|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find important state-level activities for parental freedom, the latest Blum Center acquisitions, David Kirkpatrick on "There Are Costs; And Then There Are Costs," and the conclusion of the Editor's View on "Two Ghastly Specters."
KANSAS
Two-time incumbent Kay O'Connor won 73% of the vote in
her re-election bid on August 6. Her opponent, who was financed by the
state teachers union, provided a clear choice for the voters with regard
to the future direction of the status quo in education. "This is a clear
victory for parental freedom in education," said O'Connor. She plans to
introduce her "Parent Control of Education Act" again this next session,
which begins in early January.
"Vouchers are opposed by teachers unions wherever they are introduced, no matter how much they are directed toward helping the very poor, or how small a pilot program," said Rep. O'Connor. She further stated, "This leads one to believe that the real reason for the teachers unions' radical opposition is not the usual smokescreens that are touted in the media, but the practical fact that vouchers are a strike breaker. Unions can exert considerable influence over their member teachers and boards and administrators at all levels of government. But their influence over parents is very limited. If a strike were to occur with vouchers in place, parents with children at home, sometimes needing to pay extra childcare expenses, would most likely opt to use their voucher to have their child attend a non-union private school. There would also be strong incentives to keep from having their own child educationally deprived by a shutdown public school."
O'Connor, in her continuing efforts to expand communications on this important issue, will soon have e-mail and web page capabilities. For more information you may contact O'Connor at 1101 N. Curtis, Olathe, KS 66061, (913) 764-7935.
OHIO
On Wednesday, July 31, Franklin County Common Pleas Judge
Lisa Sadler ruled that the legislatively-approved Cleveland school choice
program does not violate the Ohio or Federal Constitution. (Plain Dealer,
08/01/96) The case pitted the state affiliates of the 2.2-million-member
National Education Association, the 900,000-member American Federation
of Teachers and the American Civil Liberties Union against the state of
Ohio and the low-income families represented by the Washington-based Institute
for Justice. (Washington Times, 08/02/96) Judge Sadler's ruling
was mostly devoted to First Amendment issues, noting that the religion
clauses of the Ohio Constitution are not more restrictive than the First
Amendment. (Institute for Justice memorandum, 08/06/96. Copies of
Judge Sadler's 40-page decision can be secured from the Blum Center.)
According to approved legislative specifications, 1,500 students were chosen by lottery after in excess of 6,000 students applied to participate in the program. The 1,500 students will receive vouchers worth 90%, or $2,250, of the $2,500 voucher limit or the actual tuition of the private school, whichever is less. (Plain Dealer, 08/01/96)
Immediately after Judge Sadler's ruling, opponents sought an emergency injunction in the Ohio Court of Appeals, but on August 12, the three-judge panel delivered a one-sentence unanimous decision rejecting the injunction. The next level of appeal for an injunction is the Ohio Supreme Court.
OREGON
Charter school proponents from Oregon recently failed
to get a charter school initiative on the November 5 ballot (The Oregonian,
07/20/96), but interest in genuine educational choice is not waning. Dr.
Lowell Smith of the Oregon School Choice Task Force is working with colleagues
on devising a two-step method for gaining parental choice in education
in Oregon: first, amending the state constitution to make a legislative
effort more feasible; and then introducing a solidly-written legislative
proposal that will easily pass constitutional muster. (For additional information,
contact Dr. Smith at the Oregon School Choice Task Force Office, 1630 Hillwood
Ct. S., Salem, OR 97302-3621, 503-363-0899, FAX 503-585-4818. E-mail address
- lowellsmth@aol.com)
WISCONSIN
AND THE SMOKE SCREEN OF LAST RESORT
Beginning with Freedom Report #40, The Editor
will provide a three-part examination of the church-state "Smoke Screen
of First and Last Resort." In that extended essay it will be shown how,
when all the other smoke screens against parental freedom have been blown
away, the defenders of educational finance monopoly (EFM) will avail themselves
of alleged church-state complications. Not only do they hope to frighten
citizen-onlookers, but, more important, by introducing alleged constitutional
complications, they hope to find a sympathetic court willing to find in
their favor. In that way, no matter the choice program's educational merits,
they hope to impede its implementation and discourage choice advocates.
