Politico just ran a “Murphy Meter,” which gauges how New Jersey gubernatorial candidates would shift from Gov. Phil Murphy’s policy positions. One of those positions regards school vouchers— the right for parents to use part or all of their child’s public school funding for tuition to private schools— and whether candidates would move away from Murphy’s opposition. The only Democratic candidate who expresses support is Steve Sweeney. All Republican candidates support some sort of publicly-funded private school option. Responses are below.

It’s worth noting that NJ already has a private school choice program: our publicly-funded preschools, once confined to low-income Abbott districts but expanding into others. When school districts don’t have adequate facilities — or sometimes even when they do — the state allows them to contract with private preschools which must abide by facility, staffing, and curricular requirements. In Trenton, for instance, most of the district’s 2,000 three and four-year-olds attend one of 24 private schools — parents get to pick which one— with the state paying the private provider.

Is this a voucher? Not really, it’s more of a hybrid: Parents don’t have the latitude to choose any private preschool and there are clear guardrails set by the government. But it’s still a larger vision that works for kids and parents, embedded with a focus on outcomes and accountability and paid for with state tax dollars.

So why do NJ’s Democratic candidates (with the exception of Sweeney) universally oppose any option with the word “private” in it, especially for students trapped in red-lined districts? Wise people are starting to question kneejerk antipathy given Americans’ sinking trust levels towards the Party’s education platform. (A recent poll found “voters no longer view Democrats as the party that will educationally prepare kids for future economic success.”)

Here is Andrew Rotherham of Bellwether:

“School choice is becoming a way of life in many regions—especially fast-growing ones with political clout. In a country where a majority of students will soon have a right to exit public schools, Democrats need to offer something more than a flat “no,” they need a compelling agenda that includes robust public school choice and charter options at a minimum.”

Jorge Elorza, CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, goes further: 

“Choice resonates deeply with voters. Since COVID, several Republican states have adopted private school choice laws, but there has been no alternative education vision offered by the left. As such, we’ve lost ground on an issue that was historically a strength for us and continues to be incredibly important to our voter base. With important elections on the horizon, Democrats must embrace an education vision based on improved access to high-quality public school options.”

Let’s reimagine the Democratic Party as a big tent, open to ideas that might have seemed anathema ten years ago. What if our future governor supported a small pilot program modeled after our highly-lauded mixed-delivery preschool system? Here are my guardrails: prospective students must be means-tested (we should put needy students first and not pay tuition for wealthy ones); private schools accepting tax dollars must follow the state Student Learning Standards; students must take state standardized tests to assure accountability; religious schools must provide an opt-out option during religious instruction.

Wouldn’t that be more progressive than just saying no?

Democrats love to throw the word “equity” around. How is it equitable to restrict low-income students in Newark to schools like Barringer High School, where 96% of ninth-graders fail the ninth-grade reading test? Wouldn’t it be more progressive to offer students freedom to explore other options?

There are smaller hills to climb: expansion of public charter schools (too bad Politico didn’t ask about that) and resuscitating our dormant Interdistrict Public School Choice Program, which lets students cross district lines to schools with open seats. These all conform with broad definitions of educational equity that were once baked into the Democratic DNA.

The current system isn’t equitable. Maybe it’s time to rethink old positions and prioritize student outcomes over institutional rigidity.

Murphy Meter:

Democrats:

Phil Murphy: The governor, a strong ally of teacher’s unions, is not a supporter of school vouchers: “I’m not a voucher guy. I’m not a ‘take the money that is in the public system and take it out of the system,’ as places like Florida and others do, and put it into the private side of the house.”

Steve Sweeney: “I would consider exploring vouchers where it makes sense, and so long as it does not compromise on the quality of public education. I would not want to outright prohibit a reasonable option for someone to decide what is best for their children. Any consideration for an expansion of vouchers would have an income cap.”

Ras Baraka: “We cannot use our dollars to send to private school.”

Steve Fulop: “I do not support private school vouchers or any program that diverts taxpayer dollars away from public education. Public money belongs in public schools. Our focus must be on strengthening public education by investing in teachers, expanding early childhood education, and ensuring every school has the resources needed to help students succeed.”

Josh Gottheimer: “I’m totally against vouchers. I support public schools, but I also like what our state has done over the years with some of our parochial schools to make sure they get bussing, they get good security and technology, and that we invest in our kids.”

Mikie Sherrill: “I have not been supportive of vouchers for private schools, no. I’ve been opposed to vouchers.”

Sean Spiller: “Not supportive at all.”

Republicans:

Jon Bramnick: “I’ve always … supported the concept of vouchers. It makes schools more competitive. It makes public schools actually work harder. We should have a voucher program where somebody wants to go to parochial school or private school.”

Jack Ciattarelli: “I believe in school choice, I support vouchers, I support charter schools. I also support homeschooling.”

Bill Spadea: “Yes, but not traditional vouchers. We need education savings accounts that allow for the money to follow the student to public, charter, private or even homeschools.”