- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find great evidence of building momentum in various state-level activities, a summary of activities at the Blum Center and cognate organizations, an Editor's View on the need for a clear ideal of school choice, and two attachments explained herein.
CALIFORNIA
California's unhappy experience with Prop. 174 in November,
1993, suggested that it lacked a sustaining organization dedicated to constructing
a winning coalition out of school choice's "natural constituencies." (See,
e.g., Freedom Report #2 on California.) A new effort may help remedy
this situation.
Bay C.A.R.E. (Californians Advocating Reform in Education), a newly-formed San Francisco-based organization under the chairmanship of Rabbi Pinchas Lipner, is sponsoring a September 13 symposium at the Saint Francis Hotel in San Francisco to discuss the future of the school choice movement in California. The symposium, open to the public and the press, will draw together a diverse coalition of community leaders and educators, including, among others, Laura Head, Professor, Black Studies Department, San Francisco State University; Joseph A. Alibrandi, Chairman and CEO, the Whittaker Corporation, Los Angeles; Raymond Kwong, President of the Chinese Family Alliance, San Francisco; and Lance T. Izumi, JD, fellow, Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. Learning from the Prop. 174 defeat last November, Rabbi Lipner commented, "This is a fundamentally healthy and constructive development and we need to reach out to poor parents as well as rich parents, parents of public school children and private school children, Christian parents, Muslim parents and Jewish parents, black parents and white parents to form a new coalition which will inspire the success of the next ballot initiative." (08/10/94 press release) For additional information regarding Bay C.A.R.E., contact Barry Smail or Rabbi Pinchas Lipner at (415) 752-7333.
NEW JERSEY
Jersey
City "Children First" Education Act
The proposal to create a comprehensive educational choice
program in Jersey City has been gaining support from a significant number
of state legislators, according to Mayor Bret Schundler's staff. Ongoing
communication between advocates of the Jersey City "Children First" Education
Act and state legislators indicates that very few legislators oppose the
plan, while many more favor it. A large number, however, remain undecided
and want to see a final version of the proposal before making any commitments.
A final version should soon be available to those undecided legislators,
since on August 25 Education Commissioner Leo Klagholz completed his review
of the proposal. The "Children First" Education Act could be introduced
in the state Assembly, where it will likely receive solid support, as early
as October. Should the proposal succeed in the Assembly, supporters hope
that the state Senate will act on it some time in November. Governor Christine
Whitman is a strong supporter of the proposal and appears certain to sign
it into law if it passes in both houses of the legislature.
Although support for the Jersey City school choice plan is building and although its prospects look promising, Mayor Schundler warns that the state's largest teachers' union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), will oppose it bitterly. The NJEA can be expected to mount an intense lobbying campaign coupled with paid media advertisements in an effort to defeat the proposal. (Information provided by Daniel J. Cassidy.)
School Choice Rally
On Sunday, October 16, a rally in support of school choice
will be held at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey. The organization
called "Save Our Schoolchildren," which is sponsoring the rally, hopes
to attract a great number of school choice supporters from across the country.
The rally, to be conducted between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., is intended
to demonstrate broad citizen support nationally for choice in education
and also to serve as a "kick-off" event for the Jersey City "Children First"
Education Act. Many prominent advocates of educational choice have been
invited to speak at the October 16 rally, including Lamar Alexander, William
Bennett, former President George Bush, U.S. Senators Bill Bradley and Bob
Dole, Wisconsin State Representative Annette Polly Williams, New Jersey
Governor Christine Whitman as well as Mayor Schundler. Admission to the
"Save Our Schoolchildren" rally will be free of charge. Later in the evening
of October 16, there will be a fundraising gala for those who are able
to make a substantial financial contribution to the effort to pass the
Jersey City "Children First" Education Act. For further information about
the rally contact Daniel J. Cassidy at (201) 547-5576.
OHIO
An overwhelming majority of Ohioans support the Ohio
Scholarship Plan, according to a survey conducted this summer by the Center
for Urban Studies at the University of Akron. The survey results were released
August 17 by Hope for Ohio's Children, an organization formed to promote
educational choice in Ohio. Among those surveyed, 71.7% said they would
support a school choice plan along the lines of the Ohio Scholarship Plan,
which would give local school districts the option of implementing school
choice pilot programs. Among African-Americans, support climbs to 74.5%;
while among those identifying themselves as Democrats, 76.9% support the
plan, as do 70.7% of Republicans. Additionally, 60.7% of registered voters
surveyed said they would vote "yes" if given the opportunity to vote on
the implementation of a school choice program in their local district.
The percentage of those who would vote "yes" rises to 67.6 among African-Americans.
