- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will encounter important state-level developments, a California-Minnesota connection, the Editor's View on Getting the Argument Right. David Kirkpatrick's adaptation of a most interesting Mary Anne Raywid Q & A calls for a brief explanatory note. Professor Raywid is reflecting on systems of school choice employed in the U.S. In Freedom Report categories, such systems, e.g., charters, public school-only choice, etc., are partial, not comprehensive, choice programs. In Freedom Report terms, true or comprehensive school choice will exist when parents are free to choose without financial penalty any authorized educational venue, including religiously-based schools.
FROM REDWOOD CITY TO
ST. PAUL
In Report #31 we noted the exceptional clarity with which
Minnesota Governor Arne H. Carlson saw the essential truth of parental
freedom via school choice without financial penalty: it is natural
and right to enable parents to choose the educational environment for their
children; it is humanly destructive to sacrifice such parental freedom
on the altar of educational finance monopoly (EFM). While political practicalities
may necessitate gradual movement from today's monopoly to tomorrow's parental
freedom, there is no logical reason to acknowledge any ultimate place for
finance monopoly. If society is to spend tax dollars on education, let
parents and guardians decide how and where those dollars will be spent.
They are the persons most likely to seek and ensure the welfare of their
children. That is the North Star of school choice.
One day after #31 was sent to the printer, the January 18 Wall Street Journal carried excerpts of an interview with Mr. Steven Jobs in Wired. Mr. Jobs, of course, was the founder of Apple Computing, later of NeXT Computer, Inc., and, most recently, of Pixar. The full interview, entitled "Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing," (Wired, February 1996) is devoted to possible and likely developments in the world of computing and, particularly, on the Internet and within the World Wide Web. It is a fascinating overview. But within that tour de force Mr. Jobs reflects on how, when he was the very young boss of Apple, he had imagined that technology would have a revolutionary and salvific impact on education. Now, at 40, and with a father's experience, Mr. Jobs realizes that technology, exciting as its prospects are, cannot be the revolutionary educational force he had hoped. "What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent," Jobs says.
Rather, the prime educational problems flow from a system — what the Blum Center calls EFM — which serves itself rather than the parents and children it is supposed to serve. Recognizing this Jobs describes himself as ". . . one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system." His model? Take whatever is spent on public schools per pupil, and put it in the hands of parents. Again, this is a clear-eyed perception of the North Star of school choice.
In advocating such an approach, Steve Jobs testifies to the dynamism and fecundity of parental freedom, asserting that "schools would be starting right and left." Bright young people, able to design their own schools and curricula, could be expected to do so, providing both supply and variety, and "God, how exciting that could be!"
Redwood City, California, and St. Paul, Minnesota, are many miles, many degrees Fahrenheit, and a few feet of snow apart. The truth presents itself with equal power to clear-eyed people in either place, however.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
On January 31 the U.S. House approved a compromise D.C.
Appropriations bill, which includes a limited voucher program for D.C.
students. The vouchers would be worth $3,000 for students below the poverty
level and $1,500 for students up to 80% over the poverty level. However,
all vouchers would be distributed at the discretion of the D.C. Council.
A vote on the bill has been tentatively set in the Senate for February
27. In addition to such problems as it may yet encounter in the Senate,
President Clinton is reported to have told the National Education Association,
the main teachers' union, that he would veto the legislation if it contained
even the most modest voucher provision. (Washington Times, 02/01/96;
Education Week, 02/14/96)
A year ago several of us were privileged to assist Congressional leadership in designing ways to bring educational freedom to the District's parents. In the intervening months, these efforts have been exposed to perils which make Pauline's seem mild indeed. The dream of parental freedom, which appeared to have robust chances of achieving robust form a year ago, has been attacked by educational finance monopoly's vested interests, naturally; by politicians in league with those interests, naturally; and by other politicians who, though not owned by vested interests, are nonetheless habituated to the status quo and heavily burdened by social inertia.
Given these many forms of opposition, and given the sometime absent-mindedness of its champions who showed no compelling end-game for their D.C. strategy, it is no surprise that, at this late hour, educational freedom for D.C. parents is hanging on by the skin of its teeth, and in tattered and very partial form. So tattered and partial is it, indeed, that some advocates of parental freedom doubt it is worth supporting at all. Seen from the Blum Center's perspective, such hesitancy, while understandable, is misplaced. Even the pallid form of school choice tentatively scheduled for February 27 Senate action is worthy of support. It would move some educational tax assignment away from the monopoly, and give some empowerment to parents. It would thereby provide some acknowledgment of parental rights. And, most important, it would plant a seed from which can sprout wider parental demand for similar freedom.
It is that potential which explains why, pallid though it is, the D.C. compromise school choice proposal is so detested by EFM's defenders of the funding status quo, and by politicians who kowtow to such interests. They know that even limited freedom will be cherished by parents who now have none, and will be desired by others as soon as the principle is in place.
