- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will read about major state-level activities, important changes in Jewish attitudes toward school choice, and various Blum Center developments.
WISCONSIN: SNOWBALL
STARTING DOWNHILL?
Freedom Report #15 declared that the political
world in many states including Wisconsin was safer for school choice after
the November 8 elections. #16 asked whether 1995 might see the choice snowball
start down the hill, having been pushed to the top of the hill in a half-dozen
places in 1994.
It gives us tremendous satisfaction to report in this issue that one of the first mainland breakouts for true school choice and parental freedom, and the first genuine crack in educational finance monopoly (EFM), is underway here in Wisconsin. Governor Tommy G. Thompson's 1995 executive budget will contain a provision for the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to include all independent schools in Milwaukee, sectarian or not. If adopted by the state legislature, this key element, coupled with increased numbers, could transform MPCP into a genuine choice program. It will apply only within Milwaukee and retain a means test, and in those senses, be a limited choice program, but a true one in the sense that it applies to religious-based schools as well as non-sectarian ones.
As proposed, eligible children in Milwaukee would expand from 1,500 now, to 3,500 in fall, 1996, to 5,500 in fall, 1997, and all numerical caps would be removed thereafter. Family eligibility in this proposal would require income no greater than 175% of the national poverty level. (c. $30,000 family income — There will no doubt be some efforts made to increase income levels, or remove means testing at some point down the road.) Voucher value would be established at $3,300 in the first year, with inflation-rate increases automatically assigned in subsequent years. The first source of funds for this expansion would be from reassignment of state dollars now spent on busing. Once working, of course, such a program, costing only a fraction of current gross expenditures assigned to public school students, would be self-supporting. (Sources for the foregoing include the Milwaukee Journal of 1-15-95.)
Analysis: Though MPCP expansion is by definition only a partial introduction of true school choice, the right question is this: where better to start than in the community most in immediate need? The financial vise of educational finance monopoly — ever-rising taxes to pay for the monopoly's schools, and rising tuition to pay for under-enrolled independent schools — squeezes countless parents whose incomes exceed 175% of the poverty level. They, too, deserve relief, and all parents deserve choice without financial penalty. They will not get it simply from MPCP expansion. But they will get a program bound to be successful, bound to be transformative of currently dire conditions, bound to dispel the smoke screen arguments of EFM's defenders, and bound to raise in all citizens' minds this question: since school choice is so obviously parent-liberating and child-benefiting in Milwaukee, why not here, for us? This is the very essence of starting the snowball down the hill.
If MPCP expansion is enacted, and if it starts the snowball down the hill, gathering mass and momentum as it goes, there will be some historical justification, of course. In 1965 Wisconsin inaugurated the Tuition Grant program (stimulated greatly by the man after whom the Blum Center is named), which program has been emulated across the nation to bring some choice in higher education. In recent years, Wisconsin has been the site of tremendous effort by politicians, business leadership, and segments of the foundation and education communities to enlighten the citizenry as to the excellence of school choice. The result of such efforts has been to change the political climate, expose the smoke screens employed to defend EFM, and construct a broadly bipartisan base for school choice. The original MPCP of 1990, a cooperative product of Republican Tommy G. Thompson, Democrat Polly Williams, et al.; the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce endorsement of choice in summer, 1993; the strong support of Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist; the excellent results of Milwaukee's private choice program, PAVE; and the November 8, 1994, legislative victory of school choice supporters — these are just a few of the milestones on the path which make Wisconsin a natural place for the snowball to start.
ARIZONA
Former Democrat and Superintendent of Public Instruction,
C. Diane Bishop, has joined Governor Fife Symington's staff as a pro-voucher
education adviser, and has changed her party registration to Republican.
