- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will be updated on major state-level school choice activities, learn of new materials useful to all engaged in such activities, and encounter the Editor's View: "It's All About Parents' Rights."
ARIZONA
Last month, Freedom Report readers were alerted
to two voucher proposals placed before the Arizona legislature for consideration
during this session. (See Freedom Report #18.) The first, SB 1360,
targeting low-income students, was approved 4-3 by the Senate Government
Reform Committee, but was rejected on a 9-6 vote by the Senate Appropriations
Committee on February 23. (Arizona Republic, 02/23/95, 02/15/95)
The plan, a resurrected version of Lisa Graham's 1994 failed proposal,
would have provided $1,500 vouchers to as many as 8,000 low-income students
over the next four years.
A second voucher proposal, HB 2177, proposed the establishment of a two-year pilot program to give 2% of the school population (or about 14,000 children state-wide) vouchers worth $3,500. A portion of the voucher's value, $2,500, would go to the private school tuition of the family's choice, and $1,000 would remain in the school district. (Arizona Republic, 02/12/95) Sponsored by Representative Dan Schottel, Chairman of the House Education Committee, the bill passed through his committee on an 8-6 vote on February 15 (Phoenix Gazette, 02/16/95), but encourntered difficulty thereafter. Governor Fife Symington, an ardent supporter of vouchers, had considered suggesting an amendment to the more modest House bill to respond to the defeat of SB 1360, in the hope that educational options for Arizona's children will be expanded. Late word from Arizona suggests that even this modest proposal may not succeed in the legislature. Douglas Cole, a spokesman for Symington said, "We will never cease the battle for educational options for children. It's not over until it's over and there are many legislative options left for us." (Phoenix Gazette, 02/23/95)
ILLINOIS
A $2,500 comprehensive voucher proposal, SB 17, passed
the Illinois Senate on March 8 by a vote of 31-23. The bill has now been
sent to the House, but it remains questionable whether Republican leaders,
generally in favor of vouchers, will support the proposal, given Republican
Governor Jim Edgar's reluctance to support more than a minimal pilot voucher
plan.
SB 17 would be limited to 2,000 low-income families (with an annual income of $28,860 or less) from a subdistrict of Chicago, and the vouchers would be redeemable at any private or parochial school within that subdistrict. Should the bill be adopted, a 15-member council, appointed by Gov. Edgar and the four leaders of Illinois' House and Senate, would choose the subdistrict in which the program would take place. The council would also award the vouchers—to a maximum of $5 million a year. Funds for the program would be drawn from the annual general state aid to the Chicago Public Schools.
While a Chicago Teachers' Union spokeswoman promised a challenge in court if the proposal passes the House, Senator Patrick O'Malley, a co-sponsor of the proposal, blew the smoke away from the fundamental issues surrounding parental choice in education. "This bill is not about religion. It's about parents making choices," he said. "What's really the rub within the public education establishment? It's a monopoly, and like any monopoly, they don't like competition. And they certainly don't want to share the public purse." (Chicago Tribune, 03/09/95)
MARYLAND
Maryland's "Educational Opportunity Program" (HB 1288),
introduced on February 24 in Maryland's General Assembly by Delegate O'Donnell,
would provide educational assistance grants to reimburse parents for tuition
at non-public schools at a value not in excess of: 1) the actual tuition
paid at a non-public school; 2) the actual per-student cost of a home instruction
program; 3) 50% of the basic current per-pupil expenditure for public school
students; or 4) 75% of the basic current per-pupil expenditure for students
with disabilities. Families who are eligible for the grants must have a
gross income below $70,000, and eligible children must have either been
enrolled in a public school for at least three consecutive years, or have
entered the first grade after the effective date, July 1, 1996. The bill
also calls for the establishment of a Governor-appointed five-member commission
to administer and regulate the program. The bill has been assigned to the
House Ways and Means Committee, and public hearings on the bill were held
on March 8. Supporters are hopeful that the bill will be assigned to summer
study. (Information provided by John D. Schiavone, TEACH Maryland.)
MICHIGAN
A poll done for the Detroit Free Press by EPIC/MRA
in January, shows that the majority of Michigan citizens would support
a comprehensive school choice program, in which parents could choose the
private or public school which best meets the needs of their children.
