- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find reports of significant state-level activities for parental freedom, led by an out-of-alphabetical-order summary of recent vital remarks by Minnesota's Governor, a note re Blum Center activities and staff, an Editor's View asking "Can We Get Serious?" and David Kirkpatrick's distillation of lessons from Pennsylvania's school choice experiences.
MINNESOTA
In an interview with editors
and reporters of the Washington Times (12/31/95), Minnesota Governor
Arne H. Carlson offered some comments which make plain that his understanding
of today's key educational struggle — parental freedom vs. educational
finance monopoly (EFM) — is extraordinarily profound. Specifically, Gov.
Carlson, while acknowledging that parental freedom may have to start small,
given the political realities confronting him and other politicians devoted
to parents' rights, is absolutely clear-eyed about the ultimate logic of
such change.
As to why EFM should end: "We had bought into the notion that K-12 should be a monopoly — one size fits all. Now we realize it's not going to work. As a nation, we've turned the education of our children over to a union. We've got to try something completely different."
As to what that "completely different" approach should be, the Governor speaks with model clarity: because of prevailing political conditions, he is content to start with a limited pilot voucher program of $500 to $3,000 for youngsters in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Brooklyn Center, and a rural area to be selected later. But, Carlson says, "If I had my way [the voucher] would be $6,200 and available all over the state." $6,200 is the average overall per-student expenditure for Minnesota's public schools. Thus, Gov. Carlson most powerfully has asserted the simple truth of things: all parents should have full freedom to choose the public or independent school they judge best for their child. That is the ultimate logic of school choice, as it is the North Star for parental freedom.
CALIFORNIA
Governor Pete Wilson in his
1996 State of the State Address appears to have taken a significant
step in the direction of genuine school choice. Governor Wilson has proposed
giving "Opportunity Scholarships" to students in the bottom 5% of California's
public schools, as measured by standardized tests for the last two years.
The scholarships would allow parents of these children to send them to:
1) another public school within their district, 2) a public, higher-performing
school in another district, or 3) a private school (either sectarian or
non-sectarian). The scholarships would be "Proposition 98 neutral," meaning
that no funds would be drawn for the scholarships from General Fund monies
allocated to Proposition 98. (Information provided by Lance Izumi at the
Pacific Research Institute, and the Governor's Office of Public Affairs)
Obviously, this is a very cautious and limited program. In addition, as of this writing, we do not know how the state constitutional impediment, which prohibits providing government funds to sectarian schools, is addressed in the Governor's proposal. Nevertheless, the Governor's statement is an important step toward true school choice. As we expect of EFM defenders, Robert E. Wells, of the Association of California School Administrators, said his organization would certainly oppose the voucher plan. (New York Times, 01/10/96) For additional information about Governor Wilson's "Opportunity Scholarships" proposal, please contact Sean Walsh at (916) 445-4571.
DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
The District's budget for
1996 includes no vestige of the Republican plan for educational reform,
including educational tuition vouchers, as proposed by Representative Steve
Gunderson, and as prompted and firmly endorsed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
(See Freedom Report #30) Unable to reach a compromise on the appropriations
bill's most controversial component, school vouchers, legislators dropped
the entire reform package from the bill, including a provision for charter
schools and public school renovations. (Washington Times, 12/19/95)
House and Senate conference committee members agreed to eliminate all education reform provisions attached to the District's $4.99 billion fiscal 1996 budget in the interest of reopening the District government. "The big losers," according to a December 22 Washington Post editorial, are "the students." The editorial points to the pressure of vested interests and their legislative allies: "Chalk up a victory for the Washington teachers' union, for members of Congress who would rather have no reforms than accept publicly funded scholarships for low-income students to attend area private schools and for a public school system that many residents are too embarrassed to call their own."
KANSAS
In Freedom Report #30
we erroneously stated that Representative Kay O'Connor's HB 2217 was denied
debate on the House floor in 1995, but, in fact, the proposal did receive
floor debate, and was subsequently defeated 23-98. This was a substantial
advance over the previous year, when debate had been denied entirely.
