some have longer school days and years than the regular district. Most charter schools are not unionized, though, since 2011, even unionized teachers do not have collective bargaining in Tennessee.

Demand for teachers with high rankings  on the state’s accountability system is likely to be high.

Local funders and organizations have banded together to brand Memphis as “Teacher Town.” The ASD and charter schools have banded together to recruit teachers both from within and outside Memphis who are interested in starting up new schools aimed at helping low-income students. Many charter schools employ large numbers of teachers from alternative certification programs like Teach For America and Memphis Teacher Residency, which are also expanding in Memphis.

In schools taken over by the ASD or converted to charters by the district, existing teachers will likely have to reapply for their jobs. Others may eventually lose their current jobs if regular district schools continue to lose enrollment.

How does having more charter schools affect parents?

Parents must research charter schools to determine how to apply – there is currently no centralized application system in Shelby County Schools. Parents often choose charter schools due to their smaller size and reputation for better safety and discipline than traditional public schools.

Charters may have different expectations for parent involvement or avenues for engagement than regular public schools. Many charter schools do not provide transportation.

Where does Memphis stack up nationally?

Last year, Memphis was ranked 48th in the country among school districts in terms of number of students in charter schools, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. The anticipated growth will likely boost it higher on that list. Shelby County Schools will also be the first district in Tennessee with at least 10 percent of charters as a market share.

Having many charter schools is increasingly common: More than half of public school students in Washington, D.C. and Detroit attend charter schools. Other districts have voluntarily converted to an all-charter model, though that model looks slightly different than having independent operators come in.

Some key philanthropists and education leaders in both the ASD and Shelby County are modeling their plans after is New Orleans, which had some 83 percent of students in charters last year and which has seen leaps in its test scores and graduation rates as its charter sector has grown.

Memphis, like New Orleans, is likely to have a mix of homegrown and national operators running schools and teachers teaching in schools. And Memphis, like New Orleans, will have schools authorized by both a state-run district and the local school board.

The shift is spurred by the belief that the market-based model of reform will help improve education for kids stuck in a chronically-underperforming school system; bolstered by the increasing popularity of education reform-oriented organizations like charter schools and Teach For America among business leaders and students in elite universities; eased by a state legislature that has loosened charter school laws and federal programs supporting the schools; and funded partly by local and national philanthropists who have given charter school leaders and organizations funds for start-up or programs.

But while New Orleans’ turnaround happened almost overnight – many schools were taken over by a state-run district in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and then gradually turned over to charter schools – Memphis’ change is happening more gradually. 

And New Orleans has a complicated legacy: Among other charges, some have decried the dwindling power of a locally-elected school board (the state-run Recovery School District runs most schools in the city); others have claimed that the change displaced veteran teachers; others have pointed out that many students never returned to the city after Hurricane Katrina.

ASD executive director Chris Barbic has said the current shift in Memphis is a way for education reformers to prove that their models can work without some of the complexities that dogged New Orleans.

The outcome remains to be seen.

The map below shows charter schools in Memphis. Blue schools are adding a grade; yellow schools are new next year.

Q and A

Former Success Academy lawyer hoping to start own charter network wants to ‘take it to the next level’

As the former top lawyer for Success Academy, Emily Kim had a hand in almost every aspect of New York City’s largest and most controversial charter-school network — from negotiating lunch times for schools in shared buildings to defending Success in court.

After spending six years with Success, Kim is setting off to launch her own charter network with locations in Manhattan’s District 6, which includes Inwood and Washington Heights, and the Bronx’s District 12, which includes the south and central Bronx. Called Zeta Charter Schools, she hopes to open in 2018.

PHOTO: Photo courtesy of Emily Kim
Emily Kim

Kim is still a big believer in Success — two of her children go there, and she praised its lightening-rod leader, Eva Moskowitz, as “brilliant” — but she thinks she has something different to offer.

“I chose the best schools possible for my own children,” she said during a recent interview with Chalkbeat near her home on the Upper West Side, “but I’m still going to innovate and take it to the next level.”