CALIFORNIA
Governor Pete Wilson's plan to provide opportunity scholarships
to approximately 250,000 of California's 5 million-plus pupils is already
receiving criticism from defenders of the status quo. (For more
on the plan's contents, see Freedom Report #31.) Among the plan's
detractors are Delaine Eastin, State Superintendent of public schools,
Bill Rojas, Superintendent of San Francisco public schools, and Senate
President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward). The likely new chairman of
the Assembly Education Committee, Assemblyman Steve Baldwin (R-El Cajon),
who supports the plan, said that only approximately 25 of 41 Republicans
in the Assembly are supportive of vouchers.
Beside the lack of support in the California legislature, there is a state Constitutional impediment which declares that "no public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools." The Governor hopes to address this issue by providing the scholarships directly to parents who would then pay the school of their choice. But Stephen Sugarman, a law professor at University of California at Berkeley and school choice advocate, has said that if he were representing the teachers union, he would attack it under the state Constitution. (San Francisco Chronicle, 01/10/96)
GEORGIA
Since the beginning of this year, two pieces of legislation
have now been introduced that would create school choice programs in Georgia
based on the state's already-existing HOPE scholarship program. The HOPE
program, funded by a state lottery, offers scholarships to "B average students"
attending college. One of the two, drafted by Senator Pam Glanton and sponsored
by the Georgia members of the Christian Coalition, would allow students
with a B average to select which elementary and high schools they attend.
Students choosing private schools, sectarian as well as non-sectarian,
would receive a stipend from the state. (Atlanta Constitution, 01/05/96)
Another, introduced by Representatives Bob Irvin and Kathy Ashe, would
more specifically target students from low-income families and from the
worst-performing school districts. This second proposal would offer scholarships
worth $2,500 to 5,000 students, and would be redeemable at public, private
or religious schools. (Information provided by Atlanta Attorney Glenn Delk.)
ILLINOIS
Elaine Schuster, superintendent of Catholic schools for
the Chicago archdiocese, announced at the end of January that although
schools in the archdiocese are in excellent shape, what they really need
now is a school voucher program. Test scores are up and many schools are
either expanding or remodeling. The cost of tuition, however, is rising
and Elaine Schuster believes that a voucher program could ease the financial
vise now constricting parental freedom. (Chicago Tribune, 01/25/96)
Last year Illinois' Senate passed a limited $2,500 voucher proposal, SB 17, but the House deferred a vote on the bill, when it became apparent that it was ten votes short. The Educational Choice Roundtable, comprised of groups of representative Republicans, Democrats, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, libertarians, and independents, will urge resubmission of SB 17 in the spring or fall, as soon as the sufficient votes are secured. Meanwhile, they are organizing demonstrations and educating legislators, aiming for victory for vouchers this year. (Additional information provided by Jack Roeser of the Prairie State Initiative.)
KANSAS
Representative Kay O'Connor reports that Senator Barbara
Lawrence (R-Wichita), the Chairwoman of the Education Committee, will have
hearings on education vouchers in March. Although Senator Lawrence is not
very hopeful that there will be enough support to get a voucher proposal
out of committee, Rep. O'Connor is grateful that the Senate will finally
have a true hearing on vouchers for the first time ever. For those interested
in calling or writing to the members of the Senate Education Committee,
telephone numbers and addresses are available from the Blum Center. (Information
provided by Rep. O'Connor's legislative newsletter received 02/12/96 and
correspondence with Mari Pat Brooks of the Kansas Catholic Conference.)
MINNESOTA
Not surprisingly, Governor Arne Carlson's plan to provide
tuition vouchers worth $500 to $3,000, offered on a sliding scale according
to income to students in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Brooklyn Center, and a
rural area to be named later (Education Week, 01/24/96; and see
Freedom Reports #29, 30, & 31) failed a legislative test in
a Senate subcommittee on February 2. Although Senator Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista),
the bill's chief sponsor, said the issue is probably dead for the 1996
session, the Governor's spokeswoman, Cyndy Brucato, said that for Carlson,
the issue is not necessarily dead for this session, and said the vote will
not dampen Carlson's enthusiasm nor his efforts. Although the proposal
is not currently linked to any other legislation, Brucato said, "That doesn't
mean that there isn't going to be some kind of version of this that the
Governor would sign that would get passed." The bill died with a voice
vote, with no roll call. Chairman Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis) joined
opponents of the plan, although he had voted in support of a voucher plan
last year. (Star Tribune, 02/03/96)
Governor Carlson is also taking steps towards creating a pilot charter community and limited school choice program in St. Paul. Governor Carlson and St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman together submitted the "Educational Opportunity Community" proposal to the St. Paul Board of Education on February 13. The proposal aims to enable public school deregulation, charter school options, and such non-public school options as could be jointly approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Children, Families and Learning and the St. Paul Board of Education. (Information provided by Eugene Piccolo of the Minnesota Catholic Conference.)