The poll found that 53% of Michigan voters and 75% of Detroit voters would
support a voucher plan that includes religious schools. 40% of voters in
Michigan would oppose such a plan. (Detroit News, 02/24/95; Detroit
Free Press, 02/15/95)
MINNESOTA
Representative Kevin Knight, an Independent-Republican
from Bloomington, introduced HB 562 in the Minnesota House on February
13. If passed, HB 562 will create a nonpublic school choice program for
low-income families in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The program would be limited
to 1.5% of the students from each district — approximately 1,500 students
altogether. (Information provided by Eugene Piccolo, Executive Director
of the Choice-In-Education League of Minnesota.)
NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota's tax credit proposal SB 2235 (see Freedom
Report #17) failed in the Senate, 32-17. Given the fact that this is
a new effort, and North Dakota's school choice movement is really just
getting started, the amount of support SB 2235 got is encouraging. Even
more encouraging is the fact that school choice workers in North Dakota
have already introduced into the legislature Concurrent Resolution #4059,
asking that the Legislative Council study the school choice issue from
several perspectives during the legislative interim. Such study, if undertaken,
will help familiarize North Dakota citizens with the virtues of school
choice. (Information supplied by Mrs. Audrey Cleary, Parent Coordinator,
North Dakota Association of Catholic School Parents.)
OKLAHOMA
Senator Don Rubottom has introduced a resolution this
session to amend Article IX of the Oklahoma Constitution, which would provide
scholarships to parents with K-12 children in public or private schools.
SJR 18 would allow the legislature to develop a funding system for K-12
schools which aggregates all of the operational funds collected for common
education from each revenue source for the 1994 fiscal year into a single
K-12 account of the State Treasurer. It would then establish scholarships
for children whose parents choose public schools at an amount equal to
or less than the total local and state per pupil amount in the 1994 fiscal
year. For parents who choose private schools, the scholarships could be
worth as much as 70% and no less than 50% of the amount paid per student
to public schools. After five years, this amount could be adjusted by the
legislature. (Information provided by Senator Rubottom's office.)
PENNSYLVANIA
As we indicated in Reports #15 and 16, Governor
Tom Ridge is now leading Pennsylvania's drive for parental freedom and
educational choice. In his budget address on Tuesday, March 7, Gov. Ridge
proposed spending $38.5 million in state funds to give families in poor
districts a choice in the education of their children. Already fighting
fire from organized opposition forces in Harrisburg with fire of his own,
Ridge said, "I believe parents, not government, know what is best for their
children. I want families to decide for themselves where their children
should attend school." (Patriot-News, 03/08/95)
Ridge also increased the Philadelphia school district's budget to $597 million, plus about $80 million for special education, an increase of $23 million over current funding. Philadelphia School Superintendent David Hornbeck requested an increase of $40 to $60 million to implement a sweeping reform effort. But despite praise for Hornbeck's efforts to overhaul the city's school system, Ridge said he was not convinced that additional funds would solve Philadelphia's educational woes, and instead promised consideration of a future increase in state support. "Even though we've doubled the amount of money we've spent on education, I think in the past eight years... we certainly don't have better schools in a lot of our communities," Ridge said. Vouchers would improve the educational opportunities for "the poorest of the working class in the most disadvantaged school districts." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 03/09/95)
Under Ridge's plan, tuition vouchers, which could be used to help pay tuition at any private or parochial school, or another public school outside a family's own district, would be phased in over 3 years. In the first year (1995-96) vouchers would be available to parents in the poorest one-third of the state's districts, and by the third year (1997-98), availability would extend to all districts (501 total). Additionally, only the poorest half of families in each qualifying district would be eligible to receive the vouchers — worth up to $700 for K-8 children and $1,000 for high school students. Families with incomes of $30,000 or less would be eligible under the plan. According to acting Education Secretary Jane Carroll, as many as 50,500 vouchers could be distributed in the first year, and by the third year of implementation, the program cost would be increased from $38.5 million in the first year to $56.6 million in 1996-97, and $81.6 million by 1997-98. (Patriot-News, 03/08/95)
TEXAS
Representative Kent Grusendorf of Texas has introduced
yet another school choice proposal which has already passed through the
House Ways and Means Committee. HB 900 would provide a tax credit on corporate
franchise taxes to businesses which provide scholarships for low-income
children to attend the public or private school of their choice. The tax
credit would be worth up to 50% of the total state and local funding per
weighted average daily attendance received by the child's school district.
Only students who are not enrolled in a private school in 1994-'95 are
eligible to participate in the program which, if adopted, would become
effective January 1, 1996. (Information provided by Allan Parker, Texas
Justice Foundation.)
