- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find a description of potentially revolutionary steps in Wisconsin; related, encouraging activity in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and other states; reference to recent Blum Center acquisitions; and an Editor's View clarifying the sometimes confusing uses of the term "the educational status quo."
WISCONSIN - LEADING THE
WAY?
The very foundation of educational finance monopoly (EFM)
was badly shaken on May 12. That day the Wisconsin legislature's Joint
Finance Committee voted 11-5 to expand the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program
(MPCP) to include all private schools in Milwaukee, including religion-based
schools. Freedom Report readers will recall that, taking advantage
of the new political realities forged in the November 8 election, Governor
Tommy G. Thompson had included MPCP expansion in his executive budget announced
January 14, 1995.
The Joint Finance Committee, responding to the urgings
of Representative Polly Williams, MPCP's primary originator, enlarged the
Governor's numbers, and, as passed, the "new and improved" MPCP has these
provisions:
· Low-income families (families of four with household incomes of $26,000 or less) would be eligible to receive state financial aid;
· In the first year, 7,000 students - approx. 7% of Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) enrollment - will be eligible to receive state aid up to $3,209 to attend religious, as well as private, non-sectarian schools;
· In 1996-'97 and in subsequent years, 15,000 students, or approx. 15% of MPS enrollment, would be eligible to receive aid;
· 2,000 K-3 children already enrolled in any private school would also be eligible; and
· Cost to the state
would be $25 million in 1995-'96, and $39 million in 1996-'97 (Journal-Sentinel,
05/13/95)
But when in place, if adopted, it will quickly dispel smoke screens against choice, and, we can rationally project, will prompt parents of other income levels and other locales to ask: why not here, and for us? Why should parental freedom to choose without financial penalty be limited, when it is obviously so natural, and so appropriate?
Knowing that these are the implications of MPCP expansion, it is inevitable that EFM's defenders will go to great lengths to block final passage. The budget bill should receive final action by about mid-June or early July. The work of the Governor and his bipartisan allies is cut out for them, but the virtue of MPCP expansion, and its great benefit to the youth of Milwaukee, should enable them to succeed.
On May 11, another, related step was taken by the Joint Finance Committee. Again by 11-5, on that day the Committee agreed to create a new "Department of Education," in effect to take the place of the current "Department of Public Instruction." The point of this reform is to establish plainly that public policy should work for the education of children, not for one provider of that education. The substance and symbolism of this action is powerful: it encourages the means to serve the end, just as does the beginning dismantling of educational finance monopoly by MPCP expansion.
The very essence of the problem faced by the parents and citizens of the 50 states is that a means, a funding mechanism meant to serve, has, under EFM, become an end-in-itself, as monopolies are prone to do. Such was the powerful message of Dr. Howard Fuller, recently-resigned Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent, when he criticized the status quo by saying, on May 13: "In this city and other cities around the country, we don't put children first; we put systems first." (Journal-Sentinel, 05/14/95) Wisconsin's trail-blazing, though not yet completed, action can help all jurisdictions in their efforts to restore the proper relationship of educational ends and means.
ILLINOIS
Chicago's pilot voucher program is a step closer to becoming
law, and is so far moving on a very fast track. On May 10, the House Executive
Committee approved a plan to allow up to 2,000 students to receive vouchers
worth $2,500 to help pay tuition costs at the private or parochial school
of their choice. The five-year pilot program, sponsored by Representative
Al Salvi in the House, will now proceed to a vote by the full House. The
cost of the program - $5 million annually - would be taken from the Chicago
Public Schools' budget. Governor Jim Edgar is in favor of a small-scale
voucher program. (Chicago Tribune, 05/11/95)
NEW JERSEY
Governor Christine Whitman has assembled a 14-member
panel to draft voucher legislation in hopes of implementing a pilot program
by the 1996-97 school year. She has chosen Thomas H. Kean, former Governor
of New Jersey, to head the panel. Kean, who held office in the late 1980's,
has always supported public school choice, but has hitherto opposed comprehensive
school choice plans, which would allow parents to choose between public
and private schools. Also on the panel is Jersey City Mayor, Bret Schundler,
a well-known proponent of school choice. Of all panel members, Kean is
the only one with a history of opposing comprehensive school choice. (The
Record, 4/26/95)
NEW YORK
Mr. Kevin M. Donoghue of New York's Parents Acting for
Choice in Education (PACE) and Mr. Frank Russo of New York's Citizens for
Educational Freedom (CEF) have drafted a new voucher proposal (S. 1388/A.
2053) for the current legislative session. The vouchers would be redeemable
at any public or private school. Their proposal has been introduced in
the state's legislature and has received support from the New York State
Catholic Conference, among others.