(Arizona Republic, 12/09/94) In October Bishop endorsed Symington
in his re-election bid. Bishop said she has converted to the idea that
students should not be held captive by a public school system resistant
to change. Symington believes that he, Bishop, and newly elected Republican
Lisa Graham, who succeeds Bishop as Superintendent of Public Instruction,
and who fought hard for vouchers as a representative in the state assembly
last legislative session, will make a "formidable team in fighting for
education improvements." (Arizona Republic, 12/09/94) And, according
to the 1-11-95 Republic, that team has been given something to fight
for: Rep. Dan Schottel (R - Tucson and Education Committee Chair) has introduced
a new voucher bill for consideration.
NEW JERSEY
While Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler continues to explore
creative ways to expand choice in education, promote residency, and reduce
burdens on taxpayers by offering city workers $500 vouchers for choosing
private schools (New York Times, 12/24/94), support from legislators
for Gov. Christine Whitman and Education Commissioner Leo Klagholz's state-wide
charter schools plan and Jersey City pilot voucher proposal has been found
wanting. (New York Times, 12/24/94; see Freedom Report #14
for a description of the proposal.) Despite a Bergen Record poll
showing support for vouchers (60% of state residents favor them; 70% of
Jersey City residents favor them), Whitman has postponed introduction of
the proposal for another year, and has appointed a study team to examine
the idea. (Wall Street Journal, 01/10/95; New York Times,
01/11/95) Promise of legal challenges from the New Jersey Education Association
and a powerful coalition of groups opposing vouchers, such as the American
Civil Liberties Union and the Newark-based Education Law Center, coupled
with concerns about up-front costs of implementation influenced Whitman's
decision to postpone introduction of the measure until the next legislative
session. (New York Times, 12/24/94)
NEW MEXICO
Senator Duncan Scott will introduce with Senator Joe
Carraro an income tax credit bill designed to reimburse parents for their
children's tuition at any independent school. This bill will feature a
provision for rebates for low-income families without tax liability, and
should be introduced early in the 1995 legislative session which begins
January 17. The amount of the tax credit or rebate, along with other specific
information about the bill, will be forthcoming. The Blum Center also hopes
to have copies of the legislation available soon. In the meantime, those
interested in learning more about the bill, or those desiring to express
support for it, should contact Sens. Scott or Carraro at the state legislature
at (505) 986-4600. (Information provided by Sen. Duncan Scott.)
NORTH DAKOTA
Republican Senator Terry Wanzek, et al., have
plans to introduce this session a tax credit proposal (SB 2235) for parents
of students who attend grades 1-12 of both public and non-public schools
in North Dakota. This proposal would allow North Dakota parents to claim
a credit of up to 50% of the cost of education and textbooks, not to exceed
$500, for each student. The provisions of SB 2235, modeled after those
in Minnesota's tuition tax deduction law, stipulate that "textbooks" cannot
include "materials used in the teaching of religious tenets, doctrines,
or worship." (Information has been provided by Michael Nygaard, President
of North Dakota's State Association of Non-Public Schools. For additional
information, please contact Mr. Nygaard at 1310 N. Broadway, Fargo, ND
58102, (701) 235-6429.)
