- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find summaries of vital state-level developments, the ruinous impact of educational finance monopoly (EFM) in D.C., David Kirkpatrick's excellent analysis of a major irony, the announcement of the Editor's new book, reference to two important magazine articles, and the Editor's View on Parental Freedom and Social Inertia.
CONNECTICUT
Governor John Rowland's School Choice Commission, assigned
by the Governor last fall to study school choice possibilities for Connecticut,
on February 1 produced its formal recommendations. The recommendations
include a charter school program, a pre-K tax credit program, and most
importantly, the expansion of Connecticut's "Project Concern" program.
"Project Concern," which has been in effect for 30 years, currently allows
students from low-income families in Hartford's urban public schools to
attend public schools in the suburbs. Suburban schools receive $300 in
subsidies for each transferred student. Gov. Rowland's Commission believes
that "Project Concern" is an excellent foundation on which to build a pilot
school choice program, since it has been highly successful and well-received
in past years. The Commission recommends that the subsidies be increased
to 50% of the sending district's revenue per pupil (approximately $3,000)
and that students be allowed to transfer to private and parochial schools,
as well as public. The remaining 50% of revenue would stay with the sending
district. The legislature has yet to draft the final details of the proposal,
but the General Assembly is expected to vote on the bill by the end of
April. The Governor's administration has voiced its support for the recommendations.
(Information has been provided by Matt Boyle, Executive Director of the
Connecticut Federation of Catholic School Parents.)
FLORIDA
Representative Steve Wise introduced on March 5 school
choice legislation called the Public Education Enhancement Program (P.E.E.P.)
- or HB 2415, with the support of forty-three co-sponsors. Rep. Wise's
proposal would establish a 5-year public-private partnership pilot program
in specified counties, to begin July 1, 1996. The program would provide
for up to 5% of the counties' public education student population to move
to nonpublic settings, with educational payments to be made directly to
parents. The amount of payment would equal 50% of normal funding, had the
student remained in public school. Ten per cent of the funding would go
to the local school district to enhance its per-student funding. The remaining
40% would go into a trust fund and be matched by private gifts. Beginning
in the second year, already-enrolled non-public students could apply for
funding through the trust fund. Sponsors of the bill maintain that it will
have no fiscal impact on the state. The bill also provides eligibility
requirements for private schools, nonprofit organizations, and home education
programs. Additionally, it requires the Department of Education to establish
a school choice information center, and requires legislative review of
the program and certain reporting on its progress.
Senator Don Sullivan, Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, has filed the bill in the Senate (SB 2412). For further information, contact Gary Lieffers at Rep. Wise's office, 5655 Timuquana Rd., Suite 4B, Jacksonville, FL 32210, (904) 573-3925, FAX (904) 573-3925.
MARYLAND
A school choice bill drafted by TEACH (Toward Educational
Access through Choice) Maryland entitled the "Maryland School Resources
Conservation Program" (HB 969), was introduced on February 2 by Delegate
John S. Morgan with the strong support of Delegates Anthony Adenyl and
co-sponsors Tony O'Donnell, Ray Beck, and Nancy Jacobs. The bill features
a cash "rebate" to eligible parents or guardians who have elected to use
an "out-of-district" public or non-public school, and would be worth the
amount of actual tuition or fees paid, reduced by the cost of any religious
instruction provided by the school, up to a maximum of one-half the public
school cost (3/4 for students with disabilities) costs in the jurisdiction
of residence. Eligible students must have been enrolled for three years
in a public school, or must have entered first grade at a non-public school
after the effective date of the Act and must be from a family whose
gross income is $75,000 or less.
