- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will discover a round-up of pertinent electoral outcomes, several other state-level highlights, Lithuania's example to us all, a tiny rhetorical suggestion, and an Editor's View on overcoming state constitutional impediments to school choice.
SELECTED PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS
Arizona
State Representative Lisa Graham won the September 13
Republican primary election for state Superintendent of Schools with an
overwhelming 72 percent of the vote. Rep. Graham will face Lela Alston,
the Democratic primary victor, in the November 8 general election. The
two candidates hold dramatically contrasting positions on education reform.
Lela Alston "is supported by the teachers' union" and "vehemently opposes"
comprehensive school choice via education vouchers. (Phoenix
Gazette, 09/14/94) She also expresses grave concerns about Arizona's
recently-enacted charter schools law. Ms. Alston advocates such reform
measures as an increase in vocational programs and in the length of the
school day as well as year-round schools and the placement of "family-resource
centers at schools in poor areas...." (Arizona Republic, 09/04/94)
Lisa Graham, on the other hand, is an outspoken advocate of parental choice in education and last spring, as chair of the state House Education Committee, sponsored a bill which, had it passed, would have provided education vouchers to a limited number of low-income Arizona families, allowing them to enroll their children in private schools. (See Freedom Reports #6, 7, & 8.) Education vouchers, Graham states, "represent a philosophy which places children at the center of our efforts. I believe the policy of Arizona, as well as our moral obligation, is to obtain the best education possible for each individual child, regardless of whether the teaching takes place in a public or private setting." (Phoenix Gazette, 08/02/94) Rep. Graham supports school choice via education vouchers for all Arizona families and she also supports Arizona's charter schools program. (Arizona Republic, 09/04/94)
Florida
In the September 8 Republican primary, gubernatorial
candidate Jeb Bush won 46% of the vote among a field of five GOP candidates.
The second-place finisher, Florida's Secretary of State Jim Smith, received
18% of the vote. A run-off primary between Mr. Bush and Mr. Smith was avoided
when on September 12 Smith dropped out of the race, leaving Jeb Bush, son
of former President George Bush, the sole GOP candidate. Bush will face
Florida's incumbent Democratic Governor Lawton Chiles in the November 8
general election. The results of a state-wide poll conducted by Mason-Dixon
Opinion Research, Inc., prior to the primary election (August 27-29) indicated
a slim lead for Governor Chiles (44%) over Bush (41%); although, given
the poll's 4% margin of error, support for the two candidates appears as
"a statistical tie." (New York Times, 09/13/94)
Bush has highlighted his support for comprehensive choice in education throughout his campaign. "Jeb Bush is a strong supporter of vouchers and would phase them in statewide over several years." By contrast, "Gov. Lawton Chiles believes they would destroy the public school system." (Miami Herald, 09/02/94) Bush serves as co-chair of Floridians for Educational Choice, and his running mate for Lieutenant Governor, State Rep. Tom Feeney, is a well-known advocate of school choice and author of Florida's exceptionally well-crafted Parental Choice in Education Act (HB 583). (See also New York Times, 09/02/94.)
Maryland
The state House Minority Leader, Delegate Ellen R. Sauerbrey,
won the Republican nomination for Governor by a large margin in the September
13 primary election. She will face Democratic nominee Parris Glendening
in the November general election. Del. Sauerbrey is an articulate supporter
of choice in education who has previously introduced school choice legislation
in the state legislature. She has made education reform and comprehensive
choice in education a major plank in her campaign platform. (Baltimore
Sun, 09/15/94; Washington Post, 09/15/94; see also Freedom
Report #11)
In campaign literature, Del. Sauerbrey has stated "Parents are the first and most important teachers of each child and should have more freedom to make choices about the schools that best meet their children's needs.... I will work to provide incentives for the creation of a diversity of options. These options would include charter public schools, alternative public schools and an education scholarship program." Sauerbrey's scholarship proposal would allow local school districts the option, upon majority vote of the school board or district residents, of implementing the program. She notes that "No district would be required to participate in the plan." Under the plan, families in participating districts could use scholarships, funded by the state, to enroll their children in any accredited private school. Each scholarship would be worth $2,000; although Sauerbrey remains open to altering that figure. Families would also have the option of choosing from among local public schools or from public schools in other districts willing to accept out-of-district students. Those who are interested may contact the Ellen Sauerbrey Campaign Committee; P.O. Box 549, Timonium, MD 21094-0549; (410) 666-0100; FAX (410) 666-0170.
