- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find state-level updates, Blum Center developments, and the Editor's View on the Night of the Long, and Dull, Knives.
CONNECTICUT
As reported in Educational Freedom Report #22,
Governor John Rowland and Republican legislators in support of SB 209,
"An Act Concerning School Choice," withdrew the bill on June 5 in the late
hours of the legislative session when they were not yet assured of a solid
majority in the Senate. (See Freedom Report #22 for more details
on the bill.)
The National Catholic Register (08/20/95) reports, however, that on all counts the withdrawal of SB 209 has not discouraged but has instead bolstered the confidence of school choice supporters in Connecticut, leaving them with even greater political momentum for the next session. Governor Rowland said of the matter: "This issue is simply too important for us to limit the positive effect it could have on our educational system by passing it without a true consensus." Furthermore, Rowland suggested that when people have had the opportunity to learn about the details of this plan, "approval numbers have surged upward." Additional time can therefore benefit school choice greatly in Connecticut. As the Register states, "the momentum will clearly be on the side of the school choice proponents" when the Connecticut legislature reconvenes on February 7, 1996.
GEORGIA
On August 4, a hearing was held before Fulton County
Superior Court Judge Josephine Holmes Cook which lasted four to five hours.
Judge Cook read from prepared notes and said she was inclined to rule in
favor of state and local school officials and against parents who sought
tuition vouchers to send their children to private schools in accord with
a segregation-era law. (Atlanta Constitution, 08/08/95) The law,
enacted in 1961 to assist those hoping to evade desegregated public schools,
was last used in 1965. After it was rediscovered two years ago, Atlanta
Attorney Glenn Delk attempted to use it in the defense of low-income parents
who wished to educate their children outside the public school system.
The law has since been declared "unusable." (See Freedom Reports
# 1 and 3.) Delk maintains that the statement read by the judge did not
address his claim that some students are denied equal protection under
the current "government school monopoly," which "keeps poor minority children
in public schools today as it tried to keep them out 40 years ago." The
judge still has not issued a written order at the time of this publication,
according to Delk's office, so the ruling is not yet final. Delk said he
would require additional time to examine the written ruling before deciding
whether to appeal the decision should it prove ultimately unfavorable.
(Atlanta Constitution, 08/05/95)
MINNESOTA
Governor Arne Carlson has taken another step towards
supporting the idea of a voucher system for Minnesota. In April, Gov. Carlson
announced that he was thinking of supporting Senator Thomas Neuville's
pilot voucher proposal—the "Minnesota Educational Certificate Aid Act of
1995" (or SB 1377). The Governor has now said that he will "very likely"
push the Minnesota legislature to support a limited voucher program next
year when it reconvenes. When Carlson was elected in 1990, he was strongly
opposed to vouchers and had received at that time the endorsement of the
Minnesota Education Association on the basis of that stance. Now Carlson
believes that the Minnesota system is in need of change. Consequently,
he has arrived at the conclusion that vouchers would introduce badly needed
reform into the system. Carlson has not disclosed any further details regarding
his plans for next year, but in the meantime he intends to visit Wisconsin
to review the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. (Star Tribune,
07/25/95)
Carlson's decision to consider a voucher system for Minnesota comes as part of a larger plan to shrink the state's revenue-spending gap. In February, Carlson recruited former state Senator John Brandl and former U.S. Representative Vin Weber to study Minnesota's current revenue-spending gap and, in anticipation of further revenue cuts from Congress, to look for ways to narrow the gap. The Brandl/Weber team came up with a handful of solutions, one of which includes stimulating competition among schools, public and private, through a voucher system. Carlson is enthusiastic about the prospect of initiating major change in Minnesota's educational funding system through vouchers. (Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 07/31/95)
NEW JERSEY
Readers might recall that in January Governor Christine
Todd Whitman requested that legislators postpone the introduction of school
choice legislation until next year, so that a study team might consider
school choice in depth during the course of this year. Governor Whitman
required that three public hearings on school choice be held before her
fifteen-member Advisory Panel on School Vouchers as part of that study.
One of the hearings already took place on August 3, another is scheduled
for August 24, and the third has yet to be scheduled.
The purpose of these hearings is to help Gov. Whitman and the legislature determine the feasibility of implementing a limited voucher program in New Jersey. The topics for discussion include: the potential size and duration of a voucher program, the types of schools that might be included, methods of voucher distribution, voucher amount, and mechanisms for evaluating the success of a voucher program. For more information on the hearings, please contact Dan Cassidy in the office of Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler at (201) 547-5576.
PENNSYLVANIA
As readers of the Freedom Report will know, Governor
Ridge's KIDS (Keystone Initiative for a Difference
in our Schools) program fell short of passage earlier this summer.
