- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find in this inaugural issue descriptions of state-level activities, unhappy results of current policy, a miscellany of important developments, and a view on President Clinton's California intervention.
ARIZONA
A pilot Parental Choice Grant Program has been prepared
for consideration by the Arizona legislature. The program would provide
education grants worth up to $1,500 to low-income families who wish to
enroll their children in independent schools, including religiously-affiliated
schools. To be eligible for the grants, children must not have been enrolled
in an independent school during the previous year. Additionally, the program
is limited to 2,000 children from low-income families during its first
year (expected to be '95-'96), 4,000 children in the second year ('96-'97)
and 8,000 children in the third year ('97-'98). Children with disabilities
who are accepted into the program will be awarded larger grants. Recommendations
for future expansion of the program beyond '97-'98 will be made by a Joint
Select Committee on Parental Choice Grants.
CALIFORNIA
As California's November 2 special election draws near,
the battle over Proposition 174 is intensifying. Proposition 174 is the
California ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to assure
comprehensive choice in education for all California families regardless
of income. If approved by a majority of voters, it will make education
vouchers, each worth about $2,600, available to all school-age children,
helping them attend a private or religiously-affiliated school if their
families so choose. Some recent developments are noted below.
Campaign Spending
According to campaign finance reports, the 250,000-member
California Teachers Association contributed $8.19 million of the $8.86
million raised by opponents of Prop. 174 in the period from July 1 to September
18. During the same reporting period, supporters of the measure, lacking
such built-in supplies, had raised $718,686. So far in 1993, Prop. 174
opponents have raised $10.09 million compared with $1.09 million for supporters.
(Los Angeles Times, 9/26/93)
This war-chest is financing a massive TV and radio ad campaign designed to create the impression that Prop. 174 is too risky. The ads do not directly attack the concept of parental choice in education. (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/22/93) Nor do those ads attempt to defend educational finance monopoly (EFM). That central reality is simply elided.
Two Recent Polls
Despite the discrepancy in pro/con expenditures, support
for Prop. 174 and for the idea of education vouchers remains strong among
Californians, according to recent surveys.
Reporting the results of a poll conducted in mid-September, the Los Angeles Times (9/16/93) observed that Prop. 174 is "trailing narrowly among the state's registered voters." The Times poll found that 38% of all adults and 39% of registered voters surveyed said they would vote for Prop. 174, while 43% of all adults and 45% of registered voters said they would vote against the measure. 19% of all adults and 16% of registered voters said they were undecided.
A second mid-September poll conducted by Policy Analysis for California Education measured adults' attitudes about education vouchers and about the proposed state constitutional amendment. Respondents were not asked how they planned to vote. The poll found 63% of those surveyed favored education vouchers and 56% favored the proposed amendment. (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/1/93)
Wilson
Says Prop. 174 Too Expensive
On October 5 Gov. Pete Wilson announced his opposition
to Prop. 174, fearing it would cost the state at least $1 billion over
the next three years. Wilson said he nonetheless continues to support the
concept of education vouchers. The same day Milton Friedman announced that
140 economists (including two other Nobel Prize winners) have endorsed
the initiative, believing it will improve educational quality and
reduce education costs. (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/6/93; Los
Angeles Times, 10/6/93)
GEORGIA
The recent unearthing of a 1961 Georgia law stipulating
that parents may apply for education grants to send their children to non-sectarian
private schools has spurred state-wide debate about the merits of educational
choice. The law was originally designed to permit Georgia parents to avoid
desegregation. Ironically enough, today many African-American families
are hoping that implementation of the 32-year old law will give them alternatives
to poorly-performing public schools. According to state officials, however,
changes in Georgia's education funding formula make the law unusable. Be
that as it may, advocates of choice are seizing the opportunity to call
for greater choice in education. State Sen. Roy Allen, a black Democrat
who supports educational choice, has said, "We've trusted the bureaucracy
to reform the schools, and they haven't done the job. It's time we talked
about trusting parents to make the decision on what school is best for
their children." (Wall Street Journal, 9/21/93) And state Sen. Sallie
Newbill plans to introduce a newly-drafted choice bill in January. (See
Atlanta Constitution, 9/4/93 and 9/21/93 and Atlanta Journal,
9/10/93 and 9/19/93)
MARYLAND (BALTIMORE)
A year ago, the Baltimore City School District decided
to turn over operation of nine of its worst schools to a private corporation,
Education Alternatives, Inc. (EAI). Today those nine schools are clean,
the teachers motivated and the students excited about learning. As reported
in the Oct. 6 New York Times, Maryland legislator Elijah E. Cummings,
originally an ardent opponent of the EAI experiment and now a supporter,
said, EAI "has changed the attitude not only of children but of teachers.
Never have I seen this kind of turnaround."