OTHER STATE DEVELOPMENTS
NEW JERSEY
In an August 28 Star-Ledger article, state Education
Commissioner Leo Klagholz reaffirmed his support for school choice, in
general, and for a proposal to establish a comprehensive school choice
program in Jersey City, in particular. The Jersey City proposal, Klagholz
believes, fits well with his own ideas for state-wide education reform.
Commissioner Klagholz is currently putting together a five-year plan to
permit choice in education and to raise educational standards while granting
greater flexibility to local communities in devising methods to meet those
standards. He intends to present a final version of his plan to the state
board of education later this year. Some of the measures advocated by Klagholz
include charter schools, choice of public schools both within local districts
as well as between districts, and the Jersey City education voucher plan.
Regarding the latter, Klagholz remarked, "Jersey City is the place where
we will begin." While acknowledging that these proposals have drawn stiff
opposition from the New Jersey Education Association and related organizations,
Klagholz stated, "I am confident the objections from these groups will
be seen for what they are, expressions of self-interest over the best interests
of the children of New Jersey." (Star-Ledger 08/28/94 article by
Robert J. Braun) Klagholz is joined in his support for the Jersey City
proposal by Governor Christine Whitman and, of course, Jersey City Mayor
Bret Schundler. (See Freedom Reports #11 & 12.)
For those interested in adding their support to the Jersey City school choice proposal, a rally will be held from 1:00 - 4:00 on Sunday, October 16 at Liberty State Park in Jersey City. A great number of nationally-known advocates of choice in education have been invited to speak at the rally. A fund-raising "gala," for which tickets will be required, will be held later in the evening. For further information about the rally, contact Mike Ferguson at (201) 200-0616.
MPCP Lawsuit
A lawsuit filed by Landmark Legal Foundation on behalf
of five Milwaukee families challenging the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program's
exclusion of religious schools is moving forward in federal district court.
The lawsuit, known as Miller v. Benson, was originally filed on
September 30, 1993 in federal court for the district of Eastern Wisconsin.
It contends that to exclude religious schools from the choices available
under the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) is unconstitutional,
violating the families' 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion
and their 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the laws.
(See Freedom Report #1.) On August 25, attorney for the families,
Landmark's Mark J. Bredemeier, submitted to the court a motion for summary
judgment. A district court hearing is currently scheduled for November
15, 1994.
Begun in 1990, the MPCP has allowed a maximum of approximately 1,000 children from low-income families (increased to about 1,500 children beginning with the current school-year) to use state-funded education vouchers to transfer from the Milwaukee Public School system to local private schools. The MPCP, however, prohibits the use of education vouchers at any of the city's 110 religiously-affiliated schools. The effect of that prohibition has been to frustrate the desire of many eligible families to enroll their children in religious schools. It has also meant that each year considerably less than the maximum number of children allowed to participate in the program have actually been able to participate. The twelve non-religious private schools eligible under the MPCP simply do not have sufficient space and must place children on waiting lists. Four of the five families joining Landmark's legal action have children currently consigned to such waiting lists, and all five families would prefer to send their children to religious schools were that choice available to them. State Representative and principal sponsor of the original MPCP legislation, Annette "Polly" Williams, fully supports the Landmark lawsuit. [Information provided by Landmark Legal Foundation; 1006 Grand Avenue, 8th Floor; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; (816) 474-6600; FAX (816) 474-6609.]
From
the "Do as I Say, Not as I Do" File...
The following bit of information from the August 29 Wall
Street Journal provides some fuel for thought. It is titled "Watch
What Teachers Do."