While the legislature was in the process of defeating the proposal, House
Speaker Matthew Ryan struck the vote in the hope of later re-introduction,
but no such effort was possible. (See Freedom Report #24) Pennsylvania
school choice advocates remain committed to their cause nevertheless. Although
the enabling legislation to authorize Ridge's program was defeated in the
General Assembly, the $42.3 million to fund it remains intact in the state
budget, which passed in June. Long-standing supporters such as Cardinal
Anthony Bevilacqua of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia are looking to the
fall for further action on educational choice. "This is not the end of
our struggle to enable parents to decide the critical issue of their children's
education," Cardinal Bevilacqua said. "The Church remains committed to
school choice and I will personally continue my efforts to see school choice
become a reality in Pennsylvania." (National Catholic Register,
08/20/95)
WISCONSIN
Last month the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
announced that as soon as Governor Tommy Thompson signed this year's budget
plan, the ACLU would file a lawsuit against the state in an attempt to
block the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), calling
it a violation of the separation of church and state. (The Blum Center
now has available copies of the signed legislation for distribution.) On
July 26, Thompson signed the budget bill into law, and on August 1, the
ACLU filed suit, according to its promise. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
07/27/95, 08/02/95)
All knew this effort would be made, of course, and all can be confident the effort ultimately will fail. But until that happy day, when all school choice may benefit from a decision which lays to rest once and for all the church-state smoke screen, Milwaukee's parents are confronted with obstructionist undertakings. What a shame, and what an illiberal venture by the ACLU. It is as if they were saying: "Don't let those disadvantaged Milwaukee parents have any of the educational freedom others have by reason of favored financial conditions!" Such an action contradicts at least two of the words in the ACLU's full name: it is neither civil nor liberty-seeking.
Gov. Thompson has announced his intention to replace Attorney General James Doyle with Edward Marion, a private attorney who had been Thompson's chief of staff, to represent the state in the ACLU lawsuit. Thompson has stated that a brief filed by Doyle in an earlier choice case disqualifies him, despite Doyle's reported readiness to defend the constitutionality of MPCP expansion. The Governor maintains that a provision of the Wisconsin law allows him to employ a special counsel "to act instead of the attorney general in any action or proceeding, if the attorney general is in any way interested adversely to the state." Thompson has also been criticized for employing the assistance of Whitewater prosecutor and former United States Solicitor General Kenneth Starr at Wisconsin state taxpayers' expense. But Thompson insists that Starr will be paid by donations from private interest groups, and not by the state of Wisconsin, for his assistance in defending MPCP expansion. (Capital Times, 08/10/95)
A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for August 17 in the Dane County Circuit Court, but Gov. Thompson has requested the Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene by assuming jurisdiction on the matter and bypassing the lower court in the interest of resolving the issue as soon as possible, since the academic year is almost ready to begin. Thompson said that because everyone already expects the case to go to the Supreme Court, "it only makes sense to expedite that process." (Capital Times, 08/11/95; Wisconsin State Journal, 08/11/95)
Meanwhile, 102 Milwaukee schools have sent "letters of
intention" to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), which
qualify them for participation in MPCP this year. Approximately 70 of those
schools are religiously affiliated. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
08/02/95) DPI has said, however, that an official tally of student applications
will not be available until after August 25. Students apply to MPCP by
sending an application form to the school they wish to attend. Schools
must submit all student applications to the state by August 25. (Information
provided directly by DPI.) It will be obvious to readers that the legal
abstractions detailed above, even if ultimately defeated as expected, will
badly cloud the first year response to MPCP expansion.
Announcements
¨ August marks the third
anniversary of the Blum Center. It has been a pleasure and a privilege
to provide our services to school choice workers across the land. It is
a great pleasure, as well, to announce the addition of Mr. David W. Kirkpatrick
to our Center's staff as Distinguished Fellow. David brings to the Center
a wealth of experience and knowledge of issues relating to educational
choice from his former position as Executive Director of the Pennsylvania
REACH Alliance, and will be remembered by many of our readers as the author
and editor of "Choice Comments." David's good work will continue to edify
readers of the Educational Freedom Report, which will feature his
column as an insert, beginning with this issue. We take this opportunity
to welcome David aboard, and to alert readers to his excellent articles
which will accompany the Report. David will be available for some
consulting and speaking engagements, and can be reached at 2323 Rudy Road,
Harrisburg, PA 17104-2025, (717) 232-2146, FAX (717) 232-2164.
Upcoming Event
¨ A National Conference
on School Choice is being sponsored by The Education Excellence Coalition
in Seattle at that city's Rainier Club from noon on Friday September 15
to 2:30 p.m. Saturday, September 16. A partial list of participants includes
Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler; Los Angeles Vaughn Charter School Principal
Yvonne Chan; and a panel, which David Kirkpatrick will moderate, consisting
of Lisa Graham, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dan McKinley,
Executive Director of the privately-funded PAVE program in Milwaukee, and
Udo Schulz, of The International School in Minnesota, one of nine sister
schools around the world providing a multicultural and multilingual K-12
education. For conference registration, contact The Columbia Resource Group
(206) 441-6448 or, for more information, contact the Coalition (206) 789-8776.
Surveys, Reports, &
Studies
¨ Susan Mitchell, Senior
Fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, has issued "When Is
a 'Harvard Study' Not a Harvard Study?," a three-page response to the "study"
which has been receiving a great deal of attention from the press since
its news release on July 13, including the Boston Globe, Capital Times,
Cleveland Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
Phoenix Gazette, Washington Post, and the Wisconsin State Journal.