EAI is committed to improving educational performance while producing a profit for its investors without increasing costs to taxpayers (EAI's nine schools receive a level of per-pupil funding equal to the other public schools in the district). Additionally, EAI is on a much shorter leash than other public schools. The Baltimore district granted a five-year contract to EAI but reserved the right to cancel the arrangement at any time if the district becomes dissatisfied with EAI's performance.
Because they remain state-sponsored, the schools operated by EAI cannot accommodate the interests of families seeking particular religiously- or ethically-informed educational environments. Nor can they accommodate families seeking an alternative program — the Waldorf method, for example. Hence, the Baltimore experiment is not to be confused with comprehensive educational choice. It does, however, provide preliminary support for the judgment that schools freed of bureaucratic entanglements can perform better than current public schools sheltered by EFM.
OHIO
Gov. George V. Voinovich has decided to support an education
voucher plan for Ohio. A September 16 article in Cleveland's Plain Dealer
quoted Gov. Voinovich as stating, "I will endorse the Ohio Scholarship
Plan initiative within the next month or month and a half. We'll make details
of it available at that time." The Ohio Scholarship Plan calls for pilot
voucher programs, either one of two recommended programs, to be established
in local school districts if approved in a given district by a majority
of voters or by the local Board of Education. State Rep. Michael A. Fox
and state Sen. H. Cooper Snyder intend to introduce the voucher proposal
in the Ohio legislature once Gov. Voinovich has made the anticipated public
announcement of his support for the Scholarship Plan. For further information
contact the Chairman of the Governor's Commission on Educational Choice,
Mr. David L. Brennan, at 159 S. Main Street, 6th Floor, Akron, Ohio 44308;
(216) 996-0202, FAX (216) 762-3938.
PUERTO RICO
The Education Workers United Front, a coalition of organizations
representing 40,000 Education Department employees, staged a day-long "general
stoppage" of work on September 29. They were protesting governmental education
reform, including the implementation of a new "community schools" program,
as well as a recent voucher proposal signed into law (Law 18) by Puerto
Rico's Governor Rossello on September 3. (San Juan Star, 9/22/93)
Rossello rejected the unions' several demands, and condemned the strike.
(San Juan Star, 10/2/93)
The Puerto Rico Teachers Association, headed by President Jose Velez and represented by Atty. Rafael Nadal, has already filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have Law 18 declared unconstitutional on church-state grounds. "There are no juridical merits in the suit," Education Secretary Jose Torres said. "This is another weapon [the Association hopes] to use in the continuing fight against the government's education reforms, and to initiate more smoke screens on the public." (San Juan Star, 9/9/93)
An early report indicates that of the 5,100 students admitted to the voucher program, 3,500 will be taking university-level courses. Of the remaining 1,600, approximately 66% have chosen to transfer from one public school to another, 18% from public to private schools, and 16% from private to public schools. A couple of factors influenced those figures: the voucher bill was signed very late when private schools were already in session and public schools were about to begin in four days; and the proposal had limitations of restricted eligibility based on income (annual income cap of $18,000 per household). (San Juan Star, 9/24/93)
WISCONSIN
On September 30 the Landmark Legal Foundation filed a
lawsuit in federal court for the district of Eastern Wisconsin claiming
that the exclusion of religious schools from the Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program (MPCP) is unconstitutional. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
four Milwaukee families who, although eligible for the school choice program,
have nonetheless been consigned to a waiting list due to lack of space
in the eleven participating nonsectarian private schools.
The ground-breaking MPCP, begun in 1990, makes state funds available to 1,000 students (expanding to 1,500 in '94-'95) from low income families wishing to attend private schools. The program, however, excludes participation by religiously-affiliated schools. The effect of that exclusion, of course, is to eliminate the major supply of private school seats and a major parent motivation. Only 617 students were able to benefit from the program during '92-'93 (Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, Vol. 6, no. 4) and only 740 during '93-'94 (Capital Times, 10/1/93); the remainder have been left waiting for openings in the small number of participating nonsectarian schools.
Landmark contends that the exclusion of religiously-affiliated schools "violates the parents' rights to free exercise of religion and to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Constitution." State Rep. Polly Williams, who led the legislative battle for the MPCP, supports the legal action and stated at a September 30 news conference, "We want to empower parents. . .. We have to get the power into the hands of parents."
CURRENT EDUCATIONAL POLICY'S BITTER FRUIT
Adult Illiteracy
On September 8 the U.S. Department of Education released
the results of a four-year study of literacy in America. The results were
not encouraging. Almost half of America's 191 million adult citizens are
unable to perform basic reading and arithmetic tasks successfully, according
to the study. Adult illiteracy costs American businesses between $25 billion
and $30 billion annually in lost productivity. (New York Times,
9/9/93) The highest cost of all, of course, is that paid by the millions
of persons unable to utilize their full potential.