In January, 1994, the Lithuanian parliament amended article 36 of the 1991 law on education adopted by the Supreme Council of Lithuania to require the state to "support financially any non State-owned institution which provides an education corresponding to the educational standards approved by the State. The support is equivalent to that received by corresponding State-owned educational institutions." (Education & Liberté, Lettre D'Information de L'OIDEL, August-September, 1994, No. 7) This is another excellent illustration of a foreign nation "doing what comes naturally," providing genuine educational choice for its citizens, and exploding the myth that choice is "experimental." The rationale given for the amendment is straightforward: "A considerable proliferation of private, confessional and other non State-owned institutions may be expected. This will create real opportunities for pupils and their parents to choose the type of school which most adequately meets their needs." (Ibid. Also, see Freedom Report #10 for a sampling of other nations long since employing genuine educational choice models.)
A NEW FORMULATION
OF AN OLD TRUTH
One of the standard smoke screens used against school
choice, as Report readers know well, is that choice is at one and
the same time an attack on public schools, and a surreptitious life-support
system for private ones. Report readers also know that this is an
entirely fallacious description but one that works well to confuse onlookers.
We know the latter because we encounter that fallacy regularly, being used
by individuals, groups, and media not beholden to educational finance monopoly
(EFM) but misled by it.
Simple analysis of school choice by any open-minded person will reveal the truth: its very essence is an empowerment of parents, the use of those parents to assign some or all of tax dollars dedicated to education. Parent allocation (whether to public or private schools) vs monopolistic, bureaucratic allocation of education funding: that is school choice vs EFM. Nothing in that system is an attack on public schools, nor an advantaging of private ones.
Those of us who know such obvious truths realize at the same time that we are obliged always to be looking for simple, clear formulations of them to help others see. The Editor has lately been summarizing the foregoing reality as follows: "School choice is school neutral and parent positive." That is exactly what school choice is, and this expression of it seems to be effective in helping some citizens break through the "attack on the public schools" barrier. It is passed along to Report readers for what it is worth.
BLUM CENTER HOLDINGS & ACTIVITIES
· Milwaukee's highly successful privately funded school choice program, Partners Advancing Values in Education (PAVE), has published its second annual report. Copies are available from the Blum Center or from the PAVE office: 1434 W. State Street; Milwaukee, WI 53233; (414) 342-1505.
· Readers have requested that we include in this Report additional information about a book we noted in Report #12. Orders for the book, The NEA and AFT: Teacher Unions in Power and Politics, by Myron Lieberman, Charlene K. Haar, and Leo Troy, may be pre-paid by sending $25 (includes shipping & handling) to Pro>Active Publications, 4401-A Connecticut Avenue, NW, Box 294, Washington, D.C. 20008. Orders may also be sent via FAX to (202) 244-7584 for $28, plus $4 shipping & handling (UPS).
· Lastly, we want to offer readers a final reminder about two upcoming conferences in October: one in St. Louis 09/30-10/01 to celebrate the 35th Anniversary of the Citizens for Educational Freedom, and one in Harrisburg on 10/24 held by the REACH Alliance of Pennsylvania. For last-minute information about the St. Louis conference, please contact Mae & Martin Duggan at (314) 434-4171; and information about the Harrisburg Conference can be obtained from David Kirkpatrick at (717) 238-1878.
- The Witters, Mueller, and Zobrest
Supreme Court decisions clearly affirm what reasonable people would expect:
tuition support for children in sectarian schools, when parents are the
conduits, does not violate First Amendment church-state provisions. The
constitutions of many states have been interpreted as in conformity with
federal practice on church and state, and in those states the natural and
sufficient path to school choice is legislative action.
In some other states, however, one or another constitutional provision has been interpreted as barring legislative enactment of true school choice. In such states, the path to true choice calls for a constitutional change removing the impediment as well as the formation of a now-legitimate educational choice program. Even in the latter cases, such as California and Oregon, there remains another question which calls for serious deliberation. That question: is it better to try to amend the constitution and in the same action incorporate the specific school choice provision; or is it better simply to seek to amend the constitution so as to authorize school choice, and then define the specific form through the legislative process?