Interestingly, while a majority of respondents rated their local public
school district as adequate or better, 51.6% of parents responding to the
survey said they would prefer to enroll their children in a private religious
or non-religious school if tuition costs were not a factor. The Center
for Urban Studies surveyed the attitudes of 1,401 Ohio households between
June 6 and July 5, 1994. (08/17/94 press release from the Center for Urban
Studies of the University of Akron)
Commenting on the survey results, Akron businessman and co-chair of Hope for Ohio's Children, David L. Brennan, observed, "School choice has won the war of ideas. Now, the question is how far the Education Establishment will go to deny the people of Ohio what they want." (08/17/94 press release from Hope for Ohio's Children) The Ohio Scholarship Plan was introduced last year in both the state House and Senate where it awaits further legislative action. (See Freedom Reports #3 and 5.) If no action is taken before the conclusion of this year, Governor George Voinovich intends to include the plan in his executive budget, which will be introduced early in 1995. (Information provided by Kevin J. Coughlin. See below for address and telephone number.)
PUERTO RICO
In an August 10 ruling, the Puerto Rican Supreme Court
decided to allow the commonwealth's Special Scholarships Program to continue
uninterrupted and unimpeded for the 1994-'95 school year. Last April, a
lower court ruled that the program violates Puerto Rico's constitution
(see Freedom Report #9), and issued an injunction barring further
distribution of the educational choice scholarships beyond June, 1994.
(San Juan Star, 08/06/94) While the Supreme Court has yet to render
a judgment on the constitutionality of the program, its recent decision
overturns the lower court's injunction. In doing so, the high court declared,
"The Department of Education may make the pertinent expenditures with relation
to Special Scholarships Program" (Blum Center's translation of the Supreme
Court's 08/10/94 resolution). Since September, 1993, the Special Scholarships
Program has made educational choice grants available to low-income Puerto
Rican families, enabling them to select private religious or non-religious
schools for their children. The lawsuit challenging the program and currently
pending before the Commonwealth Supreme Court was brought by the Puerto
Rico Teachers Association. (Information provided by Clint Bolick, Institute
for Justice, in a memorandum dated 08/16/94, and from the Puerto Rican
Supreme Court's 08/10/94 resolution sent to the Blum Center by Rev. José
Basols.)
Should the Teachers Association succeed in its challenge, it will come at the expense of low-income families like those of Damaris Rivera Ruiz and Olga González. Rivera and González are mothers whose children are able to attend the Colegio Evangélico Felícita Rosario, a private religious school, with education vouchers from the Special Scholarships Program. Their stories were recounted in an August 9 San Juan Star article by Lorraine Blasor. "Although aware of the legal issues surrounding the vouchers, Rivera and González are less concerned about legalities than with the educational advantages which vouchers have unlocked for them," Blasor observes. "The possibility that the Supreme Court might take away this benefit fills them with quiet dread." Their dread is well founded. One of Rivera's boys, nine-year-old Christian, had severe behavior and learning problems when he attended the assigned public school. Now in his new school, however, Christian "has learned to be a disciplined student." Indeed, Rivera considers attention to discipline and safety to be one of the Colegio Evangélico's most attractive features. The Special Scholarships Program has undeniably been a blessing to youngsters like Christian, and it has given parents like Rivera and González real hope for their children's future. (San Juan Star, 08/09/94)
TEXAS
In a recent editorial, John Andrews, a research fellow
at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, and at the Texas Public
Policy Foundation in San Antonio, reports that his work recently took him
to Texas to see what Coloradans might learn from Texans about, among other
things, school vouchers. Andrews reports that "State Rep. Ron Wilson, a
black Democrat from Houston, has become the most eloquent legislative voice
demanding vouchers to let low-income children choose any school, public
or private. 'If you can't educate our children, then set them free,' Wilson
challenged his colleagues last year as the voucher proposal came within
a single vote of passage." (Rocky Mountain News, 08/07/94) Representatives
Wilson and Kurt Grusendorf had offered an amendment to a public school
choice program already on the floor, and the amendment failed by one vote
in the House last session.
If, indeed, the political climate is "ripe" in Texas, the indicators are that political and grass-roots support is also on the rise. According to George Solana of the Texas Catholic Conference, the Texas Coalition for Parental Choice in Education (TCPCE) is gathering support from around the state in order to mobilize the natural constituencies on behalf of educational choice. For further information, contact TCPCE at 19923 Encino Royale, San Antonio, Texas 78259.
BLUM CENTER INFORMATION
The attached "Fixing American Education Up to Now" analyzes
the inevitably harmful results of asking the beneficiaries of educational
finance monopoly how to fix education's problems. Those beneficiaries,
by definition, will act to maintain the system they see as the source of
their material welfare. That is natural, not perverse — but it effectively
disqualifies such groups as objective advisors.
Recent Acquisitions
Readers of the Freedom Report and other Blum Center
materials are familiar with the idea that the prevailing educational finance
monopoly (EFM) is sustained by vested interests who know how to manipulate
social inertia. The primary vested interests, with material benefits flowing
directly from EFM, are the various educational unions and bureaucracies.
They, in turn, have been able up to now to enlist the support of more massive
and altruistic groups such as PTAs. For a detailed and informative window
on the major educational unions and the devices they employ to maintain
EFM, readers may want to consult Myron Lieberman, Charlene K. Haar and
Leo Troy's The NEA and AFT: Teacher Unions in Power and Politics
(Pro>Active Publications: Rockport, Massachusetts, 1994).
