- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will see why we say "What a year for parental freedom was 1995!" In two states the first mainland school choice programs were put in place, and with them the principle of parental freedom had at last prevailed over the intense opposition of educational finance monopoly (EFM). Legalistic obstructions remain to be cleared away, but the political will to do what is right for parents and students was at last galvanized. In other states momentum was built, with ultimate victory still to come. In still other states, parental freedom was denied yet again — not surprising, given the strength of EFM's defense, and the weight of the social inertia which must be lifted — but the efforts continue. And, two major initiatives at the federal level have contributed to what one day should be the liberation of parents in education.
This review of what has been the most productive year for school choice should help readers avoid the frustration and impatience which can accompany efforts which have fallen short. The road is long, but the cause is just. Space limits require that this 1995 round-up concentrates entirely on comprehensive school choice efforts, and does not cover other matters such as charter and public school choice programs. Indeed, so crowded were we that we decided to add a supplement, and a "Potpourri" is attached. We are pleased, as well, to enclose David W. Kirkpatrick's "Sizing Up School Choice."
Ohio
& Wisconsin Start the Snowball Rolling...
On June 30, Governor George Voinovich signed into law
a two-year budget package for the state which created a $5.25 million pilot
voucher program in Cleveland, effective in September, 1996. With his signature,
Gov. Voinovich enabled Ohio to become the first state in the nation to
have completed the enactment of school choice including religious schools.
The proposal, which was included in the budget package, was finally approved
by the House-Senate Conference Committee on June 23, and will allow parents
of 2,000 Cleveland students to redeem vouchers at private or religious
schools.
On June 29, Wisconsin's legislature had passed genuine school choice legislation, and the school choice legislation, along with the rest of the budget, was signed into law on July 25. The legislation called for the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to include religiously-based schools. MPCP currently allows 1,500 students to attend non-sectarian private schools in Milwaukee, and Gov. Thompson's earliest version of the choice proposal had set the voucher amount at $3,300 per pupil, and raised the number of eligible students to 3,500 in the fall of 1996, and then to 5,500 in the next year, after which the enrollment limitation would have been eliminated.
Before the package was approved by the Joint Finance Committee, Representative Annette "Polly" Williams, the original sponsor of MPCP, called for a larger expansion proposal which increased the fall, 1995, enrollment to 7,000, after which the enrollment would be limited to 15,000. The initial voucher amount in the expanded choice proposal is equal to the current MPCP voucher amount, $3,209, and the cost of the program is $25 million in the first year, and $39 million in the following year. This expanded proposal was approved by the Senate on June 29, after having been approved by the State Assembly on June 21.
Once Gov. Thompson signed the expansion of MPCP into law last July, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the state on August 1, calling the program a violation of the separation of church and state. On August 25, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the expansion of MPCP until the Court has had time to decide if the expansion is constitutional. Immediately, Milwaukee businesses and charities rallied to donate emergency funds to raise tuition money for the children now unable to participate in the program because of the injunction. Oral arguments will be heard on February 27, and a final decision is not expected from the Wisconsin Supreme Court until spring, 1996.
Arizona - Two voucher proposals were placed before the Arizona legislature for consideration, SB 1360, and HB 2177. 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. The plan was a re-introduction of Lisa Graham's 1994 failed proposal, which would have provided $1,500 vouchers to as many as 8,000 low-income students over the next four years. HB 2177, sponsored by Representative Dan Schottel, Chair of the House Education Committee, passed through his committee on an 8-6 vote on February 15, but encountered difficulty and languished on the floor thereafter. HB 2177 would have established a two-year pilot program to give 2% of the school population (approximately 14,000 children state-wide) vouchers worth $3,500. A portion of the voucher's value, $2,500, would have gone to the private school tuition of the family's choice, and $1,000 would have remained in the school district.
California - A proposal called the "Education Freedom Initiative" was filed by Bay C.A.R.E. (Californians Advocating Reform in Education) on August 14. The proposal would amend the California constitution, and would use savings from the transfer of students from public to private schools to fund the program. The initiative's proponents must collect a minimum of almost 700,000 signatures to place the proposal on the 1996 ballot, and are seeking to raise $1 million for the petition drive. According to 1993 exit polls following the defeat of Prop. 174, if areas of concern regarding the proposal were addressed, 70% to 80% of California voters would support vouchers. Other California school choice interests are targeting 1998 for action.
