- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find state-level developments which show both the difficulty of achieving the justice of parental freedom and the persistence of those admirable people working for that just policy; David Kirkpatrick's excellent examination of "Teachers' Choice"; late material in the Blum Center; and the Editor's View on A Blurred Vision of Foreign Experience.
ARIZONA
A bill which would have given an income tax credit worth
up to $500 a year for contributions to a private school scholarship fund
was rejected by the Arizona Senate, 16-14, late in February. Opponents
claimed it "was an attempt to enact school vouchers," and would assist
only those who could already afford to pay private school tuition. Senator
Gary Richardson (R-Tempe), who supported the bill (SB 1367), said the measure
would have helped those who pay double for their children's education -
taxes for public schools in addition to private school tuition. (Arizona
Republic, 02/25/96)
CONNECTICUT
A last-ditch effort to give Connecticut parents genuine,
although severely limited school choice, failed in the Connecticut House
in late March. Voucher proponents had attempted to include a provision
for genuine school choice in the Hartford public-school-only choice program
called "Project Concern." The program currently allows Hartford students
to attend public schools in neighboring districts if both districts agree
on the transfer, and if so, each district gets a portion of the per-pupil
state aid that would be allocated to the sending district. But the genuine
school choice provision would have included transfers to private and religious
schools, and would have been directed at other Connecticut cities with
populations of 70,000 or more. All families would have been eligible to
participate in the program, with low-income families given priority, and
the value of the scholarships would have varied, depending upon the district.
Since a joint committee on education failed to approve the provision by March 22, supporters had one week to obtain the 76 votes in the House necessary to have the proposal considered in this legislative session. The attempt resulted in a shortfall of 12 votes. As expected, the Connecticut Education Association, the teachers' union, opposed the measure. (Education Week, 04/10/96)
FLORIDA
Representative Steve Wise's office reports that the House
Education Committee did not hear his school choice bill (HB 2415) this
session (see Freedom Report #33), but that the section dealing with
public school open enrollment has been passed out of committee in another
form. Rep. Wise and his colleagues are prepared to submit additions to
that bill if it receives generally favorable debate on the House floor.
Meanwhile, the Senate Education Committee has passed the "Parental Choice
in Education Act," and it awaits debate on the Senate floor. Also, former
Florida Representative Tom Feeney, an ardent supporter of school choice
who has previously sponsored legislation in the Florida legislature to
enact genuine parental choice in education, has won the primary for another
seat recently vacated in the legislature. (Information provided by Gary
Lieffers of Representative Wise's office.)
IDAHO
The Idaho Citizens Alliance has been collecting signatures
for a ballot initiative that would give parents tax credit of $500 for
each child they have enrolled in a nonpublic school. The Alliance has received
positive recommendations from the Idaho Attorney General regarding the
constitutionality of their initiative. Attorney General Alan Lance wrote
that the initiative "may well pass constitutional muster" at both state
and national levels. The Alliance is required to collect 42,000 signatures
by July 5, 1996, for the initiative to be placed on this year's ballot.
(Information has been provided by Kelly Johansen of the Idaho Citizens
Alliance: 208-677-3701.)
ILLINOIS
An Illinois House executive committee approved a pilot
school voucher program on March 21 on a vote of 6-4. The "Educational Choice
Act," sponsored by Representative Peter Roskam, would provide vouchers
worth up to $2,500 to students whose parents earn an income of up to 150%
of the qualifying level for Illinois' federally funded meal program. If
passed, this four-year pilot program would begin in the 1997-98 school
year. A maximum of $5 million in vouchers could be distributed each year.
(Education Week, 04/10/96)
Meanwhile, the Prairie State Initiative (PSI) invites all voucher supporters of Illinois to a school choice rally in Springfield on Tuesday, May 7. For more information contact Joseph Walsh, Executive Director of PSI, at (708) 202-9860.
