- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find in this Report summaries of major state-level developments, discussion of the phenomenon of public school teachers sending their children to private schools, and an editor’s essay on the confusion of ends and means in education.
CALIFORNIA
Despite the
November 2 defeat of Proposition 174, advocates of educational choice in
California show no sign of giving up the effort. (For a comprehensive
analysis of the Proposition 174 defeat, see Educational Freedom Report
No. 2, 11/09/93, ‘California Special Report.’) Bolstered by mid-campaign
and exit poll results indicating that a great majority of Californians
continue to favor educational choice, advocates plan to have a revised
education voucher initiative ready for the 1994 or 1996 ballot and they
plan to construct an organization able to mobilize the support for choice
that already exists in California.
Within a day of Proposition 174’s defeat, three new education voucher proposals had been filed with state officials. It is likely that other proposals will be drafted and filed, as well. Any proposal would have to attract more than 600,000 signatures to qualify as a ballot initiative. Some of the modifications favored by California advocates include increasing voucher values for children from low-income families and for special education students, assuring minimum funding for public schools by protecting the school financing law known as Proposition 98, and specifying some curriculum and teacher standards for voucher-redeeming schools. These and other modifications will, advocates hope, adequately address voter concerns about the absence of such provisions in Prop. 174.
There is, however, a growing awareness that modifications alone will not bring success. An article in the November 4 Los Angeles Times observed that “a vastly different approach must be taken to overcome the powerful education Establishment and its employee unions. . .” Leading California advocates now admit that the “different approach” should include an organizational structure which can broaden and solidify the coalition of supporters. A broadened coalition would not only serve as a counter-balance to the large and politically powerful California Teachers Association. It would also help supporters raise the funds required to wage an effective media campaign. Opponents of Prop. 174 had spent more than $17 million to defeat the initiative. (See San Francisco Chronicle, 11/5/93, and Los Angeles Times, 11/3/93 and 11/4/93) Such uniting of choice’s “natural constituencies” would be more easily done, of course, if those constituencies are involved in forming the definitive choice proposal. (The Blum Center was founded on the belief that the virtues of educational choice without financial penalty, if clearly seen, can bring together many different constituencies. See ‘All Roads Lead to Educational Choice.’ Only by such coalescing can choice advocates expect to overcome the politically-entrenched forces of EFM. A dramatic example of choice-as-unifier occurred in Wisconsin in November, when the Wisconsin Libertarian party offered its 1993 Liberty Award to Democratic Representative Polly Williams — and she happily accepted. Though they may seem at first glance strange bedfellows, indeed, at a deeper level they are natural allies on one topic, at least, able to work together for parental freedom in education.)
COLORADO
A ballot proposal
called “Parental Choice in Education” has been filed by Steve Durham, a
former Republican senator from Colorado Springs, for placement on the November,
1994, Colorado ballot. The plan aims to give full-cost scholarships
to low-income families, half-cost scholarships to middle-income families,
and 20% scholarships to upper-income families. Scholarships would
be based on the state average of per-pupil expenditures. Durham’s
proposal still needs about 50,000 signatures of registered voters to place
it on the ballot. (Rocky Mountain News, 10/19/93)
GEORGIA
The merits of
educational choice were debated during public hearings held October 28
and 29 before the Senate Education Committee in Atlanta. The hearings,
requested by Lt. Gov. Pierre Howard, came in the wake of the recent unearthing
of a 32-year-old Georgia law permitting parents to apply for education
grants to send their children to non-sectarian private schools. Although
state officials have declared the law to be "unusable,” publicity surrounding
its re-discovery has stirred widespread interest in educational choice
as well as the promise that a new choice proposal will be introduced in
the Georgia legislature when it reconvenes in January. (See the Blum
Center’s Educational Freedom Report, No. 1, 10/21/93)
During the hearings, opponents of educational choice made the usual contentions that choice would “divert” funds from public schools and that children from low-income families would be “abandoned” in poorly performing public schools. Glenn Delk, an educational choice advocate and Atlanta attorney, presented at the hearings the outline of a new plan that has been drafted in cooperation with state Sen. Sallie Newbill. The plan would include both non-sectarian and religiously-affiliated schools. It would also permit public schools to become schools of choice, freeing themselves of excessive regulation and funding themselves through education vouchers. Under the plan, education vouchers would be made available initially to low-income families, expanding eventually to include all Georgia families. (See Atlanta Constitution, 10/24/93 and 10/29/93.)