Also introduced earlier on January 10 by Senator Ferguson was SB 31, the "Income Tax Subtraction Modification for Tuition Paid for Private Elementary or Secondary Education," which would enable parents or guardians of children attending private elementary and secondary schools to lower the adjusted gross income on which their Maryland income tax is computed by the amount of tuition, up to a maximum of $3,000 per child. The bill would be effective July 1, 1996, and has been assigned to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. (Information provided by John Schiavone of TEACH Maryland, P.O. Box 43573, Baltimore, MD 21236-0573, tel. (410) 592-3390, and The Choice Times, Quarterly Newsletter of TEACH Maryland, Winter 1995-96)
Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke has also expressed his general support for school choice. Mayor Schmoke stated in a speech at the beginning of the month that Baltimore schools would improve if exposed to educational competition. He appointed a special task force on March 7 to explore a range of options for Baltimore—from open enrollment to private school vouchers. Mayor Schmoke expects the task force to publish a preliminary report by this summer, and he hopes to have a plan in place for the 1997-98 school year. (Baltimore Morning Sun, 03/08/96)
MISSOURI
Several Missouri Senate bills which provide increased
income tax deductions for dependents and for tuition and education fees
have passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee, according to the Missouri
Citizens for Educational Freedom. ("Show Me Justice" Newsletter, February,
1996) The deductions range from $800-$2,500 in the various proposals, and
represent the sponsorship of Senators John Schneider (SB 480), Wiggins,
Flotron, Scott, and Kinder (SB 484), Wiggins (SB 551), and Kenney (SB 639).
Also introduced in the House by Representative Henry Rizzo and co-sponsored
by Reps. Auer, Goward, O'Neil, Donovan, Boucher, and Kasten was HB 1037,
which would provide public or private school tuition scholarships to low-income
families worth about $3,000 per student. For additional information, or
for copies of the bills, contact Missouri CEF at 9333 Clayton Road, St.
Louis, MO 63124, (314) 997-6361 or (314) 434-4171.
OKLAHOMA
The Committee for Oklahoma Educational Reform (COER)
has recently reported that Governor Frank Keating's appointed "Governor's
Performance Team," which recommended school choice among public and private
schools, among other proposals for educational reform, saw portions of
its recommendations introduced in the state legislature this session. Unfortunately,
the Team's recommendations occurred late in the session, and the pertinent
legislation never made it out of committee. Still, Minority Leader Larry
Ferguson, and Assistant Minority Leader Don Weese are optimistic that relevant
proposals will be pursued in future legislative sessions. (Information
provided by COER, 200 Wimbledon Rd., Midwest City, OK 73130, (405) 769-3680)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The effort to bring limited but true school choice to
the District's poorest parents and children was killed in the Senate on
February 27 & 28. Senate leadership needed 60 votes to safeguard parental
freedom (a small part of the District Appropriations bill) from threatened
Democratic filibusters. They were able to muster only 54 and 52 votes,
solid majorities, but insufficient to override filibusters under the Senate's
anti-majority rules. (Washington Post, 02/28/96, 03/01/96) As always,
when a properly formed majority is prohibited from deciding an issue, the
decision is made by minority-rule, the very antithesis of democratic principles.
Senate Democrats, lining up solidly against the District's parents, served dutifully the status quo's defenders, the defenders of the educational finance monopoly (EFM). The primary force to which the Democrats bowed was the National Education Association (NEA), a tail once again able to wag the dog because of its influence in and control over decisive elements of the Democratic party. Coupled with the majority-frustrating remnants of Senate rules, this unholy alliance one more time killed the legitimate aspirations of District parents. Just as has happened in several states, parental freedom for District parents will require replacing EFM-subservient politicians with those from any party who are able to serve the genuine needs of parents and children.
We often make the point that, having been put in place in history, EFM can be defended by its beneficiaries relatively easily: their task is merely to block any change in favor of parents, students, and educational freedom. This negative and destructive work is made all the easier by particular American political structures which give self-serving minorities opportunity to obstruct properly formed majorities. Current efforts (see Wisconsin below) to employ that form of minority-rule known as judicial review to obstruct properly-made law in Wisconsin and Ohio further exemplify the ways in which American politics, with greatly splintered power susceptible to various minority manipulations, makes the obstruction relatively easy.
The point here is simple: the ability of EFM to defend itself long after its human destructiveness has been demonstrated does not reflect any interior strength, nor any special ability on the part of its defenders. Rather, it reflects especially the susceptibility of American politics to manipulation by vested interests wrapped around splintered points of government power. Seeing this reality is the nessesary prologue to overcoming it.
