Apparently, providing financial assistance to families that can’t afford basic goods and services has long been a staple of “progressive” public policy — so long as such assistance doesn’t help poor kids afford private school tuition. 

Over the years, progressives have routinely been at the forefront of expanding programs aimed at giving low-and no-income individuals financial assistance so they can afford the basic necessities of life — such as housing vouchers and SNAP benefits that help individuals purchase groceries. However, when it comes to education, elected Democrats have long been staunchly opposed to even modest reforms aimed at helping those very same families afford schooling options currently accessible only to wealthier households. 

In a recent interview with KNPR, for example, Assemblywoman Selena La Rue Hatch (D-Reno) made it perfectly clear she didn’t think the state’s only existing education choice program should even exist in the first place.  

“I have deep concerns about that program. I think first and foremost the majority of people that are taking advantage of that program are wealthy individuals who are already sending their kids to private schools,” she told KNPR. “I don't think [the program] should exist at all.”

However, La Rue Hatch’s description of the program leaves something to be desired. For starters, “wealthy” families are statutorily prohibited from receiving such scholarships. Nevada’s Opportunity Scholarship program — funded by tax credits given to businesses that donate to approved scholarship organizations — stipulates that recipient households must earn less than 300 percent of the federal poverty line. 

Not only is it illegal for “wealthy” families to receive such scholarships, but the average household income for recipients is less than $56,500 annually according to the Nevada Department of Education — well below Nevada’s average household income of $72,000 and undoubtedly within most people’s expectation for “low income.” 

More importantly, however, is that even if La Rue Hatch was correct, and families who don’t “need” this assistance are receiving it, there are ways to address such concerns without stripping educational opportunities from the thousands of low-income families currently using the program appropriately. However, like many in her party, La Rue Hatch argues that public education dollars should only be used to benefit traditional public schools — even if those dollars are mere tax credits given to businesses and don’t actually come directly out of the state’s education budget.  

Apparently, providing poor children with the financial assistance needed to access the same private classrooms as rich kids is not worthy of the state’s effort.  

Such an outlook isn’t intrinsically “progressive,” given the movement’s long history of supporting financial assistance programs for other non-public services — not to mention the general awareness among progressives over the resulting troubles of income-driven inequalities in other parts of our economy. 

For a great many parents, such progressive obstinance against school choice programs is a frustrating component to the fight for better educational outcomes. After all, whether it’s found on a public or private campus probably doesn’t matter much to parents who simply want access to a good education for their child. 

Even more frustrating, however, is the sheer unwillingness among many lawmakers to hammer out compromises in good faith. Despite so many legislative leaders treating education policy as a binary choice between improving public education or boosting access to private classrooms, surely Nevada is capable of doing both. 

Politically, such an “all of the above” approach to educational policy should be a no-brainer for Republicans and Democrats alike — if for no other reason than a majority of Americans support both the concept of educational choice and greater funding for public education. This is why Gov. Joe Lombardo, for example, proposed an “unprecedented” investment of $2 billion toward public K-12 last session along with his request for massively expanding the state’s only private school choice program. 

Nonetheless, elected Democrats in Nevada have repeatedly shown no interest in attempting to create more equitable access to the state’s private schools. During the last legislative session, the Democratic majority ignored Lombardo’s proposal to expand Opportunity Scholarships — and they did so again later in the year when Lombardo sought an emergency fix to keep students from losing their scholarships during the biennium. 

The scholarship organizations managed a self-administered Band-Aid to keep some of those children on their scholarships, but only after Democratic lawmakers on the Interim Finance Committee voted down Lombardo’s proposal to use federal COVID aid money as a fix.

As a result of such opposition, a great many Nevada children remain excluded from private educational options merely because their parents don’t earn enough money — which seems like the sort of injustice Democrats interested in equity would be anxious to rectify, even if it did require an additional investment of public dollars. 

After all, it’s not as if Nevada Democrats have proven themselves to be extremely restrained when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars to subsidize the philanthropic efforts of private nonprofits. While Democrats balked at the idea of a program that funds private scholarship organizations, there was apparently little concern over handing out millions of dollars directly to other nonprofits as part of the $110 million “Christmas tree” bill at the end of the session. 

One has to wonder how it is that spending taxpayer money on those private non-profits — or any number of other financial assistance programs — is so much less offensive to Democratic leadership than funding organizations that hand out scholarships to low-income kids.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.