Connecticut - On June 5, SB 209, "An Act Concerning School Choice," was withdrawn from the legislature by Governor John Rowland and Republican legislators, for fear that the bill might not pass the Senate. While there was a reported majority favorable to the bill in the House, the Senate vote would have been marginal. Subsequently, Gov. Rowland suggested the establishment of a Blue Ribbon panel as a means to generate discussion regarding school choice. The study commission convened during the summer to explore ways to bring school choice to Connecticut families, and support for school choice continues to build as the new legislative session approaches. It is scheduled to begin in February.
District of Columbia - As part of a larger appropriations package, the U.S. House of Representatives approved on November 2 Representative Steve Gunderson's tuition scholarship program for low-income D.C. residents. In March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich had appointed Rep. Gunderson to spearhead reform efforts for D.C. schools, and in October, Gunderson presented the Speaker with a school choice proposal that would provide scholarships worth $3,000 per pupil to families below the poverty level, and up to $1,500 for students between 100% and 185% of the poverty level.
The entire appropriations package has been sent to a conference committee, where it must be reconciled with the Senate's appropriations package. The Senate's package does not contain a school choice proposal, and Senator James Jeffords (R-Vt), the chairman of the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over D.C. appropriations, warned that at least 40 senators oppose a voucher provision, and that the D.C. budget bill may be stalled because of vouchers if the plan is included in the conference committee's agreement. House negotiators have offered to increase the maximum scholarship to $4,000, in order to place nonsectarian private school tuition within the reach of more parents. Senator Jeffords has acknowledged that obtaining a compromise on the voucher proposal will likely require some discussion with Speaker Gingrich.
Florida - Representative Steve Wise is continuing to gather support for his "K-12 Tuition Assistance Pilot Program" bill, which he intends to introduce in the Florida legislature in 1996. To date, thirty-six House members are supportive of the bill, and Senator Don Sullivan, Chair of the Senate Education Committee, is also expected to introduce the proposal in the Senate. The bill would create a five-year pilot program in selected counties, allowing up to 5% of students enrolled in public schools to receive scholarships that could be redeemed at any private school. The Florida 1996 Legislative Session begins March 5, 1996.
Illinois - The Illinois House deferred SB 17 for further consideration this past fall after it passed in the Senate on March 8 by a vote of 31-23. The bill is still alive for Illinois' next legislative session in 1996. SB 17, a $2,500 voucher proposal, was limited to 2,000 low-income families (with an annual income of $28,860 or less) from a subdistrict of Chicago chosen by a fifteen-member council, appointed by Governor Jim Edgar and the four leaders of the Illinois House and Senate. The vouchers would be redeemable at any private or parochial school within that subdistrict.
Kansas - In February, Representative Kay O'Connor and ten co-sponsors introduced HB 2217, the "Kansas G.I. Bill for Kids," into the Kansas legislature, and its counterpart, SB 182, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Phil Martin and Michael Harris. The bill, which proposed to introduce school choice by phasing in the number of families eligible to participate, and the amount of voucher itself over five years, was denied debate on the House floor. Rep. O'Connor reported in September that Senator Barbara Lawrence was selected as the new Chair of the Senate Education Committee, and that Sen. Lawrence had publicly stated that school voucher legislation would be heard in committee during the upcoming legislative session. Meanwhile, grassroots efforts around the state led to the formation of a 501 (c) (3) organization of over one thousand Kansas citizens who have indicated their support for school choice, and Citizens for Educational Freedom intends to have its lobbying forces in place for the next legislative session which begins in January.
Maine - Earlier this year, Legislative Document 1495, "An Act to Establish the Comprehensive School Choice Program in the State," was introduced in the Senate by Senator Phil Harriman and several co-sponsors. A lengthy hearing was conducted by the Education Committee on May 23, but because of the Committee's preoccupation with other matters, the bill was shelved until the next legislative session, which will begin shortly.
Maryland - The "Educational Opportunity Program," HB 1288, was introduced on February 24 in Maryland's General Assembly by Delegate Anthony O'Donnell. The bill would have provided educational assistance grants to reimburse parents whose gross income is below $70,000 for tuition at non-public schools. A public hearing was held on March 8 before the House Ways and Means Committee, to which the bill was assigned, but the bill never left committee. TEACH Maryland continues to work with the natural constituencies of educational choice, including state legislators, and hopes to have at least one or two local versions of the state-wide bill, along with another state-wide version placed before the legislature in 1996. The revised HB 1288 makes minor changes in the earlier version but retains the excellence of the earlier form, and indeed, perfects it.