Rep. O'Connor is continuing the fight for genuine parental choice in her
state. Her activity as a champion for educational choice has prompted invitations
to speak before the Kansas Association of School Boards, the Society of
School Executives, and the United School Administrators, among other groups
traditionally opposed to educational choice. Additionally, Rep. O'Connor
continues to work with businessman Fred Thorp to form a 501 (c) (3) organization
of citizens dedicated to parental rights and school choice. (Information
provided by Rep. O'Connor)
NEW JERSEY
On December 15, just as Educational
Freedom Report #30 was being delivered, Governor Christine Whitman's
Panel on School Vouchers released its plans for a five-year pilot voucher
program. If passed in the legislature, the program would essentially allow
one school district per county to custom-design its own voucher program.
In general, vouchers would be worth up to $2,500 for parents of elementary
school students and up to $3,500 for parents of high school students. All
vouchers would be redeemable at public, private, or parochial schools.
A last-minute addition to the package will also require districts to set
an income ceiling on parents receiving the vouchers. The cost of the program
after five years would be $27.5 million, while any money saved from public-to-private
school transfers would be returned to the general voucher fund. New Jersey's
legislative session began on January 11. (Jersey Journal 12/16/95;
The Record, 12/16/95)
OHIO
Although Ohioans are waiting
to hear the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in the effort
to expand the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program to include religious schools,
there is great enthusiasm on the part of parents who have applied for the
pilot voucher program designed for Cleveland. January 2 was the cutoff
date for those who wished to submit applications to receive school vouchers
through the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. Nearly 5,200 residents
have applied for tuition vouchers worth up to $2,250 per child during the
1996-'97 school year, but only 1,500 K-3 Cleveland children will be selected
by January 15 to participate in the $5.5 million pilot program. An all-day
schools fair is scheduled for January 22 for families selected to participate
in the program, at which representatives from private and religious schools
will be available to answer parents' questions and distribute materials
about their unique educational offerings. (Cleveland Plain Dealer,
12/28/95) Late note: The Ohio Federation of Teachers filed suit
against the Ohio parental freedom provision on January 10, as anticipated.
Just one more obstruction in the path of parental freedom.
PENNSYLVANIA
On December 13, the last day
of Pennsylvania's 1995 legislative year, Governor Tom Ridge and Pennsylvania
House leaders decided to postpone the vote on his latest education package,
"Keystone Initiative for a Difference in Our Schools 2" (KIDS 2). The package
includes a five-year pilot voucher program. (Philadelphia Inquirer,
12/14/95) Please refer to this month's essay by David Kirkpatrick for background
information on Pennsylvania efforts; please refer to Educational Freedom
Report #30 for more details on KIDS 2.
VIRGINIA
Governor George Allen's "Commission
on Champion Schools," an educational reform commission, is making its formal
recommendations to the Governor after a year and a half of study. Among
other reform measures such as charter schools and public school choice,
the commission suggests that the Governor consider providing "educational
opportunity grants" of up to $2,000 to lower- and middle-income families
(targeting incomes of $35,000 and under) whose children attend private
or parochial schools. (Information has been provided by Dimitrios N. Rerras,
a member of the Governor's commission.)
WASHINGTON
Dr. Ron Taber of Olympia,
a Republican running for Superintendent of Public Instruction, said he
has collected 241,434 signatures in support of his voucher school initiative,
Initiative 173, exceeding the required 181,667 signatures to take the initiative
to Legislature. Now Initiative 173 is provisionally certified by the Secretary
of State Ralph Munro. It was referred to the House Education Committee
for a joint House and Senate hearing on January 22, at 6:30p.m.