EFM's NEA and ACLU defenders found such a jurist in Dane County Circuit Court Judge Paul Higginbotham. As expected, even while permitting the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to include up to 15,000 students, Judge Higginbotham on August 15 ruled that religiously-inspired schools could not receive voucher-empowered students. His predictable, and completely errant, reason: "The state cannot do indirectly what it can't do directly." Meaning: the state cannot aid religious schools even indirectly. The error: school choice is aid to parents, not aid to schools, religious or otherwise. That there may be a secondary effect of providing stronger enrollment to private or religious schools is perfectly acceptable in logic and in law, as we expect appeals to establish. The actual effect of the Judge's ruling is to deprive parents of their religious freedom rights. We will keep Freedom Report readers apprised of the appellate schedule.
Dan McKinley, Executive Director of Milwaukee's PAVE (Parents Advancing Values in Education), the nation's largest private school choice support program, announced that his organization will seek $2,500,000 to assist needy children whose parents want them to attend religious schools. This emergency effort aims to assist those parents now disadvantaged by the Higginbotham decision. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 08/17/96)
Interestingly, two days before the August 15 hearing, Paul Peterson of Harvard University and Jay Greene of the University of Houston released a report which claims that MPCP students do better in reading and math than public school students after having participated in the program for three and four years. Peterson and Greene used as a control group for their study the students who originally wanted to participate in MPCP, but who were denied, by lottery, because of the participant limit. Also, Peterson and Greene state in their report that previous studies have not followed children through their third and fourth year in the program, after which the children tend to show a clear margin of improvement in reading and math. The report says that on average, after three years in the program MPCP students score 3 percentage points higher in reading and 5 points higher in math than their public school peers; after the fourth year, they score 5 points higher in reading and 12 points higher in math. Peterson and Greene suggest that these results, if achieved by minorities nation-wide, could help to narrow the gap between white and minority test scores by at least a third. (Wall Street Journal, 08/14/96)
UNITED STATES
Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole revealed this
month a national "opportunity scholarship" plan which would offset the
cost of non-public tuition for parents across the country. Over the course
of four years the federal government would supply fifteen states and the
District of Columbia with $10 billion in competitive matching grants. Each
state would then establish the availability of the scholarships, based
on income, and the amount of the scholarships. Scholarships could be worth
no less than $1,000 for elementary students and $1,500 for secondary students.
The scholarships could be used to offset tuition at private or parochial
schools. Dole has thus claimed to set himself apart from President Clinton,
whom he named a "pliant pet of militant teachers unions." (Education
Week, 08/07/96; Boston Globe, 07/18/96)
A Chicago
Question and A New Jersey Answer
The Chicago Tribune ran a couple of dubiously-argued
Op Ed pieces on school choice, and those were responded to in the Tribune's
letters column of August 3, 1996. The respondents were Phyllis Winter,
Principal, Children of Peace School; and Patricia Jones, St. Agnes School.
Both schools are in Chicago's inner city, and both are achieving that very
educational wonder — high achievement at very low cost — that is so movingly
portrayed in the videotape "Miracle in the Inner City," available at cost
from the Blum Center.
In their letter, these two principals speak simply, eloquently, and powerfully from their everyday experiences, and in so doing refute common smoke screens employed against school choice, such as the idea that small, $1,000-type vouchers would be inconsequential. As they say, even
" . . . a $1,000 voucher goes a long way toward tuition at any of Chicago's Catholic elementary schools, the average annual cost of which is $1,344." As for the tired allegations that such schools will "skim" superior students, or induce separatism (already a sad fact of Chicago's public schools), Ms. Winters and Ms. Jones point out that Children of Peace has never refused a student, is mostly African-American, and nearly two-thirds non-Catholic. St. Agnes has more than 600 Mexican-American students, and 80% of their parents are first generation immigrants. Some "skimming," indeed! Some segregationist elitism, indeed! And, of course, against the odds, this outcome: their students are " . . . well prepared for high school; 95 percent graduate and 85 percent go to college."
The letter from these two principals concludes as follows: "Why is it that we as a state refuse to allow poor parents the opportunity to choose a school that matches the personal and educational goals they have for their children?" That is the question.
