According to the article, legislation is tied up because it is bundled up with other, related, issues: Tax credits to promote private schools as an alternative to public schools, state-wide expansion of charter schools, abolishing tenure for new teachers, and an underfunded school-financing formula.
- The legal case in favor of the tax credits rests on a misunderstanding of tax credits as being different from spending. They're not. The state constitution clearly prohibits state spending on religious schools. If we want to allow it, then the state constitution should be changed, which I would favor. In the meantime, the proposed program sounds like a good way to push school choice to its legal limit.
- The tenure question is an easy one. It should be abolished wherever it is found. Teachers should have a degree of employment protection, but their protections should be the same as everybody else's. I have had university tenure and I now work at a university that doesn't grant tenure at all. I know from experience that I prefer that my colleagues not have tenure and that students (remember them?) are better off if their teachers do not have tenure.
- Why is it considered bad for city school districts to go bankrupt? That's what should happen when entities fail to do what they are supposed to. Failed private or charter schools shut down, but failing public schools get more money and don't get any better. How does that make sense?