If passed, the bill would phase in a voucher plan over a span of three years. Available at first to the lowest 1/3 of family incomes in the state, and to the lowest 2/3 in the second year, the vouchers would be available to all families during the third year. The vouchers would similarly increase in value over the first three years, eventually being worth $2,380 for K-8 schools and $3,400 for secondary schools in the third year. (Information provided by Kevin Donoghue. For more information, Mr. Donoghue can be reached at 516-365-3657.)
While on New York, another interesting point has arisen. One does not strictly need statistical demonstrations to prove what is logically necessary. At the same time, we know that empirical evidence of even the logically self-evident is always useful, because one never knows what particular demonstration, logical or empirical, will help a given observer see the truth of things.
This is brought to mind by a story in the New York Times (05-10-95) about the relative ease with which the New York City School Board, under the gun of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, has been able to trim nearly $1,000,000,000 from New York's school budgets. "The billion-dollar problem is going to be solved in one year," the Times quotes the School Board's budget director. And, according to the Times, while bureaucracratic costs will be cut by hundreds of millions, and various peripheral programs will be diminished or eliminated, "...no teacher layoffs are planned, and class sizes should not grow significantly next year..." despite enrollment growth.
Such a story provides remarkable empirical confirmation of what we know is logically inevitable: under monopolistic conditions, programs and personnel tend to proliferate, and costs rise without necessary connection to productivity and performance. The Mayor, in effect, by making the School Board compete with the city for some of its dollars, has brought some realism to public school budgets. Think what the S.1388/A.2053 program could do for the city and the state!
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania's Governor Tom Ridge remains committed to
devoting $38.5 million from the state budget for education vouchers, although
opposition is mounting from various customary quarters. A coalition of
religious groups, including the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity,
and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Philadelphia joined
the ranks of those defending educational finance monopoly and opposing
the Ridge plan. The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, the Parents Union
for Public Schools, and the League of Women Voters were also listed as
members of the coalition. Raising a number of traditional school choice
opposition contentions, coalition representatives are calling on legislators
in Harrisburg to defeat the school voucher plan. Although school choice
legislation was narrowly defeated in Harrisburg four years ago, supporters
are encouraged by their Republican Governor's commitment to it, as well
as Republican control of both houses of the Pennsylvania legislature. (Philadelphia
Inquirer, 05/03/95)
Gov. Ridge received support from the Southeast Delco school board on May 8, when it voted unanimously to become the first school district in Delaware or Chester counties to publicly support Ridge's school choice program. The board passed a resolution which states its support of the plan, and calls on all state legislators to support the plan for the welfare of all Pennsylvania students. The Southeast Delco Education Association responded to the board's resolution with a letter listing twelve reasons why the voucher plan should be rejected by the board. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 05/09/95)
PUERTO RICO
As many of our readers know, Puerto Rico's comprehensive
voucher program, established in September of 1993 under Law 71, was ruled
unconstitutional by the Commonwealth Supreme Court on November 30, 1994.
This ruling reflected very particular Puerto Rican constitutional provisions,
and has no bearing on the larger issue of the constitutionality of voucher-type
programs on the mainland. In an effort to restore the benefits of the voucher
program, Governor Rosselló has now filed legislation for the creation
of the "Educational Foundation for the Free Selection of Schools." The
foundation would finance vouchers through donations from individuals and
corporations. In exchange for their donations, individuals could claim
up to $250 in tax credit, while corporations could claim up to $500. (Tax
credits would be deductions from taxes owed, not from taxable
salary, and thus represent appreciable assistance to donors.) In addition
to collecting donations, the foundation would be able to seek loans to
fund the initial costs of the program. (San Juan Star, 05/13/95)
TEXAS
On May 6, the Texas House of Representatives rejected
an amendment to the state's Education Code which would have allowed disadvantaged
students from sixty school districts to attend private schools with scholarships
worth 80% of the public school tuition cost. (See Educational Freedom
Report #20.) The House education bill to amend the state Code (HB 301)
was passed without the voucher proposal intact. At this time, the House
and Senate revisions have been passed to the Education Conference, which
consists of five members each from the House and the Senate, for reconciliation.
The Senate bill, proposed by Senate Education Committee Chairman Bill Ratliff
and approved by the Senate, would provide for a pilot voucher program in
twenty school districts, and would give approximately 350,000 disadvantaged
children scholarships, worth 80% of the public school tuition cost, to
attend private schools. While there seems little chance of passage in the
Assembly this term, school choice advocates hope the soil is being prepared
for future success. (Information provided by Allan Parker of the Texas
Justice Foundation)
Announcement
¨ The address and telephone/FAX
numbers of Wisconsin PACE (Parents Acquiring Choice in Education) has changed.
Those wishing to contact Wisconsin P.A.C.E. should alert: Atty. Michael
D. Dean, Executive Director, 2500 North Mayfair Road, Box M-211, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53226-1412, (414) 771-3631, FAX (414) 771-0203.