The school’s co-founders — Jessica Stein and Meghan Mackay — also have ties to Success, as do several board members listed in the school’s charter application. (One of the board members, Jenny Sedlis, is a Success co-founder and director of the pro-charter advocacy group, StudentsFirstNY.)

But Kim’s vision also seems tailored to avoid some of the usual critiques of charter schools, including that they rely on harsh discipline policies. By contrast, her plan for Zeta calls for limiting the use of suspensions. She also wants her schools to be diverse, though she admits that will be difficult in residentially segregated areas like the Bronx.

A mother of three, Kim has taught in classrooms in New York City, Long Island and even West Africa. She worked on special education issues in Philadelphia district schools before heading to law school at Temple and Columbia. While working as a corporate litigator, she took on a case pro-bono for Success — and was soon offered a job as the network’s first general counsel.

Below are edited highlights from our interview with Kim earlier this month where she described how her experience as an Asian-American growing up in Iowa shaped her views on school segregation, why she believes high-stakes tests are important, and what role she sees for charter schools like hers.

Kim talked about sending her son to Success:

My child was 4 years old when all of this kind of unfolded. The first school I visited was Eva’s school, Harlem 4.

… I was so astounded by what I saw — which is the energy of the teachers. Just the level of dedication, commitment, the joy and energy of their teachers — I was blown away.

Then Eva gave a talk at the end. She was clearly a hard-driving, almost in a sense, from my perspective then, a business person. So I thought, “That’s the type of person who should be running schools.”

What’s your role going to be as you launch your own charter schools?

I’ll be the CEO. I want to take all of the great things that I saw at Success and at other schools and — like in any other enterprise — I want to take the best of the best, and I want to implement it.

And then I want to work on implementing some of the ideas that I have as well.

What’s your goal for your schools?

The number one goal is to just create additional education opportunities. As a parent, I feel this very strongly: No parent should have to send their child to a school that is not a good school.

… Our schools are going to prepare kids for the tests, and the reason is that tests are access to power. And whether you like it or not, if you want to go to college — to a good college — if you want to go to law school like I did, you take the SATs. You take the LSAT. You have to do a good job.

How are you going to measure your schools’ success?

Academic outcomes are first and foremost because truly, if I can’t hit the academic outcomes, there’s no point. I’m wasting everybody’s time and I don’t want to do that. That’s number one.

… We’re looking at going backward from very rigorous high school and college curricula, and working backwards from there. So that’s our vision when we’re establishing our schools. What do kids need to be successful in college?

And it’s not just the testing outcomes, but it’s also the soft skills that kids need in order to get there. Kids need to be able to self-regulate, and that’s got to start in elementary school, in order to be successful in middle school.

On what her schools will look like:

One of the most important elements of our school design is going to be technology.

We’re still in early days, but I’m visiting many schools across the nation that are doing things that are very exciting in technology. I’m also going to be looking in the private sector to understand what are the skills that kids need to actually be innovators. I’d love if one of our students were able to invent an app that made a difference in the world.

Many New York City schools, district and charter alike, are highly segregated by race and class. Kim spoke about the city’s segregation:

In New York City, with the exception of Success Academy and other high-performing schools, you can go to the playground and look at the skin of the children who are playing there or look around the neighborhood and the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood, and you’ll know the quality of the school. It’s a terrible, terrible situation. And that’s 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education.

And how her own background informs her views on the issue:

I grew up in Iowa. I was one of the very few students who looked like me. My dad was a math professor. There were very few African Americans, few Hispanics, and very few Asians. That was hard in a lot of ways in that I grew up with a lot of teasing and whatnot. But I also was forced to navigate a world that I didn’t understand from my own experience.

… I have the perspective that it shouldn’t [just] be the case that minorities are integrating into the larger majority population. The majority population also has to integrate themselves in the minority enclaves. As long as we have this idea that it has to go one way only, that’s perpetuating the problem.

Have the city’s charter schools done enough when it comes to integration?

… It’s just so challenging for charters because honestly, opponents of charters use the segregation idea as another weapon against charters in terms of why they’re not serving the greater good — because they’re segregated.