Initiative 173 would require the state to provide students with vouchers for use at any public or independent school with twenty-five or more students. As to whether "independent schools" would include religious schools, we have this comment from Dr. Taber's summary of the proposal: "That decision is up to the Washington Supreme Court." The vouchers would be worth at least 55% of the government's per-pupil expenditure. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12/29/95)
Not surprisingly, the proposal is opposed by the current Superintendent, Judith Billings, along with the Washington Education Association, armed with $462,010 in its political action committee bank account, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission, to help champion its defeat. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12/25/95) Taber responded to this opposition: "Education is too important to be left up to a labor union. What we need is parents looking after their children's education." (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12/29/95) Also according to the Public Disclosure Commission, Dr. Taber spent $235,573.28 through December 31st to get the required signatures. All but a few thousand dollars came from Dr. Taber himself.
Governor Mike Lowry's spokesman said the Governor opposes Initiative 173, but is currently studying another initiative (177) to allow for the creation of non-religious charter schools. This initiative, sponsored by Jim and Fawn Spady (see Freedom Report #28), would give parents or teachers the opportunity to start their own independent, publicly-funded schools, free from much government regulation. Also opposed to this measure is the Washington Education Association. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12/25/95) The Legislature has three options with respect to each initiative: 1) the House and Senate can pass an initiative into law without action by the Governor, 2) the Legislature can refrain from action and let voters decide on an initiative in November, or 3) the Legislature can draft an alternative and allow voters to decide between the original and the alternative. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 12/29/95)
Recent Acquisitions
¨ The Blum Center has
received from David Schumann a copy of the California Attorney General's
Initiative Title and Summary of Bay C.A.R.E.'s "Educational Freedom Initiative,"
which proposes to amend the California Constitution (see Freedom Report
#30) along with the text of the proposal itself. Readers interested in
California's efforts to achieve genuine parental choice in education will
be pleased to see the text of the amendment.
¨ We have received from the office of Dr. Ron Taber a summary of Initiative 173 (see WASHINGTON above), and a book by Dr. Taber called The Case for School Choice, How To Improve Our Schools (Triune Press, 1995). For additional information on how to obtain these materials, contact John Lundberg, Press Secretary for Dr. Taber of Parents and Taxpayers to Elect Dr. Ron Taber Superintendent of Public Instruction, at 4210 36th Ave. NE, Olympia, WA 98516, 1-800-4-WIN-SPI, FAX 360-456-8382
¨ Last month the Blum Center reported that Governor Weld of MASSACHUSETTS announced his intention to introduce a state-wide voucher program for low-income families in the legislature. (Please see Freedom Report #30 for more details.) Readers who would like to receive a copy of Gov. Weld's ten-page press release, which includes his plans for education, can do so by contacting either the Blum Center or Steve Perla at the Parents' Alliance for Catholic Education (PACE) in Massachusetts: (508) 852-2200.
A
Word From the Director About the Blum Center's Staff
The following information is provided as background for
any Freedom Report readers who have not previously been introduced
to the staff.
- ¨ The Blum Center was
named after Rev. Virgil C. Blum, S.J., a pioneer in the effort to achieve
parental freedom in the U.S. The Center was founded in 1992 by Quentin
L. Quade, Raynor Professor of Political Science and Center Director, one
year after completing 17 years as Marquette's Executive Vice President.
¨ Laura A. Weber, the Center's Assistant Director, has been a key part of the enterprise from the time it was just a gleam in the Director's eye. Even while carrying the Center's burdens with utmost grace, Laura pursued and completed (12-14-95) a doctorate in Religious Studies at Marquette. Dr. Weber's concentration was in Scripture, and her dissertation featured a Plotinian interpretation of John 17:21-23.
¨ David W. Kirkpatrick, Distinguished Fellow of the Center, assumed that position after retiring as Executive Director of Pennsylvania's REACH Alliance. David's credits in the work for school choice would fill a book, and include the excellent Choice in Schooling, A Case for Tuition Vouchers (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990).
¨ David D. Urbanski, Center Associate and Wisconsin Desk Director, has been a full-time professional part of the Center since completing his Masters Degree in Political Science in May, 1995.
¨ Mrs. Donna M. Blackburn, Center Associate, provides splendid administrative, clerical, and production support for all the Center's activities.