MICHIGAN
In July of this
year Michigan’s legislature passed a measure abolishing property tax support
for education. The property tax repeal, while creating a $6.5 billion
gap in the education budget for the ‘94-’95 school year, has presented
lawmakers with a unique opportunity to restructure public education in
their state. The Michigan constitution contains unusually severe
restrictions that prohibit parental choice plans involving private schools;
hence, immediate reform efforts are focused on the public schooling system.
In an October 5 speech to a joint session of the legislature, Gov. John Engler revealed his plans for education reform and for restructuring education financing in Michigan. Gov. Engler proposed restoring the education budget with a series of changes in current tax policy, including a sales tax increase from 4 to 6 percent. He also proposed a modified interdistrict public school choice plan and he called for passage of expansive charter school legislation.
Although the proposed sales tax increase has ignited a fiery political debate, the Detroit Free Press (11/08/93) notes that “the rancor over taxes has not come close to the venom, hyperbole and ghost stories unleashed over school choice and charter schools.” The Michigan Education Association (MEA) vehemently opposes Engler’s charter school plan.
It claims that charter schools will lead eventually to choice programs involving private and religious schools and that charter schools would operate without sufficient oversight. Engler’s charter school plan would allow parents, teachers and others with unique educational ideas to create an alternative public school using state education funds. Charter schools would operate independently of school districts and could hire non-union teachers. Thus, though not equivalent to comprehensive educational choice, this charter proposal constitutes a threat to the current educational finance monopoly (EFM). And the one charter school currently operating in Detroit has proved immensely popular.
The MEA has begun to raise funds (hoping to reach $10 million) to derail the charter school plan. As reported in the Free Press (11/08/93), “No Michigan campaign for an issue or public office has ever spent as much. Besides launching a massive TV campaign aimed mainly against school choice, the MEA has hundreds of members taking work days off to lobby legislators in Lansing. . .” Pressure from the MEA has reached state legislators. The same Free Press article observed that “some Democrats privately approve of Engler’s charter schools plan but are afraid to buck the MEA, whose deep pockets can make and break politicians.”
Gov. Engler will need the support of a large number of Democratic lawmakers in order to win a spot for his sales tax proposal on next year’s ballot. Democrats may try to force Engler to dilute his charter schools plan, making it more palatable to the MEA, in exchange for votes on the sales tax plan. (See Detroit Free Press, 10/06/93 and 11/08/93 and U.S. News & World Report, 10/18/93.)
OHIO
The Ohio Scholarship
Plan, to begin bringing educational choice to Ohio parents, was dealt a
serious blow when House Speaker Vern Riffe assigned the bill to the House
Education Committee. The chairman of the House Education Committee,
Rep. Ronald Gerberry, opposes the pilot educational choice bill.
The Ohio Scholarship Plan was recommended in December, 1992, by the Governor’s Commission on Educational Choice. The plan calls for $25 million to create pilot education voucher programs, either one of two recommended programs, to be established in local school districts if approved in a given district by a majority of voters or by the local Board of Education.
Gov. George V. Voinovich supports the proposal which was introduced as companion bills in the Senate and House by Sen. H. Cooper Snyder and Rep. Michael Fox. Rep. Fox had hoped that the House bill would be assigned to the Finance Committee. The chairman of the House Finance Committee, Rep. Patrick A. Sweeney, supports the measure.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer (11/11/93) reported that the pilot educational choice plan has faced “vehement opposition from the State Board of Education, the Ohio School Boards Association, the PTA and the school employees union.” The article went on to note that “House Democrats, who have a 53-46 majority, rely heavily on union money and support to win seats.” Typically, education committee members rely heaviest on “money and support” from public school employers unions. For that reason, many educational choice proposals have languished and died in education committees. Rep. Sweeney stated, however, that the Ohio Scholarship Plan may yet survive if it is passed first by the Senate where is finds greater support. (See Cleveland Plain Dealer, 11/11/93)
OREGON
According to
Ed Meier, Executive Director of Oregonians for School Choice, a voucher
proposal intended for the 1994 ballot has received 10,000 of the necessary
89,000 signatures required to get the proposal on the ballot. (Oregonian,
11/04/93)
PUBLIC
SCHOOL TEACHERS CHOOSING PRIVATE SCHOOLS
Keith Geiger,
National Education Association President, has stated that 40% of urban-area
public school teachers with school-age children send their children to
private schools. (“Teacher knows Best,” Wall Street Journal,
10/25/93) These numbers suggest a discrepancy between what public
school teachers are saying about “not abandoning the public schools,” and
what they are doing when choosing private schools for their children.
Chuck Howard, President of the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association,
calls the decisions of its members “a private thing between parent and
child, whatever they decide. We’ve got a lot of member who are very
religious, and they decide to send their children to religious schools.”