Well, they’re segregated because they went into areas that were low income. Unfortunately, those kids weren’t getting a good education.

So what should the mission of charter schools be?

Charter schools were largely, originally intended to bring options to children who didn’t have them — so that would be low-income [students]. That’s not really my vision of charter schools. I think that charter schools are places where innovation can happen.

… I would love for what we learn through our [research-and-development] approach to be implemented at district schools. I’m very interested in district reform. I think there are a lot of challenges to district reform, but we’d love to come up with solutions that can be applied in other contexts.

Kim explained her decision to leave Success and start her own schools:

Staying with Success surely would have been a very rich experience, but I also thought I wanted to build something and I had some ideas.

… It was a really hard decision. But I’m really glad I did and every day I’ve made that decision, I feel like I’ve made the right decision.

I guess it will be answered once I have the schools up and running. If they’re doing well, then I’ll have my answer.

choice history

The rise of tax credits: How Arizona created an alternative to school vouchers — and why they’re spreading

PHOTO: U.S. Department of Education

With its recent adoption of a tax credit scholarship program, Illinois became the 18th state to adopt an innocuously named — but highly controversial — policy that critics have described as a “backdoor voucher.”

In some sense, the description is apt. But by injecting a middle layer into the government’s support of private school tuition, tax credits help avoid some of the legal and political obstacles that have dogged efforts by advocates, like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, to promote school choice through vouchers.

Perhaps as a result, more students now use tax incentive programs than vouchers to attend private schools in the U.S. A federal tax credit is also seen as the Trump administration’s favored approach for promoting school choice at the federal level, though its immediate progress looks increasingly unlikely.

The 20-year history of this approach offers insights into why it has taken hold: resistance to legal challenge; limited government oversight, appealing to among free-market advocates of school choice; and a more politically palatable branding than vouchers.

This is far better than vouchers — it is easier to pass and easier to uphold,” Trent Franks, a conservative activist and now a U.S. congressman, said in 1999 after Arizona’s state supreme court upheld its tuition tax credit program. “I think this is the direction the country will go in.”

He proved largely right.

The number of students participating in private school choice programs over time, including tax credits (green) and vouchers (orange). (EdChoice)

Arizona’s pioneering approach

The first tax credit program was passed in Arizona in 1997. Arizona’s constitution, like most other states’, bars public dollars from going to religiously affiliated schools. Proponents knew any plan to promote private school choice would likely end up in court.

So they landed upon an ingenious approach that would make the initiative more likely to survive legal challenge. Instead of issuing vouchers for private school tuition — like Milwaukee had done since 1990 — the state would outsource that role to nonprofits. Those groups would get their money from donations, encouraged by generous tax credits.

It worked like this: An individual could donate up to $500 to a nonprofit, then get a tax cut for the exact amount they donated. The nonprofit would take the donated money and use it to offer tuition stipends — essentially vouchers — to families who met certain conditions. That system allows the state to promote the tuition subsidy, losing $500 in revenue for each maxed out donation, without paying for it directly.

Arizona’s program has since grown, and the state has created a number of other tax credit programs. (This approach is distinct from programs that give individual families tax breaks for educational spending on their own children; Illinois has had such an initiative since 2000, while Minnesota has had one since 1955.)

Arizona’s and of Milwaukee’s policies look similar. In both places, students can receive a subsidy to attend a private school, and it comes at the expense of state revenue. But crucially, in Arizona, the government never had the money to begin with.

“The point was in part to ensure that these were not government-run programs,” Lisa Graham Keegan, who was Arizona’s school superintendent when the tax credit program passed, told Chalkbeat. “Those scholarships are completely separate, both for legal reasons and for philosophical reasons.”

Tax credits: the legal survivors

Private school choice across the country have been inundated with legal challenges, but tax credits have proven remarkably resilient.

Although voucher programs have continued to grow and were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002, they have also faced legal challenges in state courts. Colorado’s top court, for example, struck down a voucher program in 2015. (The case is currently being reconsidered in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.)