WISCONSIN
The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute released in the
February issue of its monthly report the results of a recent poll which
shows that nearly 70% of blacks in Milwaukee believe private and parochial
schools educate their children better than the Milwaukee Public School
(MPS) system. Only 16% put more faith in MPS. 70.5% of those polled support
Governor Tommy Thompson's current proposal to expand Milwaukee's Parental
Choice Program to include parochial schools, while 21.7% oppose Thompson's
proposal. Furthermore, although not everyone supports Gov. Thompson's proposal,
95% of those surveyed agreed that parents ought to have the right to choose
among local schools for their children. (Wisconsin Policy Research Institute
Report, Vol. 8, No. 2, February, 1995.) This last statistic in particular
relates to the points made in this month's "Editor's View": behind the
political struggle for school choice there exists a broad coalition of
parents who understand that their rights should match their responsibilities.
A Reminder re
a "Miracle" and Paths
¨ We have received numerous
favorable reports from correspondents who have used the Blum Center video
"The 'Moral Contracts' of School Choice: Miracle in the Inner City." They
have found it especially useful in helping audiences understand the family-integrating
power of the act of choosing a school. That, in turn, makes apparent the
desirability of a school funding policy which encourages rather than discourages
parental selection. The argument implicit in "Miracle" is especially pertinent
to the struggle for school choice in every major city. We remind readers
that "Miracle" is available from the Blum Center, $9.00 prepaid.
¨ As regular Blum Center correspondents already know from a separate mailing, our new handbook, Paths to Parental Freedom and School Choice, has been made available as of March 2. Copies may be purchased by sending $13.00 (includes postage and handling) to the Blum Center at the address found on the bottom of page 4.
Recent Acquisitions
¨ The Blum Center has
acquired copies of Maryland's HB 1288 (See MARYLAND above.), Minnesota's
HB 562 (See MINNESOTA above.), Oklahoma's SJR 18 (See OKLAHOMA above.),
and Texas HB 900 (See TEXAS above.).
¨ For those interested in examining more closely the details of "Black Public Opinion in Milwaukee," the Blum Center has a copy of this recent Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report (Vol. 8, No. 2, February, 1995 — See WISCONSIN above.) This survey covers a number of topics, including education in Milwaukee.
¨ As further confirmation of the readiness of the states to use parent-directed vouchers when they do not threaten educational finance monopoly (EFM), Dr. William J. Tobin's report, "State Applications for FY '95 Child Care and Development Block Grant Show Increase in Preference for Vouchers/Certificates," contributes greatly to the discussion. He states, "A careful review of the FY '95 State Applications for CCDBG funding reveals a decided growth in the number of States which will fund childcare services exclusively through a voucher certificate mechanism." Copies of the report may be obtained by contacting the Blum Center.
- Chapter Five of the Blum Center's new Paths to Parental
Freedom and School Choice describes the true school choice provided
easily and naturally in four modern democracies. That helps dispel one
of the common smoke screens used against choice: that it is unknown, experimental,
and, like an untested drug, too dangerous for us to try. It is, in fact,
well-known, thoroughly-tested, widely employed, greatly favored by parents,
and educationally and financially productive.
In this brief commentary I cannot go over much of Chapter Five's territory, of course. But I can provide a few representative documentary excerpts which show how natural school choice is when citizens and policy-makers are able to think clearly about it. In such an environment, the calculus goes inevitably like this: parents are responsible for their children, including their education; educational funding should help them fulfill their responsibilities, not impede them; the natural multiplicity of school types provides alternate means to the good end of education; obviously, parents should be able to choose among them without financial penalty.
These excerpts, in turn, may help Americans realize that
they are unnecessarily captive of the artificial and destructive status
quo of educational finance monopoly (EFM). Once they realize that,
American citizens and parents will be able to break their chains and regain
control of their children's education. How easily does the principle of
parental freedom and school choice spring from the lips of those who are
able to follow nature and common sense in establishing their educational
funding policy? A Danish illustration:
1) in the publicly provided municipal school,
2) in a private school, or
3) at home.
.....
All parties in the Danish Parliament want legislation
ensuring financial support for private schools, partly based on the notion
that also the municipal schools will benefit from the experience and competition
offered by the private schools. (Private Schools in Denmark, Danish
Ministry of Education and Research, 1994)
.....
For freedom of choice to exist, parents and pupils must
be able to choose freely between different types of schools. For this reason
it must not only be possible to start independent schools, they must also
have the right to receive public grants. This will ensure that all pupils
have the opportunity of making a choice between municipal and independent
schools. (The Right to Choose School, Swedish Ministry of Education
and Science, 1994)
|
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 |
 |