- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will read about vital school choice developments in several states, Puerto Rico, and in some foreign lands, and will be updated regarding Blum Center and related activities. They will also find an Editor's caution on the charter school movement.
FLORIDA
Last month the Freedom Report offered selected
results of state primary elections, including Florida's in which school
choice proponent and gubernatorial candidate Jeb Bush won the GOP primary
race. This month we report another Florida election result of interest
to supporters of educational choice. On October 4, Frank Brogan narrowly
defeated Bob Morris in a Republican primary run-off election for state
Education Commissioner. Both Mr. Brogan and Mr. Morris campaigned in support
of comprehensive choice in education and greater local control of public
school systems. Brogan emerged the winner with 53% of the vote and must
now face Democratic candidate Doug Jamerson, Florida's current Education
Commissioner, in the November 8 general election. Mr. Jamerson was appointed
to his post last January by Governor Lawton Chiles. Mr. Brogan currently
serves as the Superintendent of Martin County schools, an elected position.
(Miami Herald 10/02/94, 10/05/94) By the way, two recent polls show
Bush leading Chiles by 5 and 10 points. (Record 10/07/94; Economist
10/08/94)
ILLINOIS
The Heartland Institute, headquartered in Chicago and
providing analyses of a broad array of public policy issues, continues
to offer excellent leadership on behalf of genuine choice in education.
Heartland helped launch the Center for Rebuilding America's Schools, a
501 (c) (3) organization which advocates educational reform and improvement
through school choice. Quite recently, the Center for Rebuilding America's
Schools, under the direction of Mr. Joey Walsh, has begun a campaign, called
the Prairie State Initiative, designed to help develop support for school
choice in Illinois. The initial goal of the Prairie State Initiative is
to identify and enlist the support of at least 100 prominent business and
community leaders throughout the state willing publicly to advocate school
choice. It seeks eventually to help organize 100,000 Illinois citizens
who are committed to choice in education and who are committed to sustaining
the effort until victory is achieved in the state legislature.
For further information about the Center for Rebuilding America's Schools and the Prairie State Initiative contact Mr. Walsh at 800 E. Northwest Highway, Suite 1080; Palatine, Illinois 60067; (708) 202-9860.
NEW JERSEY
Several thousand parents, children and representatives
from dozens of different organizations attended an October 16 rally in
Jersey City to show their support for a proposal to establish a pilot educational
choice program in that city. Those who attended heard a large number of
prominent school choice advocates speak about the need for parental choice
in education and encourage still greater support for a Jersey City program.
Final details of the plan, which will likely be introduced in the state
legislature later this year, have yet to be determined. Governor Christine
Whitman promised her support for a Jersey City school choice program during
last year's gubernatorial campaign. And on October 5, state Education Commissioner
Leo Klagholz, who was appointed to his post by Gov. Whitman, delivered
the outline of such a plan to members of the state Board of Education.
(Record 10/05/94, 10/06/94; Philadelphia Inquirer 10/06/94)
The preliminary plan unveiled by Commissioner Klagholz differs in some
significant respects, however, from a plan developed earlier by Mayor Schundler's
office. Schundler has requested to meet with Whitman and Klagholz to resolve
those differences before submitting a proposal to state lawmakers.
The plan submitted this month by Commissioner Klagholz to the Board of Education calls for a strictly limited, five-year pilot program in Jersey City. The program would make education vouchers available to families who wish to enroll their children in local private elementary or secondary schools. It would be phased in annually, allowing students to become eligible for participation as they enter the 1st and 9th grades. Although the monetary value of the education vouchers has not been decided, they would be weighted in favor of low-income families and they could not be used at newly created private schools but only at schools established before September, 1994.
The plan that emerged from Schundler's office late last summer is more comprehensive. It includes provisions for choice of local public schools, the creation of charter schools, the formation of alternative "schools within schools" to accommodate students with special needs and teachers with special interests, a process to appeal for waiver of burdensome state regulations, and an "educational opportunity scholarships" program to allow Jersey City families to choose from among local private schools. Under the educational opportunity scholarships program, a base scholarship would be worth $1,000. An additional $300 would be added to the value of scholarships for children from low-income families; and scholarships for special needs children would be worth an amount equal to what the local district would ordinarily receive for the education of such children. Moreover, the $1,000 base scholarship could be increased in subsequent years if the program generates sufficient savings. The plan would also establish academic standards for core subjects, annual assessments of student achievement for each grade, requirements that each school publicly disclose its educational performance, a Jersey City Parental Information Center, guarantees that the independence of private schools would be maintained, and annual evaluations of the progress of the plan.