OHIO
Governor George Voinovich's attempt to implement a pilot
voucher program (See Freedom Report #16.) is receiving some support
from Cleveland Councilwoman Fannie M. Lewis, who has promised to pressure
state lawmakers into making Cleveland the testing ground for the Governor's
program. (Plain Dealer, 12/14/94) Lewis shares the sentiments of
longtime Ohio voucher proponent, Representative Michael Fox, who has been
a supporter of educational choice in Ohio for twenty years, and who plans
to introduce a voucher bill again this legislative session. Under the proposal,
parents of elementary school children would receive vouchers worth $2,500
per year to attend the private or parochial school of their choice. The
plan would give preference to lower-income families. (Dayton Daily News,
12/11/94) Fox maintains that "reforming education is like a land invasion
of China: the bureaucracy is so entrenched it swallows you up." (Plain
Dealer, 12/18/94) Voinovich, who was re-elected by a landslide in November,
will likely reinitiate an attempt to take control of the State Board of
Education, since that board currently makes education policy independently
of the Governor's administration. Additionally, rather than waiting for
passage of a voucher bill, Voinovich and his advisers are considering folding
a limited voucher program into the $30-billion-plus state budget which
will take effect on July 1. Under this plan, 1,000 low- and moderate-income
parents would receive vouchers worth $2,500 which could be redeemed at
the private or parochial school of their choice. (Plain Dealer,
12/18/94)
PUERTO RICO
This past November the Puerto Rican Supreme Court ruled
that the island's Special Scholarship and Free Selection of Schools Program
(Law 71) is unconstitutional under Puerto Rican law inasmuch as it allows
children to attend private schools. (See Freedom Report #16.) In
response to this ruling, the Institute for Justice in Washington D.C.,
which aided in the defense of the program, is currently developing an amendment
to the Puerto Rican constitution which is designed to ensure the legality
of the program before the beginning of the 1995-'96 school year.
The Puerto Rican Supreme Court decided that it would allow the program to continue until the end of this school year, after which the $1,500 scholarships can no longer be redeemed at private schools, only at public schools. According to Clint Bolick, Litigation Director at the Institute for Justice, the Puerto Rican Supreme Court made the ruling based on a restrictive interpretation of what constitutes "support" to private institutions. Bolick believes that advocacy for the program in Puerto Rico remains strong enough to allow for the possibility of a constitutional amendment before the beginning of the next school year.
NORTH STAR FOR
CHOICE IN CALIFORNIA?
Mrs. Kathleen O'Connell-Sundaram has shared with us the
"tax rebate" approach to school choice which she and others are developing
in cooperation with Bay C.A.R.E. It is designed as an amendment to the
California constitution and is aimed at the 1996 ballot. This is an alternative
to the approach being developed by John Coons, Terry Moe, and others.
The proposal, entitled "The Education of Children Amendment," effectively confronts many of the points criticized in 1993's Prop. 174. These excellent provisions will not stop the defenders of today's educational finance monopoly (EFM) from attacking it with all their considerable resources, and surrounding it with new smoke screens. Hence, the question in California will once again be not just how rational is the specific school choice proposal, but how well-organized and prepared are school choice advocates for political success? Have the elements of a winning coalition been identified and sensitized? How united are they? Can they agree on a single approach which, though perhaps not totally satisfying to any party is seen as a sufficiently positive device to warrant support from all parties?
If the true navigational North Star for all advocates of school choice is breaking EFM and expanding parental freedom to choose their child's educational environment, then the key question for any specific approach is "does it advance us as far as practical at a given moment?" The key question surely is not "is this the definitive, perfect device?" Seen from a Blum Center perspective, where we see school choice proposals from around the nation and programs from around the world, either California proposal would be a greatly important achievement for California's parents and children. If the several sponsoring groups continue their ongoing cooperation, no doubt a new amalgam can be produced to satisfy California's needs.
GROWTH IN
JEWISH SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL CHOICE
The December 30, 1994, Chicago Tribune ran a story
about growing Jewish interest in and sympathy toward school choice. Taken
from the Religion News Service (RNS) wire, the essence of the piece is
that "liberal and centrist Jewish groups" which have traditionally opposed
such choice are beginning to look more favorably on it. This would suggest
such groups, on this issue, are aligning themselves somewhat more with
Orthodox Jewish organizations which have often expressed support for the
parental freedom which school choice provides.
According to the RNS article, this shift accompanies increased interest in Jewish day schools, themselves a natural reflection of growing awareness that the schools of educational finance monopoly (EFM) find it very difficult to provide an educational environment compatible with and supportive of the family's religious and cultural values. (See Quentin L. Quade, 'Ethics in a Pluralistic Society: The Need for School Choice,' The Blum Center, 1994.)