But tax credits have never ultimately lost in state or federal court, prevailing in Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tax credits “grew up as a result of saying we need a different vehicle than vouchers in states that have legal issues,” said Robert Enlow, the president of EdChoice, an Indianapolis-based group that backs both vouchers and tax credits. (EdChoice is a funder of Chalkbeat.)

Often, cases have been thrown out before substantive arguments can be made, amounting to a win for the programs: Some courts have ruled that private organizations or individuals do not have legal standing to challenge tax credits, since they aren’t government expenditures.

That was the decision in the 2010 Supreme Court case Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, in which the majority said equating government spending and tax credits was “incorrect.”

“When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to [scholarship organizations], they spend their own money, not money the State has collected,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Light regulatory touch proves a blessing and a downside

To Arizona conservatives skeptical of both regulation and the education establishment, the system had an additional benefit.

“The point was in part to ensure that these were not government-run programs,” said Graham Keegan, and additionally that “these don’t become government dollars.”

Nationwide, tax credit scholarship programs appear less regulated than voucher programs, some of which require private school students to take state tests or for schools to undergo financial audits.

Free-market oriented supporters “see ‘neovouchers’ as much less likely to be regulated and have restrictions — the government strings attached — than a traditional voucher law,” said Kevin Welner, a University of Colorado professor who wrote a book on the rise of tax credit programs and is generally critical of them.

A 1998 essay published by the Mackinac Center, a conservative Michigan think tank, made this case explicitly: “Tuition tax credits also create very different effects than vouchers. … Vouchers are more likely to be viewed as a rationale for regulating the entity that receives the subsidy.”

This has played out in practice. One analysis compared several voucher programs to a number of tax credit programs and found that, in almost all cases, vouchers were more regulated. Most tax credit systems had few, if any, financial reporting or disclosure requirements. (Notably, Florida’s program, the largest in the country, was the most regulated tax credit initiative.)

Many tax credit programs do not require participating students to take state exams, and if they do, the tests are rarely comparable to the assessments taken in public school. This means that while voucher programs have been widely studied, there is little research on the effect of receiving a tax credit scholarship.

Supporters of this approach argue that such requirements discourage private schools from participating.

Limited oversight, however, has proven something of a political liability, insofar as it has allowed for financial malfeasance. National media have drawn attention to how one prominent politician and advocate for Arizona’s program was also able to profit personally from it, for example.

“I think [limited regulation] is a feature that has some bugs,” said Enlow of EdChoice. “We need to have transparency. The programs, like Florida, which are very transparent and very open to data collection, I think are very important.” He declined to name any tax credit programs that, in his view, lacked sufficient transparency.

The use of the tax code has also raised another concern: Under some tax credit systems, “donors” can actually earn a profit by taking advantage of both state and federal tax breaks.

Selling tax credits

How exactly to brand tax credit programs has been the subject of fierce debates. Opponents have called them “neovouchers” and “voucher schemes,” while supporters sometimes portray them as entirely distinct from vouchers.

Tax credits tend to poll better than vouchers, and Welner thinks that may be because it’s less clear to most people what they are.

“People’s eyes get bleary and they tune out when people start talking about tax credits,” he said. “That helps to avoid a situation where they respond to it the same way they respond to a voucher proposal.”

Tax credits are essentially a tax cut, which can be a selling point for some, especially conservatives. Advocates sometimes also downplay the costs of tax credits to the government.

“Is it foregone revenue? Sure, but it doesn’t mean it’s the state’s revenue,” said Enlow.

The distinctions between vouchers and tax credits, though, may ultimately matter less to lawmakers in states where they are being debated. In Illinois, critics connected tax credits to vouchers, and Democrats were largely opposed to the tax credit initiative that ultimately passed.

“In my experience the arguments have been the same whether it’s a tax credit bill or a voucher bill when you’re talking with legislators,” Enlow said. “There’s some nuances, but it’s still the same.”

Correction: An earlier version of this piece misstated the name of a free-market Michigan think tank, which is the Mackinac Center.