Alternative plans notwithstanding, Whitman, Klagholz and Schundler all agree that conditions in Jersey City cry out for a genuine parental choice program. Five years ago, in the face of persistent mismanagement and disastrous performance, the state disbanded the Jersey City school board and took direct control of the district's public schools. Student performance, however, has yet to improve. And while per-pupil expenditures in Jersey City's public schools now stand at $8,665 (nearly $10,000 by one estimate - Record 10/06/94), costs are projected to rise still higher in coming years. "It's absolutely essential that we not accept the way things are being done," Schundler recently declared. "The school system clearly is not working." (Record 10/05/94)
Polls indicate that a great majority of New Jersey residents support a school choice program for Jersey City. (See Freedom Report #11.) And the October 11 Wall Street Journal, in its lead editorial, urged Gov. Whitman to push for adoption of the more far-reaching plan. But lest all the educational choice stirrings in New Jersey lead anyone to imagine it will be easy, take note: the 144,000-member New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) is leading a coalition that includes 32 other groups dedicated to defeating any proposal that would permit families a greater choice of private schools. (Philadelphia Inquirer 09/23/94) The NJEA, the primary beneficiary of the current funding monopoly, and its partners have promised to conduct a door-to-door campaign, pressure state legislators, spend upwards of $10 million and initiate immediate lawsuits should a plan succeed despite their efforts. (Record 10/05/94, 10/12/94; New York Times 10/16/94)
PUERTO RICO
Almost 17,000 students are participating in the second
year of Puerto Rico's "special scholarships" program. This is an increase
in participation of more than 900% since the program was first established
under Law 71 last year. (Institute for Justice memorandum, 09/26/94) The
program was launched only after the beginning of the 1993-94 academic year,
which discouraged many from participating in it. (See Freedom Report
#1.) Thousands of additional families were able to take advantage of the
program this year; but by no means has the program resulted in a "wholesale
abandonment" of public schools, as school choice opponents have often predicted.
The vast majority of scholarships (88%) were redeemed at public schools.
About one quarter of those public schools were "community schools" established
last year under Law 18. Approximately 2,000 scholarships (12%) enabled
students to transfer from public to private schools. (San Juan Star,
10/06/94)
Clint Bolick and the Institute for Justice have been helping the Department of Education in Puerto Rico defend the constitutionality of the island's scholarship program. Last April, a lower court in Puerto Rico ruled that use of the scholarships to attend private schools violates the commonwealth's constitution and issued an injunction barring such use of the scholarships beyond June, 1994. (See Freedom Report #9.) On August 10, Puerto Rico's Supreme Court overturned the lower court injunction and allowed the program to continue through the current school year. The high court has yet to reach a final decision on the constitutionality of the program. (See Freedom Report #12.)
Arturo Garcia Solá, one of the attorneys defending the scholarship program, observes that this year's scholarship numbers "confirm our belief that the Department of Education was not trying to eliminate the public educational system, but was trying to enhance it." (San Juan Star 10/06/94) Indeed, Puerto Rico's experience with genuine choice in education serves to validate the contention often made by the Blum Center that school choice neither favors private schools nor disfavors public schools; rather, school choice is school neutral and parent positive. (See Freedom Report #13.)
Italy
According to information received from the International
Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education, Italy has recently
adopted measures to increase parental choice in education. The Italian
government will now provide funding support to independent schools, thus
easing the financial burden on families who wish to send their children
to those schools and thus increasing the range of educational options available
to families. The Blum Center is awaiting additional information about the
Italian measures and will report that information when it is available.
Swedish &
Danish Elections
The September 18 Swedish election resulted in an October
7 change of government. The outgoing Bildt coalition had created the new
Swedish school choice program. Though the new government, formed by the
Social Democratic party, can be expected to be less concerned for parental
freedom and more concerned for educational union interests, there is good
reason to hope that widespread appreciation for school choice can be mobilized
to keep the new program in place.
Denmark's September 21 election also produced a change in government, but it is not expected to have any negative impact on Denmark's exemplary, and deeply-rooted, school choice policies. Indeed, the Minister of Education will be the same as the past. (See Freedom Report #10 for a description of programs operating in Sweden and Denmark.)
New Blum Center Pamphlet
School choice workers around the nation often encounter
resistance from citizens who worry that tuition grants, vouchers, or tax
credits will necessarily lead to intrusive governmental regulation and
to a loss of independence for independent schools. To help address that
concern, we attach a new Blum Center pamphlet, "Must Tax Dollars Kill School
Independence?" It condenses, revises, and updates the Editor's "Using Fire
Without Getting Burnt," Educational Freedom, Vol. 25, No. 2, Spring-Summer,
1992, pp. 1-5. We hope it can help school choice advocates woo and win
what should be one of choice's natural constituencies: those most distrustful
of government excess.
After trial issues in August and September, 1993, the Educational Freedom Report formally began in October. The current issue marks the Report's first anniversary, accordingly. The denizens of the Blum Center greatly appreciate the warm reception given to the Report in its inaugural year, and take heart from the wide and varied uses to which it is put. We will be even happier when, parental freedom being underway across the nation, the Report can be retired.
Readers may note a few recent improvements in the Freedom Report format, thanks to suggestions from an esteemed reader, Nona Aguilar of New York. Nona's ideas are greatly appreciated, as have been earlier comments from her and others who have helped us make the Freedom Report work. We encourage all our readers to make suggestions on how to improve the Report to meet the needs of state colleagues who are "in the trenches" working on behalf of educational choice.
