WE'LL BE WATCHING THIS CASE AS IT PROGRESSES.
>> THANK YOU. >> SUPPORTERS OF WISCONSIN'S
TAXPAYER FUNDED SCHOOL CHOICE AND INDEPENDENT CHARTER SCHOOL
PROGRAMS WANT THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO REJECT THE LAWSUIT,
SAYING ENDING THE PROGRAM WOULD CREATE CHAOS FOR TENS OF
THOUSANDS FAMILIES WITH STUDENTS CURRENTLY ENROLLED.
WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND LIBERTY ATTORNEY, RICK ESENBERG,
IS ON THE CASE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE ADVOCATES. HE JOINS US FROM T
H TH MILWAUKE. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. >> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE
PETITIONERS WON THEIR CASE AND THE PROGRAM FOLDED, TRANSFERRING
PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS BACK IS THIS.
>> WELL, IT WOULD BE CHAOS FOR CHILDREN IN THE PROGRAM.
FIRST OF ALL, THEY WOULD BE DENIED AN EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY AND THEIR PARENTS HAVE CHOSEN.
THERE WOULD BE A MASSIVE INFLUX OF STUDENTS INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY SET UP TO RECEIVE THEM, AND THE LEGAL
PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY A DECISION
AGAINST THE PROGRAM IN THIS CASW WE FINANCE OUR SCHOOLS, IT WOULD
CALL INTO QUESTION EQUALIZATION AID, IT WOULD CALL INTO QUESTION
A WHOLE VARIETY OF NONEDUCATIONAL PUBLIC PROGRAMS.
IT WOULD BE REALLY A DISASTER FOR THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE OUR COURT'S GOING TO DO.
>> SO IN YOUR COURT FILING, YOU TOOK GREAT EXCEPTION TO THE
CLAIM THAT CHOICE PROGRAMS WERE INTENDED TO HURT AND ARE HURTING
PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WHY?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, WE LIVE IN A VERY POLARIZED TIME RIGHT NOW,
AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER THAT, WHEN SCHOOL
CHOICE WAS INITIALLY ENACTED ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, IT WAS A
BIPARTISAN PROGRAM. BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
REALIZED, FIRST IN MILWAUKEE, THAT SCHOOLS WERE NOT SERVING
ALL STUDENTS WELL, AND THAT EQUITY AND EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS WOULD BE SERVED BY LETTING LOWER INCOME FAMILIES
HAVE THE SAME CHOICE THAT WEALTHIER FAMILIES HAVE.
AND SO THIS REALLY WAS AN EFFORT TO HELP KIDS.
WE OFTEN HEAR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL CHOICE SOMEHOW BEING A
PROFIT -- PROFIT-MAKING INTERPRIDES -- ENTERPRISE, AND
IT'S REALLY NOT. THESE ARE NONPROFIT
INSTITUTIONS. MOST OF THEM A RE
RELIGIOUSLY-BASED, AND NOBODY'S MAKING MONEY.
THIS REALLY IS, I THINK, INTENDED TO GIVE KIDS AN
OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY OTHERWISE WOULDN'T HAVE.
IT'S NOT TO DESTROY THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
CHOICE ADVOCATES REALIZE MOST KIDS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO
TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THIS ISN'T ABOUT SECTOR WARS.
IT'S JUST A RECOGNITION THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIVERSE, HUMAN
BEINGS ARE DIFFERENT, AND SOME PEOPLE, SOME KIDS WILL BENEFIT
FROM THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT CHOICE PROVIDES FOR THEM.
>> STILL, PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS ARE INCREASINGLY BEING DIVERTED FROM
PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
HOW DOES THAT NOT HURT THE PUBLICS? >> WELL, THEY'RE NOT
BEING DIVERTED.
THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS IS NOT TO BENEFIT PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AS AN INSTITUTION; IT'S TO EDUCATE CHILDREN.
AND THERE ARE LOTS OF SOCIAL SERVICES THAT THE GOVERNMENT
PROVIDES THAT MAY SOMETIMES BE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
AND MAY SOMETIMES BE PROVIDED BY, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE VENDORS,
HOSPITALS, ADOPTION AGENCIES. THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF THEM.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN A SCHOOL, WHEN A KID WHO IS BEING
EDUCATED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT, GOES
TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL, THE TAX MONEY THAT IS USED TO EDUCATE
HER GOES WITH HER, AND SO THERE'S NO DIVERSION.
THERE'S JUST CHOICE. >> SO WITH LESS THAN A HALF A
MINUTE LEFT, HOW WORRIED WERE YOU THAT THE GOVERNOR EVERS'
ADMINISTRATION AGREED WITH ROBIN VOS THAT THIS CASE SHOULD START
NOT IN THE HIGH COURT BUT IN CIRCUIT COURT?
>> YOU KNOW, I GIVE GOVERNOR EVERS AND GENERAL KAUL CREDIT
FOR THIS. I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT
PROPONENTS OF THE CHOICE PROGRAM BUT THEY DID THE RIGHT THING
LEGALLY. THIS IS AN INAPPROPR IATE CASE
FOR AN ORIGINAL ACTION AND THEY MADE THE RIGHT CALL.