WISCONSIN
Regarding the legislatively-approved expansion of the
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, oral arguments were presented February
27 to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The traditional defenders of educational
finance monopoly (EFM) — the teachers' unions, ACLU, et al., — have
challenged the constitutionality of parental freedom as contained in MPCP.
No new ground was broken, not surprisingly. Federal legal precedents make
it plain that the Wisconsin legislation will pass muster at the federal
level. The legal question to which the Wisconsin Supreme Court will give
an answer is whether, in its judgment, on church-state questions the Wisconsin
state constitution is more restrictive than the federal; and specifically
whether, in the Court's view, the specific form of school choice provided
for in the expanded MPCP meets state constitutional norms. A decision is
due later this spring, probably June.
Though these games are played using legalistic terminology, the fact is that the Court, in exercising judicial review minority power over duly-enacted legislation, is acting as a political body, a super-legislature, unelected and non-responsible in any ordinary sense. One hopes that this Court will see the political legitimacy of properly enacted parental freedom and not impose on Wisconsin's parents its own arbitrary will in defense of a humanly-destructive status quo. Appeal of the case to federal courts is expected however it is decided by the State Supreme Court.
A NEW BOOK
A Note from the Editor
I am pleased to attach to this Report Transaction
Publishers' announcement of my new book on parental freedom and school
choice. The book identifies what I take to be our most crucial educational
problem, why it continues to oppress America's parents, and how they and
enlightened citizens generally can overcome it. In my judgment, Transaction
is doing greatly important publishing on public policy issues today, and
I am delighted to have them as publisher for this volume.
Two Especially
Important Magazine Pieces
Freedom Report #32 contained the Editor's View
on thinking anew about things already known full well. One of the most
important of those well-known things is our general knowledge of monopoly,
which can help us understand America's educational problems.
For some months The Economist has been doing a "Schools Brief" series on classic economic fallacies. The term "Schools Brief" refers not to issues having to do with schools, but to a format producing rigorously-argued academic summaries of the topic in question. The February 17, 1996, Economist contains the last brief in the series on economic fallacies. Its topic is "State and Market," and it is devoted to the question of when, and under what circumstances, it is rational for the state to intervene in otherwise free markets.
"State & Market" directly has nothing to do with education — does not even use the word, in fact. Indirectly, however, it has everything to do with the American educational malaise and educational finance monopoly, or EFM. In particular, it does a splendid job of establishing why, if anyone wants to recommend monopoly in today's world, that person necessarily must accept the burden of proof. All such arguments, in other words, must begin with a presumption against monopoly, as least likely on balance to produce human benefit.
As Freedom Report readers know, identification of where the burden of proof lies is an absolutely essential part of "getting the argument right" in designing rational, parent-serving, and nation-serving educational financing methods. With great enthusiasm, the Editor recommends to all readers The Economist's February 17 school brief on "State and Market." By careful analogical and inferential use, the piece is powerfully pertinent to America's central educational struggle.
The February 26 issue of U.S. News & World Report also has a useful article: "Why Teachers Don't Teach," and subtitled "How Teacher Unions are Wrecking Our Schools." This piece provides a variety of useful illustrations of how today's state monopoly schools have, in too many cases, ceased to serve the students and parents who are assigned to them. This represents, in Blum Center language, the radical confusion of ends and means, by which the end — education for youngsters — becomes subordinated to the means — in this case, public schools.
Unfortunately, the U.S. News article does not go beyond symptom to cause, and, as a result, it may actually confuse the issue a bit. It is not public school teachers, nor even the idea of unions, which are the root difficulty. It is the monopolistic environment in which those unions are permitted to operate under educational finance monopoly (EFM). In that environment, there is no controlling and modifying countervailing power, and, as a result, the monopolistic union can too easily become also the monopoly controller of the financial spigot from which it derives material benefits. When that occurs, the unsurprising result is that the unions in question become basically devoted to maintaining the financial status quo, rather than being devoted and responsive to parents and children. In normal commercial environments, a union's appetites will be restrained by competitive realities, if management is worth its salt. But under EFM there is no financially equal competition, and no equivalent "management," for school boards and educational bureaucracies tend to become partners of and co-opted by the persons they allegedly manage. That is the cause to which the sad U.S. News symptoms should be ascribed. The solution? Break monopoly assignment of education-dedicated tax dollars, and have parents assign some or all of those funds. Parental freedom via school choice without financial penalty: that is a cure for what ails us.