NEW JERSEY
As we reported last month, Governor Christine Whitman's
Panel on School Vouchers submitted a five-year pilot voucher proposal to
her in December. (See Educational Freedom Report #31.) Since that
time Gov. Whitman has reviewed the proposal, but, according to her spokeswoman,
she will not focus on the plan any sooner than this summer. The New Jersey
Supreme Court ordered that the state's public school funding system must
be revamped before September of 1996 to alleviate what it considers an
unconstitutional spending gap between rich and poor districts. Gov. Whitman
has put all other education issues on the "back burner" until the issue
of the spending gap has been resolved. (The Record, 01/21/96)
OHIO
In addition to the lawsuit filed by on January 10 by
the Ohio Federation of Teachers against the Cleveland pilot voucher program,
a lawsuit was also filed on January 31 by four civil liberties and education
groups. Those groups are: Americans United for Separation of Church and
State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, the Ohio Education Association
(affiliated with the National Education Association) and People for the
American Way. (Washington Times, 02/01/96) The EFM gang's all here.
PENNSYLVANIA
Governor Tom Ridge's proposed fiscal budget includes
no plan for tuition vouchers, after his attempt to pass school choice legislation
failed twice last year in the Pennsylvania legislature. Ridge's commitment
to genuine school choice has not waned, however, and he vowed to return
to the voucher issue in the future. "Giving parents and children choices
must be one of our highest educational goals," he said. "I'll be back."
(Philadelphia Inquirer, 02/07/96)
Announcements
¨ The enclosed Blum Center
order form is provided as a courtesy to those readers who may be new to
our mailing and distribution list. Please contact the Blum Center with
any questions you may have regarding this list of available materials.
¨ The Blum Center is happy to announce new leadership in two organizations which serve educational needs in the country: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has named Daniel B. Denning to replace Sam Brunelli as executive director; and Dr. Leonard DeFiore will succeed Catherine T. McNamee, CSJ as president of the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA).
Recent Acquisitions
¨ Some of our correspondents
have been looking for the "missing portion" of Ohio's HB 117 (pilot school
choice legislation for Cleveland; see Freedom Report #27), and thanks
to Leanne Ashbrook Miller of the Brennan Industrial Group, we now have
a full copy of the legislation.
¨ Also, the United States Catholic Conference has recently issued the pamphlet, "Principles for Educational Reform in the United States," which calls for, among other things, "public, private, and religious school choice programs." For copies of the pamphlet, which is publication no. 5-071 (ISBN - 1-57455-071-3), contact the U.S.C.C. at 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194.
- If I say to a debating opponent "Let us agree that as
we debate educational alternatives we will deal in 'empirical evidence,'"
that may seem like a reasonable ground rule. Who can object to "empirical
evidence," after all. It is generally agreed to be the most useful kind
of testimony: "intersubjectively transmissible," as Arnold Brecht called
it. Mind-binding and conclusive, in other words. Good idea, and good ground
rule!
But what if, before advocating that rule, I have done two things: first, on those aspects of educational output which are measurable, I have made sure no direct evidence can be had; second, I have obscured the fact that many of the most important dimensions of education do not yield to direct empirical tests? Seeing that, my opponent will realize that my "empirical evidence" opening gambit was nothing more than a trap. If he accepts that ground rule, he will be paralyzed, married forever to a malfunctioning status quo, unable even to ask for its basic reform because unable to provide agreed-upon "empirical evidence" or demonstration to justify it. Defenders of educational finance monopoly (EFM), the school funding status quo, regularly set such traps. For example the 10-27-95 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports a board member of the Milwaukee Teachers' Educational Association (MTEA, the local teachers' union) telling the state meeting of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC, the state teachers' union) that too much credence is being given to such reforms as school choice which have yet to demonstrate they improve academic performance.
Obviously, no clear-headed person would walk into such a trap, knowing it was there. Rather, that person will insist on the terms of the argument being rational: where useful, genuine empirical evidence exists, use it; where it does not exist (because it has been obstructed), rely on analysis and careful analogy; and where it does not apply (as in matters of philosophical and spiritual value), point out empiricism's limitations and deal with the philosophical and spiritual realities in their own terms.
Genuine school choice without financial penalty at the
K-12 level, which is only a cumbersome name for parental freedom in education,
has not "demonstrated" much in the United States — since it has never been
permitted to exist! We have much entirely positive analogical evidence,
of course — pre-school vouchers, G.I. Bill and Pell Grant university programs,
private school choice programs, etc. But "evidence" of America's K-12 choice
success? Of course not. Every attempt has been killed. But let us reject
the "false evidence" trap, and insist on getting the argument right.
2. Monopoly is extremely well known, and what we know about it is that it tends to be destructive of human welfare. Since we know that to be generally true, this, then, is the fact: any monopolistic structure bears the burden of proof in defending itself. Seeing that is getting the argument right.
3. Hence, the virtue of freedom via school choice does not require "demonstration." Absent clear evidence that it is somehow educationally harmful, it is self-evidently appropriate — as democracies around the world know and provide for in parent-liberating school funding policies.
4. The simple act of replacing monopoly finance with parental
allocation of tax dollars dedicated to education will automatically break
the monolithic, one-size-fits-all effort of contemporary public education,
which so harshly deprives millions of parents, especially less-than-wealthy
parents, of the right to select an educational and ethical environment
most appropriate for their children. No "evidence" for this is required:
it is inevitable and implicit in the breaking of monopoly.
|
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 |
 |