A Blum Center principle: the school choice struggle will take different forms in different jurisdictions, and the triumph will take different forms, as well. In the same spirit, I do not presume that the "one step or two" question has a universal answer. But I do suggest that there are great difficulties attaching to the one-step solution, and certain palpable advantages in the two-step. The two-step remedy — amend the constitution so as to authorize true choice, followed by legislative enactment of a specific program — has at least these things in its favor:
1. It neutralizes to some degree the financial disadvantage school choice groups typically have when they confront the defenders of the status quo educational finance monopoly (EFM).
2. It makes much easier the crucial task of building and sustaining the political coalition necessary to overcome EFM.
3. It most properly reflects the fact that the first form of school choice is not likely to be the last — because we are imperfect creatures, and because we are likely to move to full choice through several gradual steps if that is possible, as part of being sensitive to the needs of those trapped in the status quo.
The status quo's EFM defends itself by manipulating social inertia. It does this through large, professional staff structures, working with educational union members and what I call their "altruistic corollaries," the PTAs, school boards, et al. EFM defenders have available very substantial funds. The advocates of choice, by contrast, tend to be less richly funded and minimally staffed. They do have two powerful advantages, however: they have the power of the argument entirely in their favor — there being no educational downside to school choice; and they have a potentially dominant electoral capacity if they can unite the "natural constituencies" of choice.
The best way to bring those constituencies together in lasting fashion is to create an organization under which they can all fit for the common purpose of breaking EFM and creating parental choice without financial penalty. Such an organization can provide reliable funding to support a professional staff effort to lead the fight for school choice. If that fight adopts the two-step approach, it will likely have productive effects. To begin with, it is easier to construct a majority coalition around the general principle of school choice than around any particular form. Common sense tells us that, but we know it, too, from viewing the discrepancy between public opinion polls done at the general level and voter results in California, Colorado, and Oregon when they were looking at specific instruments.
Another crucial part of successful coalition-building is ensuring that all of choice's constituencies — inner-city parents, taxpayers' organizations, ethically-concerned groups, business associations, etc. — have a chance to participate in and contribute their special views to the formation of the choice policy proposal, and that is more easily done in the relatively fluid environment of legislative give-and-take than in the once-and-for-all, long-before-the-fact framework of a constitutional referendum. Any flaw is greatly magnified if it cannot be easily repaired.
If the authorizing-only approach is better for building a majority, that very success also promises to convince politicians that there is widespread support for school choice, which will positively influence subsequent legislative deliberation. As to the legislative process, there are several reasons for imagining that, in many jurisdictions, it will be the best place for designing specific choice programs. The normally vast financial advantage of EFM is neutralized in legislative matters to some degree by limitations on pressure group expenditures. By contrast, that financial advantage is emphasized in mass media advertising buys aimed at the broad population, such as in referenda. At the same time, the legislative process can more easily take a gradualistic, several-step path to school choice, precisely because its very nature presumes a willingness constantly to perfect an always imperfect human device. And in this process it will tend to be most responsive to choice's constituencies.
Finally, one of EFM's traditionally most important strengths can, in the context of full-fledged political party combat, turn into a serious weakness. EFM has forged control relationships between educational unions and bureaucracies, on the one hand, and state legislatures and their committees, on the other. In many cases, these unions have been preponderantly devoted to supporting one party. In such circumstances, opposition parties literally owe those unions nothing. Indeed, they may be alienated from them. When such opposition parties, free of control, can build school choice into their platforms they have a powerful issue which, among other things, can be used to demonstrate their freedom from special interests. EFM's traditional cozy relations with one party can be a real liability in a newly-competitive legislature.
"Getting it all done at once" is a perfectly understandable instinct. But getting it done is the genuine objective, and I have offered here some arguments which suggest that two steps are more likely to succeed than one. At the very least, the realities noted here might incline anyone thinking of a one-step approach to make the referendum result easily amendable. Absent that, any specific approach will be vulnerable to "what if the worst happens?" attacks.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 |
 |