Copies of Mitchell's outstanding rebuttal may be obtained by contacting
WPRI at 3107 North Shepard Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211, (414) 963-0600.
The Harvard "study" is, in fact, essentially just a commentary on older
pieces.
The recently-released preliminary findings from the Harvard University report, co-directed by Professors Bruce Fuller and Richard Elmore, have portrayed school choice as popular among parents, but as widening inequality among students, and showing no improvement in student achievement. Its release, concurrent with the recent passage of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program's expansion to include religious schools, may remind readers of a certain Carnegie Study which was released just prior to the defeat of Colorado's 1992 school choice proposal. Copies of the preliminary Harvard release may be requested by contacting the Harvard Graduate School of Education Office of External Relations, (617) 495-0740, FAX (617) 496-2597. The complete will work be published by Teacher's College, Columbia University, in fall, 1995. The basic truth is this: the press has treated the work as a comment on school choice, when in fact it is there has been no true school choice to assess because it has been blocked up to now.
¨ Meanwhile, another study released by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, called "Expanded School Choice in Milwaukee, A Profile of Eligible Students and Schools," by former Superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools, Dr. Howard Fuller, and Professor Sammis White, concludes, among other positive things for school choice advocates, "(i) that the expanded MPCP will meet the goal of increased educational opportunity for students from low-income families and (ii) that these students are among the lowest achievers in MPS. Further achievement, based on actual results, will be necessary to determine if the expanded program meets the goal of increased educational achievement." To obtain a copy of the report (July, 1995, Vol. 8, No. 5), contact WPRI at the address and phone number listed above.
- In Freedom Report #23, devoted to Wisconsin's
breakout to genuine choice, I noted that perhaps the ultimate importance
of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program's expansion would depend on how
well others in this state, and other jurisdictions as well, would draw
from the MPCP expansion history whatever pertinent lessons it has to offer
and then use them to achieve parental freedom in wider, more comprehensive
senses. I want in this brief commentary to highlight what I think is a
major lesson to be drawn from the experience of Wisconsin in achieving
limited but genuine school choice.
On the night of June 27, 1995, the night before crucial votes were to occur in the Wisconsin legislature, Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) analysts released late-breaking assertions concerning the alleged cost to MPS of MPCP expansion as proposed. It was alleged that MPCP would cost MPS much more than the bill's advocates were willing to say. This was a last minute, breathless, exaggerated form of the classic "siphon" smoke screen, and was easily refuted by subsequent analyses performed by the State Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
But of course such last minute noise as this should surprise no one. It simply joined the chorus of shrill efforts by EFM-defenders that had been heard from January, when the Governor announced he would include MPCP expansion in his executive budget; to the last moments in June, when MPCP expansion was passed. The January to June smoke screen campaign included the standard allegations of church-state violation, of breaking the bank, of siphoning, and that MPCP expansion was somehow an attack on the public schools rather than a major incentive for them to excel, and so on. So there is nothing surprising in the June 27 effort to cloud the issue by saying that, somehow, MPCP advocates had misunderstood the fiscal implications and that MPCP would be a huge and surprising drain on MPS's wherewithal. The good news, rather, has to do with the fact that this last ditch red herring, just as all the red herrings that preceded it, had no decisive impact on the Wisconsin state senators at whom it was directed. MPCP supporters, even those whose enthusiasm for school choice and MPCP was tepid, were essentially unmoved by this and all the other diversionary tactics.
What we were privileged to witness in Wisconsin in those late days was what I refer to as the "immunization" of politicians from educational finance monopoly's (EFM) misdirections. This immunization enabled Wisconsin's legislators to see that core status quo defenders were simply defending financial territory and prerogative and, in so doing, were speaking neither for children nor citizens. The point is that exactly these kinds of diversionary attacks have in other jurisdictions on countless occasions thrown well-intentioned legislators off their horses and filled them with doubt. What happened in Wisconsin, then, in a fundamental sense was that Wisconsin's key officials in the legislature and in the Governor's office became free over time, became immunized from the typical diversions and smoke screens used by EFM defenders.
Thus I am inclined to say that Wisconsin turned out to be a breakthrough state in large part because of a strong tradition of conditioning, overcoming social inertia, lifting the smoke screens and making parental freedom fit for discussion and action. The decisive crossover of several Democratic senators at crucial moments in senatorial consideration of MPCP expansion while the Republican supporters stood fast and did not break ranks illustrates the point. On June 22, for example, the Senate, divided 17-16 Republican vs Democrat, voted 21-12 against a motion to remove MPCP expansion from the consolidated budget bill. The crossover of Democratic senators, all veterans of school choice conversation, is a symptom of the immunization, it seems to me. The pivotal point, then, was not the intrusion of last minute smoke screens by MPS analysts, but rather the immunity of Wisconsin legislators to such diversions. The ability of these politicians to examine school choice objectively, and recognize that its whole point is to eliminate monopolistic control of school finances by expanding parental freedom, was the prerequisite for success in Wisconsin. And it is a major lesson all observers can take from Wisconsin's happy experience.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 |
 |