KANSAS
Representative Kay O'Connor reports that the hearings
on educational vouchers did not occur as promised in the House Education
Committee. A "briefing" was scheduled in their place, and it occurred in
late March. (Newsletter from Rep. O'Connor, 03/11/96) Rep. O'Connor was
able to present her bill, without opposition response, to the members of
the House Education Committee. Senator Barbara Lawrence, Chair of the Senate
Education Committee, held hearings a few days later, and voucher legislation
similar to Rep. O'Connor's was sponsored by Senators Mike Harris and Phil
Martin. There is still a possibility of getting a vote on that bill in
the Senate, and technically, the legislation is alive until the end of
the veto session, scheduled for four days to begin after April 24. That
session will last until the veto business is officially concluded.
Also, Rep. O'Connor reports that the 501(c)(3) organization designed to organize state-wide support for educational choice still awaits its incorporation papers, and its director, Fred Thorp, is hopeful that will occur soon. Meanwhile, three women have been training to begin lobbying efforts on behalf of educational choice in the Kansas legislature: Mari Pat Brooks of the Kansas Catholic Conference, Shelley Robertson, affiliated with Kansas Citizens for Educational Freedom, and Doreen Hampton, a Kansas City business woman. Rep. O'Connor expects these women to have tremendous impact on her colleagues in the Kansas legislature during the next legislative session. (Information provided by Rep. O'Connor.)
OHIO
On March 15, a coalition of teachers' unions, public
school administrators, and civil libertarians filed a motion to request
that Common Pleas Judge Lisa Sadler issue a summary judgment in their lawsuit
challenging Cleveland's school voucher program. The coalition, including
the Ohio Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and
its Ohio affiliate, along with Americans United for Separation of Church
and State, maintains that Judge Sadler has sufficient information to determine
the outcome of the case, and should avoid sending the case to trial.
The Ohio Attorney General, who is defending the state's position in the lawsuit, must file its opposition brief on May 8. The Attorney General's motion for summary judgment is due on May 15, as are all amicus briefs in the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 24.
The Institute for Justice was granted intervention on behalf of schools parents and children. (Plain Dealer, 03/16/96)
NEVADA
The Alliance for Children's Educational Excellence has
filed an initiative petition that would place a non-religious private school
choice plan before the legislature. According to Lezlie Porter, President
of the Alliance, participating private schools would be required to meet
state educational standards, and could not provide religious instruction
as part of their regular academic day. The state would provide $2,750,
or about 75% of per-pupil state aid, to participating parents. The Alliance
has until November 10 to collect 39,000 signatures to place the proposal
before state lawmakers, and if that collection is successful, but the initiative
fails in the legislature, the plan would then be submitted to Nevada voters
for approval or rejection. (Education Week, 02/21/96)
WASHINGTON D.C.
Last month we reported the death in the U.S. Senate of
a limited voucher proposal for low-income parents in the District. This
month we must report the death of that effort in the U.S. House. House
Speaker Newt Gingrich battled until March 27 to keep Representative Steve
Gunderson's voucher plan (see Educational Freedom Report #28) part
of the House's D.C. budget proposal. The voucher plan was the only issue
holding back passage of the budget, and Speaker Gingrich finally announced
on March 27 that the situation had forced him to "cave in" and strip the
plan from the House budget. Gingrich said that the voucher plan will reappear
again "on another vehicle," but that he could no longer justify postponing
passage of the budget, especially considering the District's ongoing cash
shortage. (Washington Post, 03/28/96)
WISCONSIN
Earlier than anticipated, on March 29, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court announced its 3-3 stalemate decision regarding the expansion
of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to include religious schools—a
measure approved by the Wisconsin legislature last June. This split decision
would send the case back to the Dane County Circuit Court, which had been
bypassed in August at the request of Governor Tommy Thompson, in order
to expedite the expansion's defense.