The Tribune-RNS piece reinforces the Blum Center's anecdotal evidence along the same lines. During the last half-year or so we have added to our correspondents' lists, at their behest, more Jewish schools and representatives than we had done in the first two years of the Center's existence. This development of Jewish support for school choice, if it continues, is very heartening and instructive. It would provide another confirmation of what is true in any case: school choice is a parent-serving policy, not an "aid to church"; and it is a house large enough for many mansions, the multiple "natural constituencies of school choice."
New Blum Center Pamphlet
Enclosed is a new Blum Center portrayal of "America's
Educational Quagmire: Why We're In It, How To Get Out". This pulls together
various aspects of our approach to school choice, showing its virtue, what
has blocked it up to now, and what experience has shown needs to be done
to achieve it. This latest pamphlet, hence, provides a foundation for the
many more specialized documents available from the Blum Center. As always,
readers are free to reproduce it with appropriate acknowledgment, or can
request additional copies from us.
Study: The Blum Center has recently acquired a copy of the January, 1995, Reason Foundation study by Janet Beales and Maureen Wahl entitled, "Given the Choice: A Study of the P.A.V.E. Program and School Choice in Milwaukee." The study concentrates on performance aspects of both programs, including demographics, parental satisfaction, attrition rates, and academic achievement. In a January 9, 1995, news release about the study, Beales says, "Our findings suggest that the earlier parents are given the choice of schools, the better their children will perform. Likewise, the fewer regulatory restrictions placed on choice, the more students will have the opportunity to choose a school that meets their needs." To obtain a copy of the study, readers may contact the Reason Foundation at 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, California 90034, (310) 391-2245, FAX (310) 391-4395.
State Legislative Proposals/Commentary: Copies of legislative proposals from 1994 have been received from California (See above: The Education of Children Amendment, 11/94), Maine (Summary and draft Comprehensive School Choice Act, 12/94), New Jersey (See Freedom Report #16, December 16, 1994: Charter School Program and Tuition Voucher Pilot Program, 11/94 draft developed by Gov. Christine Whitman and Education Secretary Leo Klagholz), North Dakota (SB 2235, tax credit bill intended for 1995 introduction; see North Dakota above), Oklahoma (See Freedom Report #16: SJR 32 - proposal to amend the
Oklahoma constitution to effect general education reform and school choice; and SJR 35 - proposal to amend the Oklahoma constitution to effect education finance reform, including provision of school choice scholarships), and Rhode Island (An Act Relating to Education: Establishing a Pilot Program for Providence, Parental Choice of Schools). Many of these proposals are being revised for reintroduction in the 1995 state legislative sessions. Additionally, we have obtained a commentary from Kansas State Rep. Kay O'Connor on her newly revised proposal, G.I. Bill for Kids, which she plans to reintroduce in the Kansas legislature this year.
Court Decisions: Puerto Rico's November 30, 1994, Supreme Court decision striking down the commonwealth's private school scholarship program is now available in its relevant portions and in rough translation from the Institute for Justice, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 200 South, Washington, D.C. 20004-2505, (202) 457-4240, FAX (202) 457-8574. (See Puerto Rico above.) The Blum Center has also obtained copies of the June 10, 1994, U.S. District Court's favorable ruling in Helms v. Cody, pertaining to Louisiana's programs of state assistance and expense reimbursements to non-public schools and families, as well as the January 28, 1994, favorable decision by the Supreme Court of Vermont in Campbell v. Manchester Board of School Directors, allowing reimbursement for tuition expenses at a sectarian school in the absence of a local public high school.
Farewell to Blum
Center Associate
Mr. Nicholas A. Freres, known to many of our readers
personally for his efforts to provide information on educational choice
developments in Wisconsin, across the nation, and abroad, as well as for
his regular contributions to the Educational Freedom Report, will
conclude his work at the Blum Center on February 10, 1995. We wish Nick
the very best in his future endeavors.
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 |
 |