Massachusetts - In November, Governor Weld announced a state-wide program to provide tuition vouchers to low-income families who wish to send their children to religious as well as non-sectarian private schools. According to a summary of Gov. Weld's proposal, his educational reform plan would make vouchers available at public and non-sectarian private schools during the first phase of reform. During the second phase, an amendment would be proposed to the Massachusetts Constitution that would expand the program to include religious schools if passed. Gov. Weld plans to introduce the voucher program in the Massachusetts House on January 4, 1996 — the beginning of the next legislative session — as part of H.B. 1, a large legislative reform package.
Minnesota - Previously a supporter only of public school choice, Governor Arne Carlson announced in July his intention to introduce next year a pilot plan for genuine school choice for Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Brooklyn Center, a Twin Cities suburb. Recently, Carlson's staff revealed that the proposal would likely offer vouchers worth approximately $500 to $3,000, to be given on a sliding scale according to income. A family of four earning as much as $40,000 could still qualify for the vouchers. Carlson insists that a voucher program will create more competition, which will in turn spawn excellence. State Republicans also announced on October 23 the creation of a Task Force on School Choice, which includes, among others, state Senators Tom Neuville and Gen Olson, sponsors of the "Minnesota Educational Certificate Act of 1995."
Missouri - SJR 17 and HJR 1, both introduced in 1995, died in committee. Both proposals were based on last year's SJR 21, a proposed amendment to article IX of the State Constitution, which was introduced by Senator Peter Kinder, and would have given scholarships, equal to 50% of the average expenditures per public school student, to parents of K-12 students. The scholarships would have been redeemable at any private or public scholarship-redeeming school. School choice advocates are already working with legislators to prepare legislation for 1996, and readers are encouraged to consult the Freedom Report for future updates.
New Jersey - Governor Christine Whitman delayed until 1996 the introduction of a school choice proposal at the end of last year, and appointed a panel to examine school choice in the wake of promises of legal challenges from the New Jersey Education Association and a powerful coalition of groups opposing vouchers. Gov. Whitman required that three public hearings on school choice be held before her fifteen-member advisory panel, and now that those hearings have been completed, the panel has developed draft legislation for consideration at the panel's next meeting. The vast majority of those testifying at the hearings spoke in favor of a school voucher program in Jersey City. Meanwhile, Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler, a staunch advocate of school choice, has announced the introduction of a privately-funded voucher program for the city, to begin in January, 1996, which initially drew major financial backing from Pepsi-Cola and the Bodman Foundation. Pepsi-Cola has recently withdrawn its support in the wake of local teachers' union opposition, and talk of product boycotts.
New Mexico - Senators Duncan Scott and Joe Carraro introduced an income tax credit bill designed to reimburse parents for their children's tuition at any independent school. The bill featured a provision for rebates for low-income families without tax liability. It was introduced in the Senate early in the 1995 legislative session, and was subsequently defeated. Meanwhile, New Mexico's Catholics bishops have pledged their full support for educational choice for all families in the state, and Sen. Scott plans to re-introduce the bill when the new legislative session begins in mid-January, in hopes of recording a vote in both the House and the Senate.
New York - The United New Yorkers for Choice in Education reported that the 1995 session of the New York State Legislature closed with a growing awareness among legislators of the need for educational choice. The "Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Act," introduced by long-time school choice advocates Assemblyman Dov Hikind and Senator Serphin Maltese, was referred to the Senate and Assembly Education Committees, and would have phased in a voucher plan over a period of three years. Efforts now are concentrating on developing public understanding and support.
North Dakota - North Dakota saw the introduction of SB 2235, which failed in the Senate by a vote of 32-17, as early efforts can be expected to do. SB 2235 was a tax credit proposal introduced and co-sponsored by Senator Terry Wanzek. The proposal would have allowed 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, and was modeled after Minnesota's tuition tax deduction law which stipulated that textbooks of a religious nature would not qualify for credit.
Oklahoma - Senator Don Rubottom re-introduced SJR 18 into the Oklahoma Legislature, with the firm support of the Committee for Oklahoma Education Reform. The bill would have amended the Oklahoma Constitution, and would have provided scholarships to parents with K-12 children in public or private schools. SJR 18 would have allowed 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 fiscal year into a single K-12 account of the State Treasurer. It would then have established scholarships for children whose parents choose public schools at an amount equal to or less than the state per pupil amount, and from 50% to 70% of that amount for children whose parents choose private schools. After five years, this amount could be adjusted by the Oklahoma legislature.