An Especially
Pertinent Recent Publication
The current issue of Public Interest (No. 117,
Fall, 1994) contains an article by Daniel McGroarty entitled "School Choice
Slandered." It takes a very critical, and justifiably critical look at
the evaluation methods imposed on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,
the radically-limited but trail-blazing school choice program championed
by Rep. Annette "Polly" Williams. Once again we see the capacity of parental
freedom to encourage better educational environments even when heavily
shackled and arbitrarily tested.
Organizational
Information - Hope for Ohio's Children & Texas Justice Foundation
Hope for Ohio's Children is conducting a search for a
new Project Manager to replace Kevin Coughlin, who recently left the position
to pursue an advanced degree. HOPE, launched in January, 1994, serves as
Ohio's advocacy organization for parental choice, and its co-chairmen,
David Brennan and Art Kobacker, are hoping to fill the Manager's vacancy
immediately. Inquiries and résumés may be sent to Mary Ann
Jackson, Project Administrator for David L. Brennan, 159 S. Main Street,
807 Society Building, Akron, Ohio 44308, (800) 827-HOPE, FAX (216) 762-3625.
The Blum Center has recently made contact with the Texas Justice Foundation, which is committed to the preservation of parental rights and educational freedom, among other objectives. For additional information, contact Mr. Allan E. Parker Jr., Attorney at Law and President, 8122 Datapoint Dr., Suite 906, San Antonio, Texas 78229, (210) 614-7157.
- The charter school movement has considerable momentum
in the U.S. Eleven states have enacted charter legislation, and several
others are on the brink. There is wide variety among the specific charter
adaptations, particularly in the degree of independence charter schools
can have from traditional monopoly controls. But generally speaking charter
schools, though fully state-funded and chartered, operate with greater
independence than traditional public schools, and are typically independent
of local school districts. Charter schools are funded on a per-pupil basis,
and their students (and parents) make an act of choice to attend. Usually,
the charter school is designed to attract "special needs" students.
Precisely because they differ in these important respects from the often-disastrous status quo, charter systems have generated a good bit of anticipation and excitement. I do not want to spoil anyone's fun, but it is necessary to introduce a few cautions and caveats. Freedom Report readers know the Blum Center's North Star: comprehensive parental freedom in education through school choice without financial penalty. That can only be achieved by dismantling educational finance monopoly (EFM); and replacing it with parental allocation of tax dollars to schools judged by parents to be most worthy for their children. That is a natural step because it makes parents' rights equal to their responsibilities. With such a North Star in mind, we can ask of every educational funding reform: does it advance us toward our goal? Does it advance us as far as we can and should advance? Does it have any potential for being a misstep which, however presented, might actually deter progress toward the true goal of parental freedom?
When such questions are asked of the charter movement, the answers must give us pause. I believe the fundamental fact is that only in America, trapped as we are in EFM's destructive snares, and blinded as we are by EFM's smoke screens, would anyone think that charter schools were adequate or sufficient. Indeed, only in that suffering America would anyone even think of charters as a suitable device apart from a true comprehensive choice system.
Within a true choice system — where parents select schools, including religiously-based schools, without financial penalty — charter schools would have the same rightful potential as any other educational offering. Charter varieties would either succeed and survive, or fail and disappear, as would school offerings generally. Indeed, the more important question about charters within a choice system is whether the commercial ventures among them could survive, since they would have to compete not just against bloated monopoly schools as now but also against the already efficient independent ones. Who could quarrel with the idea of charter in an arena of true choice?
But as grafts on a continuing EFM; forced to exclude all religiously-based schools; and tied entirely to pre-existing state funding mechanisms; the severe limitations of charter systems are evident. As American experience and the experience of nations with true choice make abundantly clear, much of the parental motivation to choose alternate schools is religious and ethical. Thus, the greatest natural dynamic for encouraging choice, comparison, and competition in education is eliminated in the American charter movement.
There are other problems. Since they typically expect funding equivalent to the levels of monopoly-protected public schools, charters cannot provide immediate cost savings. Relatedly, they do not introduce cost competition to help achieve more rational educational budgeting. Depending on the specifics of state legislation, charters can turn out to be little more than another form of public school-only choice and, provide very few of true choice's benefits.
Such weaknesses as these do not mean charters necessarily should be opposed. If they can provide, on an interim basis, even limited help to some American children and parents trapped in an unsuccessful status quo, then they deserve support. They would merit active opposition, however, if they became occasions for delaying or diverting true choice. There are signs that some natural school choice supporters, including elements of the business community and some political leaders, have lost their focus when charters have been adopted. These people appear to think that basic reform of EFM, and comprehensive growth of parental freedom, would somehow inevitably accompany charters. They will not.
How to put it all summarily? Charters, if seen as, described as, and made to be an interim step toward comprehensive choice — Si! Charters, if thought to be adequate or sufficient, or inadvertently permitted to put off true parental freedom — No!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 |
 |