(Milwaukee Journal, 11/14/93)
The stated reasons for this inconsistency among public school teachers are familiar to other parents who are in some way dissatisfied with public schools: lack of discipline, fear for children’s safety, drugs, gangs, dearth of moral values, absence of religious environment, failing test scores, poor overall achievement in meeting performance standards. Yet, some public school teachers and union representatives prefer not to identify such reasons as “dissatisfaction.” Richard Collins, President of Wisconsin Education Association Council, said “One ought not assume that someone is sending their children to private or parochial schools because of dissatisfaction of the public schools.” (Milwaukee Journal¸ 11/14/93) What?
Sue Adams, a public school teacher from Riverside, California, sends her two children to St. Catherine’s of Alexandria. “I’m not putting my children in parochial school because I’m dissatisfied with public schools. It’s just that public schools do not address spiritual growth and I feel that is as fundamental as academic growth.” But not dissatisfied? How’s that again? (Dennis Kelley, “Teachers Who Go Private – For Own Kids,” USA Today, 10/15/93) Jim Cataneso, quoted in the same article as Ms. Adams, and also a public school teacher at Apple Valley (California) High School, states these reasons for sending his daughters to St. Mary’s Regional Catholic School: “just moral values, and a little stronger discipline, and teaching core values you don’t always see pursued in the public schools. I don’t have to worry about drugs. I don’t have to worry about gangs. I can’t say the same thing about the public schools.” But let no one imagine this represents dissatisfaction!
What is clear from the examples above is that parents who can afford to do so choose private schools for their children for legitimate reasons, whether such reasons are called “dissatisfaction” or not. And public school teachers, presumably well-placed to evaluate educational quality and despite the economic sacrifices involved, do so at rates far beyond the general parent population. Other parents who cannot afford to do so also desire the opportunity to send their children to private schools for some of the same reasons. Educational choice without financial penalty will simply afford all parents the ability to do what many public school teachers have chosen to do for their own children. It will allow their rights to match their responsibilities.
BLUM
CENTER HOLDINGS & ACTIVITIES
Thanks to Rev.
José Basols of Colegio Ponceno, Puerto Rico, we now have available
in Blum Center files English translations of Puerto Rico’s voucher law
(Law 71) and the community schools law (Law 18). As in the case of
any Blum Center holdings, we will be happy to provide additional bibliographic
information or copies of these documents for any person or group unable
to obtain copies at local libraries.
THE
EDITOR’S VIEW ON THE CONFUSION OF ENDS AND MEANS
I often invite
educational choice audiences to step with me into what has been called
a "state of nature." This enables us to strip away the historical
accidents that surround American education today, and think a bit about
educational ideals. My primary objective in these exercises is to
encourage people to distinguish between the ends and the means of schooling.
Unless that is done, we are captives and victims of the status quo, a mere
means often presented as an end in itself. Consider, for example,
the standard defense of today's educational finance monopoly (EFM), which
played such a large part in the Prop. 174 battle: "educational choice
will siphon funds from the public schools which are already hurting."
This typical defense of EFM suffers in many ways: educational choice
as such says nothing about how many dollars should flow to public schools,
for example; moreover, "siphon" begs the question as to the relationship
between expenditure levels and educational quality, or how many dollars
are needed to produce effective public schools. But most of all,
the "siphon" defense is erroneous, misleading, and destructive of rational
debate because it elevates public schools to the position of end rather
than means. Thus elevated, such schools, and the funding monopoly
which shelters them, cannot be compared, evaluated, and seen in appropriate
relationship to alternative educational means. Any choice advocate
caught in this snare is forced to begin his advocacy by guaranteeing that
the very thing which is malfunctioning must be essentially undisturbed.
Now that is a clever defense of the status quo!
In our state of nature we can avoid such logical traps by thinking about the natural ends of educational policy, and those objectives will be seen clearly and easily. In a democratic society such as ours, educational ends begin with the welfare of the individual, whose talents should be developed to the largest extent possible. We want and expect as a corollary the betterment society itself will experience from the perfection of each person within it. And, for the good of those persons and society as a whole, we hope the educational system will help produce citizens able to work effectively within contemporary economic conditions.
That is one way to articulate the natural ends which educational policy should seek. Only if we focus on these ends can we rationally assess the alternative means thereto. Freed of enslavement to any particular system, and to the status quo, we will recognize immediately, not just abstractly but from vast experience here and in other nations, that in a free society many alternate methods for achieving those ends will arise. And the natural presumption would be that these alternatives should have an equal opportunity to prove their worth and merit to parents, who most want the child's welfare. There is no objective reason to do otherwise. And thus does a step into a state of nature free us and lead logically to educational 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 |
 |