Pennsylvania - Governor Tom Ridge released on Ocotober 8 a version of school choice different from that which he submitted to the legislature last May. The May proposal passed in the Senate but fell short of passage by seven votes in the Pennsylvania House last June. According to the revised version of "Keystone Initiative for a Difference in Our Schools 2," a five-year pilot program for selected counties and cities in Pennsylvania would provide vouchers during the first year to parents who earn $15,000 or less in federal taxable income. During the second year the income limit would be increased to $25,000, and ultimately capped at $35,000 during the third year. Voucher amounts would vary from $350 to $1,500, depending on the parents' income. The Pennsylvania legislature, which reconvened on November 13, is expected to vote on the proposal this session. The last legislative session of 1995 is December 11-13.
Texas - The Texas Education Code was overhauled and approved by the Texas Senate, and included a bill proposed by Senate Education Committee Chair Bill Ratliff, which would have provided a pilot voucher program in twenty school districts. The bill would have given approximately 350,000 low-income families scholarships worth 80% of the state-local cost of educating students in the public schools to attend private schools. Similarly, in the House, Representative Ron Wilson co-sponsored the "Public Education Scholarship Bill," which would have allowed low-income students from sixty school districts to attend private schools with scholarships worth 80% of the public school tuition cost, or approximately $3,500, with the other 20% remaining in the school district. If a student attended another public school, 100% of the scholarship would follow the student. The bill passed the Senate but its counterpart failed in the House. The conference committee, whose purpose was to reconcile the two versions of the Education Code, did not include the Senate bill in its final recommendations. Governor George W. Bush did support the pilot voucher proposals, but did not make educational choice one of his top four priorities in the legislative session.
U.S. Proposals - Representatives Frank Riggs and Dave Weldon co-sponsored H.R. 1640, voucher legislation similar to a bipartisan bill (S. 618) introduced by Senators Daniel Coats and Joseph Lieberman, which enjoys strong support in the Senate. Called the "Low-Income School Choice Demonstration Act of 1995," H.R. 1640 would allow any K-12 child eligible to participate in the free or reduced price National School Lunch Program to receive vouchers to attend the public or private school of their family's choice. The bill would authorize grants for ten to twenty low-income communities to establish voucher-based school choice programs, at a cost of $30 million over three years. As of this Report, the bill is still in committee.
"ABSTRACT PERFECT VS PRACTICAL GOOD"
Freedom Report #27 contained the Editor's View on the irony of using poor supply of independent school seats in the District of Columbia to choke off the new supply parental freedom would bring. #28 spoke of a related issue: how the absence of a perfect school choice system could be used and was being used to prevent a practical and achievable good one. When I wrote those pieces, I had not seen the September, 1995, issue of Emerge. That issue contained an interview with Jawanza Kunjufu, a Chicago author, lecturer, and film maker who, as well, has experience as an officer of an independent Black school and is familiar with such schools around the nation.
The interview was dedicated to the broad topic of "guiding Black children through today's education maze," and not to school choice as such. But during the interview Kunjufu was asked to comment on "choice and the voucher system," and his response is extraordinarily enlightening on the issues of independent school supply and the ways in which practical achievements can come from school choice arrangements which are far short of "perfection."
Kunjufu notes that, up to now, the nation's independent
Black schools have been relatively quiet on the matter of school choice
— perhaps because "...they are so busy trying to keep their own doors open
that they really don't have the resources to negotiate and express their
views to the larger community." He then goes on:
If anything, I think the argument against vouchers is saying that African-Americans don't have the wherewithal economically and managerially to take care of their own. I have a problem with that. I think that we can. I think that we could do that, but I don't think this has to be an either/or situation.
EMERGE: Tell me how the voucher debate would change if independent Black educators had the resources to speak on it? Do they support it?
KUNJUFU: Most independent Black schools are in support
of the voucher system. If independent Black schools had access to voucher
dollars and had time to speak out, I think that the larger Black community
would not only listen to public school educators, but they could also listen
to some independent Black school directors who would say, "Don't listen
to that, we do have the ability to educate your children. Just come in
for open house and we will show you. We will show you children who come
from the same families you come from, and they're reading at the 80 and
90 percentile on the California-Iowa test."