For those interested in reviewing some of the fundamental skills necessary for mobilizing the natural constituencies of educational choice without financial penalty, the Blum Center recommends Hope for Ohio's Children's "Grassroots Campaign Manual," prepared by Kevin J. Coughlin, Project Manager. The manual includes a look at the organizational structure and guiding principles of Hope for Ohio's Children, several "tactics" for organizing solid grassroots approaches, based on Hope for Ohio's Children's experience, and additional background and organizational information gleaned from other choice efforts around the nation. For further information, contact Hope for Ohio's Children at 807 Society Building, 159 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308, (800) 827-HOPE.
Lastly, the Blum Center has just received from Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice "School Choice: Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Legal Questions," by Clint Bolick and Richard D. Komer. The publication has as its stated purpose "to provide guidance to school choice proponents, and to rebut fallacies popularized by choice critics." This objective is achieved excellently. To obtain a copy of this new paper, contact the Institute for Justice at 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 200 South, Washington, D.C. 10004-2505, (202) 457-4240, FAX (202) 457-8574.
Organizations
The REACH Alliance of Pennsylvania will be having its
next conference on Monday, October 24, 1994, at the Hilton Towers in Harrisburg
from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Those who wish to attend should contact
David W. Kirkpatrick at 513 N. 2nd Street, P.O. Box 1283, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17108-1283, (717) 238-1878, FAX (717) 232-5046.
Also, we make an exception to our usual practice by including with this issue of the Freedom Report an invitation and registration form for the 35th Anniversary celebration of the Citizens for Educational Freedom to be held at the St. Louis Airport Hilton September 30-October 1, 1994. Please contact Mae & Martin Duggan at (314) 434-4171 for further information or additional registration forms.
- Americans are often said to be non-theoretical, if not
anti-theoretical. "Pragmatic," "action-oriented," "just do it" are
the kinds of expressions regularly used to describe the "American way,"
as contrasted with more "theoretical" approaches to life. Such contrasts
are not terribly useful.
No person, and no community, can avoid theory for, at its essence, theory just means the end or good or objective our action seeks. If we do not act for something, then we are acting crazily, and when we admit we are acting for something rather than nothing then we admit we are acting "theoretically," as we pursue something we want but do not have.
So, what distinguishes persons and their communities is not whether they are theoretical or not. We are all theoreticians and cannot avoid it. What distinguishes people is whether the theories they pursue are well-constructed or haphazard; well-articulated, or implicit; objectively defensible or smoke screens hiding deeper subjective motivations which, though understandable, cannot stand objective analysis once exposed.
It is my strong impression that much of the effort to achieve school choice in the United States suffers from failure to articulate clearly and simply an ideal approach to educational funding. Without a simply-stated ideal to serve as a North Star, school choice advocates can and do get too easily sidetracked by this or that smoke screen, this or that inefficacious "reform" within a destructive system rather than reform of that system. The destructive system is clear enough, as Freedom Report readers know well: educational finance monopoly (EFM). From it derive the many educational disadvantages, for all schools, summarized in Freedom Reports 7, 8, and 9 and in "The Automatic Benefits of School Choice."
But can we similarly describe a model educational funding policy? If we were in a "state of nature," with clear vision and without powerful vested interests working to sustain an already-existing structure, we might create and adopt a funding model no more complicated than this:
1. The state legislature is to decide how much money society will spend to provide education, aiming at whatever standards society wants to attain, with whatever are judged to be acceptable quality assurances, such as voluntary accreditation;
2. It will then count the number of children to be educated;
3. Next, it will divide #1 by #2, and place the resultant sum, along with any special education or low-income supplements, in the hands of parents or guardians, at the same time telling them:
4. "As the persons most dedicated to the welfare of the children, please use the purchasing power here provided to secure for them the very best education you can find, in the kind of educational environment most compelling to you and most harmonious with your family's values."
Those who are striving to replace EFM with educational choice do themselves a disservice if they do not have before their eyes at all times a clear, summary model of where they want finally to get. In every American jurisdiction we start not from a state of nature but from a long-entrenched, very self-protective status quo, EFM. The defenders of that status quo have won their battles through attrition, not argument, as they have thrown up one smoke screen after another, one intra-system "reform" after another. Such tactics can be successful if the proponents of school choice are poorly organized — or if, even when well-organized, they do not have an evident, compelling ideal to guide them. Without it they will be vulnerable to a never-ending series of detours and, over time, will tend to tire out.
But if they have a sharply-etched ultimate model, such as the four-step example above or a better one, they will never get lost. They can evaluate every reform step to see if it is bringing them closer to the goal or is, in fact, just a status quo-preserving sidetrack. Various actual school choice systems around the world are essentially like the four-step model described above, lest readers think I have offered a wildly utopian vision. Denmark is an example. There is no objective reason why American states cannot do as well. But in the U.S., in every state, sensitivity to students caught in the status quo suggests a several-step process, reflecting the particularities of each state, to arrive at full school choice. That is alright — as long as each step is in the direction of our North Star: parental rights equal to parental responsibilities, comprehensive school choice without financial penalty.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 |
 |