In addition to the work of these people, the Center from its inception has depended on and benefitted from the help provided it by many dozens of Center correspondents around the nation. These are the generous souls who help us achieve knowledge and understanding of the widespread but always-local efforts to achieve parental freedom via school choice without financial penalty.
- The Educational Freedom Report comes to you not
from the "Blum Center for Vouchers, Tax Credits, or Tuition Certificates."
Rather, the Report comes from the "Center for Parental Freedom in
Education." That parental freedom is the end to which vouchers, certificates,
and the like are but alternative means. By the time I began the Center
in 1992 it was apparent to me that the most fundamental conflict in American
education was between two radically different ways of assigning education-dedicated
tax dollars: the prevailing educational finance monopoly (EFM), on the
one hand; and parental freedom in education via school choice without
financial penalty, on the other. The questions implicit within this struggle
include the following: will parental and guardian love be permitted to
work in education, by empowering parents to choose schools? Will justice
finally be done by providing to those parents rights equivalent to their
responsibilities? Or will those who materially benefit from today's monopoly
continue to control the assignment of all tax dollars going to education,
with the humanly destructive results one expects from monopoly?
The various smoke screens employed to reinforce social inertia, and thereby maintain the status quo, prevent some onlookers from grasping the bald reality of EFM vs parental freedom. Instead of seeing clearly the economic self-interest that motivates EFM's core defenders, many concerned citizens are led to imagine that government school educators' unions, for example, are somehow above the fray, altruistically representing "the kids" instead of their own financial benefits deriving from monopolistic control of tax dollars.
But from time to time there are events which should help even those who are prone to be naive to understand what the true battle is about. For example, in two of the states where parental freedom threatened to break out in 1995, educational union defenders of the status quo removed their velvet gloves and revealed their bare knuckles. In both places, the monopoly's schools are operating badly, and thousands of inner-city parents and students are paying the high price of educational failure. Naturally, people of good will look for ways to help. One way that has been sought for Milwaukee and Jersey City has been to try to find funds to help poor city parents have some choice of schools for their youngsters. But EFM's status quo defenders reacted strongly against even this rudimentary parental freedom. First, in the spring in Wisconsin, the state teachers' union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), attempted to intimidate various business leaders who had gone on record in support of the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Those leaders received letters from WEAC's president saying that he "planned to share their position with delegates at an upcoming convention." Businessmen receiving the letter saw it as an implicit threat to boycott their firms. The union president said that when the issue was discussed at the convention, he would not use the word "boycott," but "someone else might." (Milwaukee Sentinel, 4-1-95) Pardon me — can we get serious?
Then, in November in New Jersey, a similar but even more obvious display of bare knuckles occurred. As a stopgap measure until public policy provides some measure of parental freedom in education, Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler sought private sector support for scholarships that poor parents could use to choose a school for their children. One of the organizations that responded to Schundler's call to help poor parents was PepsiCo which, according to its spokesman, "just wanted to finance scholarships for some urban kids." In the wake of its offer to help, PepsiCo found its soft drink machines vandalized by unknown parties. And then PepsiCo entirely withdrew its support for those "urban kids" when it found itself threatened with what it understood to be product boycotts by known parties: the Jersey City Education Association, the local teachers' union. According to its leader, that union would ensure the issue was discussed at an "upcoming meeting of state delegates of the National Education Association." The union leader said he "could not guarantee that there would not be a statewide boycott." (Education Week 11-15-95) "Could not guarantee?" Can we get serious?
It would never occur to me to criticize educational unions for acting like unions, anymore than I would criticize a duck for quacking. But just as I would seek to enlighten anyone who thought the duck was an eagle, so do I encourage parents and citizens to see what is the truth of things, visible to serious observers when the smoke is cleared. The instinctive desire of parents to choose the best educational environment for their children, whether that be governmental or independent, confronts at every turn not a superior method of school selection. Rather, this true parental instinct is obstructed by the defenders of a finance monopoly willing to go to any lengths to maintain control over the assignment of education-directed tax dollars. n
|
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 |
 |