Student Illiteracy
According to a new study by the U.S. Department of Education,
only 37% of America's high school seniors can comprehend 12th-grade reading
material. Among the 4th-graders the situation is even worse: only 25% can
understand material geared toward their grade level. The study, called
Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States, offers, in the
words of The New York Times (9/16/93), "yet another indictment of
the nation's schools." (See also Wall Street Journal, 9/16/93)
BLUM CENTER HOLDINGS
& ACTIVITIES
We have most recent educational choice legislative proposals
and/or summaries from Illinois, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Arizona, for any
readers who would like to request copies. We alert readers, as well, to
three especially important recent publications: Steven V. Monsma, Positive
Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring, (Westport, Connecticut;
London: Greenwood Press, 1993, 277 pp.); Myron Lieberman, Public Education,
An Autopsy, (Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University
Press, 1993, 379 pp.); and Alan Bonsteel's article, "Free the Schools,"
in the September 20, 1993, National Review, (pp. 62, 64-65). We
want also to note an upcoming choice conference in Harrisburg, PA, December
10-11, 1993, sponsored by REACH Pennsylvania. For additional information
regarding program, arrangements, and the outstanding slate of speakers,
contact Mr. David W. Kirkpatrick at (717) 238-1878.
- Before the AFL-CIO on Monday, October 4, President Clinton
continued paying his dues. He advised California voters to oppose Proposition
174 and the educational choice it would provide. Once again he made clear
that he does not see, or acknowledge, the manifest public policy questions
implicit in his own cherished private school experience as a child and
college student, and in the Clintons' choice of a private school for their
daughter: should not parents generally have the same capacity? Should those
parents be encouraged to choose and commit to schools, as Clinton and his
mother did, or be discouraged and defeated by educational finance monopoly
(EFM)?
His stated reasons for opposing educational choice without financial penalty are remarkable in several respects. They are, on the one hand, standard and commonplace smoke screens, everywhere used by choice opponents to obstruct citizens' vision. On the other hand, they are expressed in unusually exaggerated ways. As reported in the October 5 White House Bulletin, his first assertion — that Prop. 174 will "start by taking $1.3 billion" from public schools — is a form of the customary "siphon" argument. It suffers the usual "siphon" problems: contrary to his implications, choice does not say how many dollars public schools should get; his comment presumes to know what no one knows: the exact relationship between educational cost and quality; and it puts cart before horse, means above ends, by asking not of education's needs but of public schools' needs. His generally dysfunctional observation is especially inapt in the case of Prop. 174, of course, where the choice proposed would not apply at once to children already in private schools.
His second sally is a scare tactic that ends up exalting bureaucracy over families. He asserts that Prop. 174 will authorize a kind of license: "Just take your voucher and who cares whether the private school is a legitimate school or not." "Who cares?," indeed! Parents care, and that rather dramatically summarizes the fundamental dispute between educational choice advocates, on one side, and those such as Mr. Clinton who defend educational finance monopoly on the other. A fundamental premise of choice is that most parents, loving their children, are more likely to seek and secure the welfare of those children than is any monopolistic bureaucracy. EFM's defenders, by contrast, cannot acknowledge parental authority and competence without endangering their own hegemony, and are driven instead to speak as if, absent monopolistic bureaucracy, no one will care for the child's welfare. That effectively dismisses parents, just as Mr. Clinton's "Who cares?" does.
Mr. Clinton's final shot is one of the more extreme versions of using the church-state bogeyman to impede choice. He reflects on his own youthful years when welcoming Catholic schools were chosen by his non-Catholic mother to provide his educational nurturing. In those days, he tells us, ". . . no one ever thought that the church would want any money from the taxpayers to run their schools." It would be difficult to write a more blatantly discriminatory and error-filled statement than that: no church is demanding money, no church would get money under Prop. 174, not even church schools would directly receive such funds. Parent believers-as-citizens, of all faiths, would qualify for assistance now wrongfully denied them, as would parents of all stripes. To impugn their right to seek such policy is to say their religious faith makes them less than full citizens.
Whatever his motivations and self-understanding, Mr. Clinton in these passages engages in a massive misportrayal of reality. He just makes smoke, the classic maneuver when one has no ammunition to fire.n
View
a different issue of the Freedom Report
Return to Blum Center
Home Page
|
The Blum Center grants full permission for all of its documents to be copied, in part or in whole, to extend the reach of the Center's messages and information. We appreciate it when our readers keep us apprised of state and national developments in the area of school choice, particularly legislative developments. Any Blum Center documents not available on our web page may be obtained by contacting us by telephone, fax, or mail. Virgil C. Blum Center for Parental Freedom in Education |
 |