The Goldwater Institute, an Arizona right wing advocacy group, has filed suit against the state because it thinks there are too many rules attached to the state's voucher program. Parents using the education savings account money shouldn't have to show that they've used the taxpayers' dollars for something educational. 

This is a battle that is a predictable crossroads on vouchers' path to their ultimate destination, and it deserves our attention for that reason.

When states started handing taxpayer dollars out as voucher money for families, two factors were always going to come into greater and greater tension.

On the one side, there will be people who want to spend their free money from the government with the minimum number of restrictions. "That money is ours now," the voucher parent argument goes, "so nobody should be able to tell us what to do with it." Look for the word "permissionless" as in "we don't need your permission to do whatever we think is best.

On the other hand, where taxpayer dollars go, calls for accountability are likely to follow. This is particularly likely for school voucher programs, every one of which was created and passed through legislative back doors, often over the objections of the actual voters. So there was always going to be a moment when those taxpayers said, "They spent my tax dollars on what now?" Lack of transparency and accountability are a systemic issue for voucher programs. 

Arizona is a prime example. Way back in 2018 news swept the state that $700,000 of voucher money was spent on items like beauty supplies, sports apparel, a host of other unapproved vendors, all caught only by state audits of the program. Since then there have been $900 Lego sets, Broadway tickets and espresso machines. It made actual news when the Arizona state board actually denied an appeal by a parent to approve use of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts to buy three dune buggies (only after an appeal hearing officer okayed the purchase).

Enough of these sorts of shenanigans, and taxpayers are going to want to see some transparency and accountability.  

There are people on the right who already called this one, people who oppose vouchers because in vouchers they see one more way for government to get its sticky hands on the operation of private schools. They're not wrong. Taxpayers may tolerate a private school's desire to teach Flat Earth science or Aryan supremacy or whatever nonsense--until they discover they have to pay for it. Then they start demanding transparency and accountability.

For the Goldwater Institute, a good number of rules to attach would be "none." So they have launched a suit from a couple of homeschool moms who argue that the state should let them buy whatever materials they deem appropriate without tying them to any actual curriculum. One of the moms 

explains that she is “individualizing my child’s educational needs from minute to minute throughout the day,” meaning her curriculum is ever-changing. “It’s been really challenging and hard having to meet the expectations that the AG wants with a curriculum,” Velia says.

The other mom, who has nine children and is homeschooling seven of them, complains that the government is putting more requirements "on the list." Goldwater has some other pieces to their argument, starting with the complaint that teachers don't have to prove paper and pencils are appropriate for a curriculum:

As Velia explains: “No other teacher in the state has to provide curriculum for purchasing things for their classroom.” So, requiring parents to jump through the hoop of documenting a “curriculum” for materials that are obviously educational does nothing to prevent abuse of the program beyond the extraordinary lengths parents already have to go to in submitting expense receipts for every purchase.

I believe some actual classroom teachers have some hoops they would love to show you. Then we can talk about what "obviously educational" could possibly mean.

The villain in the Goldwater story is Attorney General Kim Mayes, whose shtick is being a consumer protector. This whole "curriculum" business is just "a cynical, illegal attack on the ESA program, and it's making life harder for parents and children alike." Says one of the moms, Mayes should "actually be supporting ESA parents and children so they can get the education they deserve." In this context, "deserve" is a rather loaded term.

Hayes' office has a response:

The law doesn’t prevent parents from purchasing paper and pencils, but it does require that materials purchased with ESA funds be used for a child’s education. With instances of voucher dollars being spent on things like ski passes, luxury car driving lessons, and grand pianos, it’s clear that providing documentation on spending is essential to prevent the misuse of taxpayer funds. Attorney General Mayes believes Arizonans deserve full transparency and accountability in how their tax dollars are used and will continue to fight for accountability and oversight in the voucher program.”

Goldwater throws out the old "nobody knows the child better than the parent" line, but that's not really the issue here. I know my children pretty well, but that doesn't mean I know best what materials should be used to teach them advanced calculus or conversational Chinese. Knowing your child well does not make one an expert in varieties of pedagogy. 

Nor does "I know my kid, so just trust me that these taxpayer dollars are being legitimately spent" make a really good argument. 

If you want to use the taxpayers' dollars, you owe the taxpayers an explanation of what you did with it. I know that's not the dream of folks like the Goldwater Institute, but this was always going to be the next voucher debate. We'll see which side the court decides to take.