- In Freedom Report 32 we talked about getting the
argument right. In this issue I want to talk a bit about how it is that,
even if you have the argument right, you may find it difficult to convince
other parties of the truth of your position.
When party A thinks he has a perfect argument, but finds himself unable to convince parties B, C and D of his argument, that usually means the argument was not perfect at all. Party A's position and conclusion finally might be right, but incompletely argued, explained and defended. Or, his position and conclusion might be wrong, based on erroneous factual premises or flawed logical constructions. "Back to the drawing boards" is the correct prescription under either circumstance.
But sometimes one's inability to convince another party has nothing to do with imperfections in the argument. It can derive, instead, from the inability of the other party to receive the truth, even when it is presented compellingly. If the truth has the effect of threatening someone's self-interest, for example ('Don't talk to me about the virtues of automobiles — I manufacture buggy whips') that someone may have great difficulty seeing, let alone embracing, the truth. We know that and we know it is a key part of educational finance monopoly's (EFM) defense against parental freedom via school choice without financial penalty. Many large and well-funded groups, educational unions and bureaucratic structures, for example, have a material stake in the status quo, imagine that stake to be at risk if parental freedom breaks out, and stand fast against school choice. This is not good, this is not heroic, but it is easily understood and easily argued against. The essentially perfect argument for school choice — that it is advantageous for parents, for youth, for taxpayers, for independent schools and even for public schools when they are seen as educational providers — will not necessarily overcome the self-interest of those who imagine themselves threatened by it, but it will be compelling to any objective third parties able to look beyond the status quo and see the truth.
But it is very clear that much of the resistance to breaking EFM and liberating America's parents does not come from directly self-interested opposition. It comes, rather, from ordinary citizens who, though not materially benefitting from the status quo, are not easily able to judge it objectively. They may be thought of as captives of what I call "social inertia." As I use it, that term simply refers to the tendency of a policy long in place to stay in place, especially if it has developed around itself strong vested interests which want it to continue. That social inertia takes its primary form in the hearts and minds of people who imagine that because something is it should be and who are thus pre-disposed to it. They are vulnerable to those who know how to manipulate that pre-disposition by effective use of smoke screens or false arguments. Heaven on earth for those who want to defend the status quo is to achieve in the minds of most citizens the confusion of ends and means, so that one means toward a given end becomes equated with the end itself and at that point becomes a thing beyond criticism and evaluation. The willingness of many Americans to use the terms "public education" or "public schools" interchangeably with the word "education" is a classic and destructive case in point. Public schools, truly understood, are a major alternative method or means to the good end of education for youth. As a means they can be tested and compared with other means, such as independent schools or home schooling. But the moment you begin to talk of public schools as if they were the end rather than an alternative means, you have lost your ability to evaluate and compare them.
That is a fundamental component of the social inertia which helps to hold educational finance monopoly in place. It reflects a mix of common school myths, nostalgia, and confused argumentation. And it means that initial efforts to change such a deeply-rooted policy as EFM are likely to fall short. If we understand this, and understand that mobilizing forces sufficiently powerful to overcome social inertia and its manipulation by well-funded vested interests is a long-term task, then we will understand that this preliminary falling short is not "failure" in any normal sense. Such efforts, in truth, should be seen as necessary steps toward the ultimate objective. The victory lap cannot be run without those which precede it. If they truly understand the conditions of social inertia which help to maintain educational finance monopoly, advocates of school choice in any given state will not be surprised when early efforts do not bring final victory. And they will not be frustrated and thus deflected from their goal: parental freedom in education, that just condition wherein parental capacities match parental responsibilities.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 |
 |