Chief Justice Roland Day and Justices Shirley Abrahamson and William Bablitch decided that the expansion of MPCP to include religious schools was in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution. Justices Janine Geske, Donald Steinmetz, and Jon Wilcox decided in favor of expanding the program, however, stating that the expansion did not violate either state or the federal constitutional provisions regarding the separation of church and state. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the seventh member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, did not participate in the decision. While she offered no official reason, she apparently saw a potential conflict of interest in this case, given that she had received nearly $9,000 of support from teachers unions during her election campaign. (Capital Times, 02/26/96; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 03/30/96) After the case is heard in the Dane County Circuit Court, it will likely return once again to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. When that occurs, Chief Justice Day will have been replaced by newly-elected Judge N. Patrick Crooks, who was endorsed by Governor Thompson.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Paul Higginbotham will hear the case next. Before the case had bypassed his court in August, Higginbotham issued an injunction at the request of the prosecution to halt the expansion of MPCP until the issue was resolved in the courts. When informed that Higginbotham would hear the case next, Gov. Thompson filed a motion to replace him with a different judge. Thompson was told on April 9 that state law prohibits such a late request for a judge replacement. A hearing to schedule proceedings has been set for April 18. Clint Bolick of the Institutue for Justice, who is involved in the defense, expects that a trial court decision will be made before the end of this summer. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 04/10/96; 04/09/96 memorandum from Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice)
Note: A late action has occurred which could modify the process described above. Governor Thompson's lawyers have asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, after August 1, 1996, when the Court's composition will change. The Court might then be able to avoid a tie, thus expediting the rest of the appeals procedure. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 04/13/96)
Recent Acquisitions
¨ A copy of Florida's
HB 2415 (see Freedom Report #33), recently introduced by Representative
Steve Wise and his co-sponsors is now available from the Blum Center.
¨ Maryland's HB 969, which was recently introduced (see Freedom Report #33) is now available from the Blum Center, or by calling TEACH, Maryland at (410) 592-3390.
¨ Oral arguments presented on February 27 before the Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program to include religious schools are available on audio tape from the Office of the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688. Please send a letter of request, and a blank audio tape (or two tapes, with 120 minutes recording time) to that office to receive a copy.
¨ The Blum Center has recently acquired a copy of the 1995 Empire State Survey, a joint project of the Empire Foundation and the Lehrman Institute which surveyed 1,218 New York State residents on the topic of education. The survey, called "Students at Risk: New Yorkers on Education," poses this question (#80) on school choice: "Would you favor or oppose a program which would allow parents to send their children to the public, parochial or private school of their choice and use state and local tax dollars to pay for all or part of it?" Approximately 32% of those surveyed said they would "strongly favor" such a program and approximately 22% said they would "somewhat favor" such a program, while approximately 15% said they would "somewhat oppose" and approximately 28% said they would "strongly oppose" such a program. Copies of the survey can be obtained by contacting The Lehrman Institute, 42 North Ave., Suite L, New Rochelle, NY 10805, (914) 632-7000.
Hillsdale College:
Proving the Rule
Those who oppose parental freedom via tuition
vouchers or tax credits on the ground that such programs will corrupt the
independence of independent schools also like to assert that, in any case,
such assistance is unnecessary. And, often enough, they point to Hillsdale
College as a demonstration that tax-based aid is unnecessary. But, as we
have been assured by Hillsdale's Financial Aid Office, while they do not
participate in federal support programs, they gladly enroll Michigan
students who receive Michigan tuition grants. Such tuition grants,
in Michigan and most other states, are the college-level equivalents of
intelligent and non-entangling K-12 voucher or tax credit proposals. Hillsdale,
then, is not a demonstration against vouchers or tax credits so
much as it is a demonstration for them.
It would not be greatly important even if Hillsdale accepted no tax-based support. It would only be the exception proving the rule. But, as it appears, it is not even an exception to but a confirmation of the rule: parents and students should be able to decide where education-dedicated tax dollars are assigned.