ON LOOKING WITHOUT SEEING
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in a massive series
of articles running from November 19 to November 26, at the cost of countless
trees and ink wells, looked at Milwaukee's public schools under the title
of "MPS: Status Quo, Not Kids, Comes First." One might think that a series
which looked so directly at the central symptom (the system serving itself)
would see the cause (educational finance monopoly, EFM). No such luck.
The Journal Sentinel, doctrinaire, ACLU-like opponent of parental freedom via school choice without financial penalty, could and did literally wallow in the humanly-destructive evidence of how a monopolistic financial system puts itself ahead of "the kids," not because its operatives are evil or even particularly self-serving — but because the material beneficiaries of monopoly, quite naturally, concentrate on maintaining the monopoly rather than concentrating on the needs and interests of those they are supposed to serve.
Thus, even while looking at pock mark after pock mark; even while acknowledging the severe human costs of educational failure and tracing much of that to the system; even while praising Howard Fuller, who as Superintendent saw the need for parental freedom as a powerful lever to change the system to one that serves its clients rather than itself; even while citing the current, EFM-defending Superintendent as acknowledging that in-system "reforms" now underway have been greatly precipitated by just the "threat" of true school choice — the newspaper is unable to relate symptom to cause, and to free itself from the crippling confusing of a means (MPS) with the appropriate end of strong education for all youngsters.
Thus, for example, the series ends with a piece entitled "Who Will Step Forward to Shape MPS?" The clear message: the newspaper, even after extensively exposing the destructiveness of the status quo, cannot rise above it. Those who do rise above the smoke spewed by that status quo see what the real question is: when will we replace educational finance monopoly with parental freedom via school choice without financial penalty — and thereby correctly portray all educational providers, governmental and independent, as what they are: alternate legitimate means to the good end of education for our children.
The Journal Sentinel has put its series together in magazine form and it will be available in 4-6 weeks. It can be ordered by contacting: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Public Service Bureau, 333 West State St., Milwaukee, WI 53201, 414-224-2120. It provides a fascinating picture of how strong is the social inertia which is manipulated by EFM defenders to keep EFM in place.
Announcement
¨ Last issue we reported
that Joseph Claude Harris' The Cost of Catholic Parishes and Schools,
which examines the problems of financing parishes and parish schools, was
available from Sheed and Ward. The correct phone number to call is 1-800-333-7373,
but the book cannot be ordered until March, 1996. Please make orders and
inquiries at that time.
Report Available
¨ Recently released is
the Summary and Analysis of All FY '96 State Applications for Child Care
and Development Block Grant (includes five pages of tables). This is a
compilation of all recently-approved state applications for the $1 billion
annual child care and development block grant. The study includes information
about: lead agencies; FY '96 CCDBG Block Grant Funds for each state; parent
vouchers and contracts; funds set aside for direct services to children;
funds set aside for Start-Up/Expansion of Early Childhood and School-Age
Programs; funding for and types of Quality Improvement Activities; and
special and new Program Incentives. The cost is $50, postage prepaid, and
checks should be made to "William J. Tobin and Associates." Orders can
be sent to William J. Tobin and Associates at 3612 Bent Branch Court, Falls
Church, VA 22041. Also available is the Summary and Analysis of Two-Year
State Plans, FYs '95-'96 for CCDBG. The study is now reduced to $55, and
when both reports are ordered, the combined discount cost is $85.
Recent Acquisitions
¨ We have received from
Allan Parker at the Texas Justice Foundation a copy of the educational
choice bill which passed in the Senate as part of the revised Texas Education
Code (SB 1), but which failed to be included in the conference committee's
final report. (See TEXAS in state updates.) For additional information,
please contact Allan Parker at the Texas Justice Foundation, 8122 Datapoint
Drive, Suite 906, San Antonio, TX 78229, 210-614-7157, or FAX 210-614-2649.
¨ The Blum Center also has available, compliments of Senator Joseph Lieberman, a copy of his remarks delivered at the November 12 Seton-Neumann Annual Lecture. Sen. Lieberman was invited to speak at the Lecture by Father William Davis and the United States Catholic Conference Department of Education. In his address, Sen. Lieberman describes school choice efforts across the states; comments on the current ethical void in the nation's public schools, as per the Blum Center's "Ethics in a Pluralistic Society"; mentions the impact of key U.S. Supreme Court rulings in respect to school choice, and shows how he and his colleagues in Washington, D.C., are working to address parental rights and educational choice.
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 |
 |