Clinton Laird: Vouchers, ACA parallels

Regarding the June 28 news article “Court swats health law challenge”: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell, that “established by the state” has more than one interpretation.

The N.C. Supreme Court is considering the interpretation of the state constitution’s phrase regarding vouchers and taxpayer money: (it) “shall be ... used exclusively for establishing and maintaining a uniform system of free public schools.” Vouchers are operational – our taxes are enabling attendance in other than public schools.

Weeks ago, the president argued that the issued subsidies for the Affordable Care Act should influence the SCOTUS ruling. The president’s ACA argument is transferable to the North Carolina voucher controversy in both language interpretation and operational momentum, i.e. vouchers have been issued.

Vouchers enable a system of free schools, with students coming from the public. King v. Burwell provided for an expanded interpretation, a model for North Carolina, to accommodate many schools, competing for the public’s students via state funded vouchers. Can we have it both ways?

This discussion should consider the realities of school performance and the substantial national momentum for enhanced school choice. Parents are finding pathways for accessing better educational outcomes for their kids. This is a hard reality with significant political implications.

This story was originally published July 1, 2015 at 4:45 PM with the headline "Clinton Laird: Vouchers, ACA parallels."