- The experience of other modern democracies with school
choice provides great evidence of how well that school funding system works,
how natural it is, how parent-satisfying it is, and how educationally fruitful
at relatively moderate cost it can be. It also shows how parental freedom
in education works as a force for social peace rather than for the kind
of divisiveness with which EFM defenders attempt to saddle it in the United
States. In Holland and Belgium for instance, the school choice contribution
to social peace flows from the fact that parents do not have to see their
child forced into any one-size-fits-all monopolistic educational structure.
As a result, they need not rebel against such monoliths, as many Americans
are today rebelling against the public school monopolies that they confront.
And, of course, the experience of other nations with school choice literally
explodes the contention, one of the classic smoke screens, that choice
is "experimental, untried, perhaps even radical" and therefore to be avoided
at all costs in the United States.
Despite the plentiful, graphic, and compelling power of the experience of other democracies with school choice, attempts on the part of school choice advocates in the United States effectively to use that evidence have been largely unavailing. Excellent studies by Charles Glenn and Denis P. Doyle, for example, and various Blum Center efforts such as Freedom Report #10, establish the analytic and analogous relevance of school choice in other democracies. But these and many other forays have not yet succeeded in making foreign experiences an effective part of the argument for school choice in the U.S.
One reason for this is the success of a particular smoke screen which should be dispelled once and for all. It goes along these lines: "Those other democracies don't use vouchers; but they do have good educational systems; therefore, vouchers cannot be the answer and you shouldn't waste your time on them." There is, of course, no genuine "therefore" there. Instead, there is a radical confusion of one means (vouchers) — with a great end — (parental freedom in education). There follows a classic illustration of the smoke screen and of a victim.
In a September 15, 1995, Wall Street Journal column entitled, "Education Contract With America," Mr. Albert Shanker, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, set a trap and in a September 28 response to Shanker's column, a school choice advocate stepped into it. Shanker said other industrial nations with which our educational results compare unfavorably have what we have: "government monopoly of education" — therefore, monopoly cannot be the American culprit. The school choice advocate reader accepted Shanker's description of reality, and, attempting to neutralize its impact, said those nations can live with monopoly and do not need "vouchers" because they are "homogeneous." Homogeneous, indeed! Try Brussels and Amsterdam if you want to see what diversity really looks and sounds like. Shanker's trap closes on the unsuspecting! His respondent did not watch his step. Those other countries do not need vouchers not because they are homogeneous, but because they long ago destroyed monopoly and already have parental freedom via other means.
Most modern industrialized democracies provide wide school choice to parents. This is done in a variety of ways, ranging from religious choice within the state system to choice of any school, state or independent. Splendid illustrations of the latter approach are found, for example, in Denmark, Holland and Australia. These are not "voucher" systems, of course, because they do not have the problem of court imposed church-state complications which, in the U.S., necessitate indirect systems of aid to parents rather than schools.
But that is an entirely incidental and irrelevant distinction. The crucial fact is this: in such enlightened nations as those cited, parents in complete freedom decide where educational tax money will go. The money follows the parent and the child, just as it will with U.S. vouchers when finally the stranglehold of EFM is broken. Thus, contrary to Shanker's assertion, in an American sense there is no educational monopoly in the most advanced democracies. EFM means not just state control of finance, but the assignment of those dollars only to state-owned schools. By contrast, in Holland, Australia, and Denmark, for example, tax dollars flow to whatever schools the parents choose, state or independent.
Thus, we see a classic misdirection smoke screen, a red herring throwing people off the track, the use of the idea of vouchers as if it were the only form under which school choice for parents could exist when obviously it is only an accidental derivative of American constitutional complications. Let us once and for all dispel that smoke screen, once and for all recognize the powerful relevance to the U.S. of this fact: modern democracies around the world employ parental freedom in education with excellent results. So should we.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 |
 |