Recent Acquisitions
¨ For Blum Center correspondents
who are familiar with the "moral wasteland" aspect of educational finance
monopoly, an article entitled "Teaching Johnny to be Good," from the April
30, 1995, New York Times Magazine is an interesting illustration.
Without intending to, it shows that "least-common-denominator ethics" fails
to replace the specific ethical instruction of which schools with clear
and avowed ethical premises are capable. "Character education" in effect
makes children the locus of moral authority as they provide answers
to their own moral dilemmas.
Legislative Proposals
¨ Puerto Rico's legislation
creating a foundation to finance education vouchers for public school students
who transfer to private schools has been received from Rev. José
Basols of Colegio Ponceño (Spanish text only - See PUERTO RICO above).
Surveys, Reports, &
Studies
¨ The Blum Center has
received the U.S. Department of Education's 1994 National Assessment of
Educational Progress' 1994 NAEP Reading: A First Look. The report
concludes, among other things, that "the average proficiency of twelfth-grade
students declined significantly from 1992 to 1994," and that "the percentage
of twelfth-grade students reaching the Proficient achievement level in
reading declined since 1992," and that "there was also a decrease from
1992 to 1994 in the percentage of twelfth graders at or above the Basic
level." Also, the study concludes that "In 1994, fourth-, eighth-, and
twelfth-grade students attending nonpublic schools displayed higher average
reading proficiency than their counterparts attending public schools."
If interested, write: National Library of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20208-5641; or call 1-800-424-1616.
¨ We would like to call our readers' attention to a recent series put forth by Pennsylvania's REACH Alliance entitled Facts About School Choice. Each issue is an effective summary and rebuttal of particular anti-school choice myths, and can be great help to school choice workers. For more information, contact REACH Alliance, 513 North Second St., Box 1283, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1283, (717) 238-1878.
- We often point out that the defenders of educational
finance monopoly (EFM) are in fact defenders of the status quo and
deeply mired in it. And very often these defenders of EFM ask, heatedly,
"How dare you call us defenders of the status quo. Do you
not know that we are constantly seeking reform of American K-12 education
in all jurisdictions? Given that constant promotion of reform, how can
anyone accuse us of defending the status quo?"
As usual, the key to solving the only-apparent puzzle presented by these contradictory positions lies in the definition of terms. It is certainly true, indeed obviously true, that among the defenders of contemporary American education and of EFM there is something like a dedication to perpetual, even permanent, reform. This is what is often called "King for a Day" reform mentality. Reform after reform after reform come pouring out of the word processors of the educational establishment, each such reform constituting a witness to the failure of those that preceded it. So, yes, it is certainly true that EFM's defenders are seeking reform, seeking change, and in that sense are not wedded to the status quo.
But, of course, that is not what I and others like me are talking about when we call such folk captives of the status quo and defenders thereof. What I am referring to when I make such allegations is the incontrovertible fact that these people are absolutely stuck in defense of the status quo when one understands the essence of that status quo as EFM itself, i.e., a funding mechanism. "Educational reform" — we hear a great deal about it. We see a lot of activity in its name. It is used to justify expenditure after expenditure, new programs and new personnel, the very proliferation of personnel and program that I often write about. All of this activity and all of this sought-after change carries with it the understanding, however — indeed, has as its first principle — that it must not under any circumstances tamper with the monopolistic assignment of tax dollars dedicated to education. It must not tamper with educational finance monopoly itself.
So, another mystery is solved. The mystery of how we can say EFM's defenders work for the status quo even as they feverishly pursue "reform" is no mystery at all. We are simply not talking about the same thing. EFM is defended by those who love the status quo as defined by the funding mechanism which is the very essence of contemporary K-12 education. That is the status quo defense that I am talking about.
Indeed, embarrassingly, those who cry for perpetual reform of K-12 short of any tampering with educational finance monopoly, if they would but think about it, would recognize that constant reforms, "King for a Day" reforms, are in and of themselves a crucial warning sign that educational finance monopoly must be junked. For in a rational and healthy environment one does not talk about major reform as a constant. One reforms for a purpose, as a means works for the end. Constant reform is a sign of organizational sickness, disorientation, and loss of purpose. Any dynamic policy and the social structures created by that policy will always be evolving, of course, changing in tune with circumstances, applying principles to those new circumstances and manifesting novelty in those applications. But if we are constantly reforming in fundamental senses, it means we have lost our way, gotten off the track. As regards American K-12 education, we are in the throes of constant, perpetual, even permanent reform within the system. We are disoriented. And educational finance monopoly is the malady which makes all such reforms unsatisfying and insufficient. That is the status quo EFM's defenders cling to, the status quo which needs to be dismantled in favor of parental freedom through 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 |
 |