Earlier in the summer, the Sunday Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, carried a story in which the unfortunately customary answer was given to the Chicago question. Governor Christie Whitman's Advisory Panel on School Vouchers had just issued a report supporting the concept of a school choice pilot program, long sought by Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler and others. But though wanted by Whitman, Schundler, and the Advisory Panel; and despite the fact that the Governor's party controls the legislature; none of them expected success any time soon. Former Governor Tom Kean chaired the Advisory Panel and said, in conjunction with the release of its report: "The teachers union was and is one of the most powerful lobbies in the state." They do not want even a small school choice program benefiting the poorest of the poor and, Kean says, "Unfortunately, it's true that if you have the money and the organization and you know what you're doing, you can thwart the will of the majority."
The Chicago principals have the right question exactly stated. Gov. Kean has what has too-often up to now been the exactly accurate answer. Once again, we are reminded that it is time to break such political control and manipulation by breaking educational finance monopoly, and replacing it with parental freedom in education: school choice without financial penalty.
Recent Acquisitions
¨ The Blum Center has
recently received from William J. Tobin & Associates a brief "summary
and highlights" of the Summary and Analysis of the New Child Care Block
Grant Amendments of 1996, which will be available as of August 15 in
its entirety (40 pages plus appendices) for $95.00 (postage included).
Checks must be made payable to: William J. Tobin & Associates, 3612
Bent Branch Court, Falls Church, VA 22041. Funding for federal childcare
programs, starting at $2.2 billion and rising to $3.7 billion in FY 2002,
will be combined in one block grant for the states operating primarily
through parent choice child care vouchers. Low-income and lower-middle-class
income families will be eligible to receive these vouchers. This method
of distributing vouchers to parents of pre-K children is analogous to legislative
efforts which propose the same for K-12 students, and operates under the
same principle: parental choice. For further information about the comprehensive
summary and analysis, contact Mr. Tobin at 703-941-4329.
¨ The Mitchell Company has recently released a 12-page description of the status of Parental Choice in Milwaukee, dated August, 1996. The status report includes, among other things, highlights of the program, a brief history, facets and limitations of the original program and highlights of the expanded program currently being challenged in court. For a copy of the report, contact Susan or George Mitchell at The Mitchell Company, Inc., 2025 North Summit Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202, 414-765-0443, or 414-765-0220.
Announcements
¨ Parents Raising Educational
Standards in Schools (PRESS) announces its 3rd Annual "Conference on Education,"
Saturday, October 5, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
Registration fees must be received by September 28, 1996, at PRESS, P.O.
Box 26913, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226. For additional information about
speakers and fees, please contact PRESS at 414-453-8116.
¨ Citizens for Educational Freedom (CEF) is sponsoring "The Road to Educational Freedom" National Conference on Saturday, October 12 at Tysons Westpark Hotel in McLean, VA. Reservations for the conference must be received at CEF no later than September 15. For further information, contact Patrick Reilly at 703-486-8311. CEF has also prepared a Voter Guide on Education Reform for the election year. Prepaid orders of the voter guides are being accepted by CEF through September 15, but copies are limited. The voter guides are nonpartisan since CEF does not endorse any candidates for political office. According to CEF Executive Director Patrick Reilly, "We simply believe that American families should have the opportunity to know where the candidates for federal and state offices stand on issues related to education reform and the right and financial ability of parents to choose the best schools for their children." (CEF News Release, 07/20/96) Individual copies of the 16-page guide are $1.00 each, or $8.00 for every 10 copies (price includes postage), and 50 cents per copy for orders of more than 20 copies. For further information or to place an order, please contact Patrick Reilly at Citizens for Educational Freedom, 927 S. Walter Reed Dr., Suite One, Arlington, VA 22204, 703-486-8311, FAX 703-486-3160.
Organization Information
¨ Last issue (#37), we
neglected to include the Suite # of the Iowa Catholic Conference's address.
The address should be: Iowa Catholic Conference, 505 5th Avenue, Suite
818, Des Moines, IA 50309-2393. For further information on school choice
developments in Iowa, please contact Mr. Bart Rule at that address.
- In today's modern democracies, including the U.S., the
natural pluralism and diversity which evolve in free societies are in full
flower. Indeed, America's social, ethnic, philosophical, and religious
pluralism is recognized as entirely appropriate to a free people. National
integrity needs to be safeguarded by citizen self-restraint and by political
action to protect the social fabric and advance the common good, of course.
But non-disruptive natural variety is expected within this nurturing shelter.
Given parent and guardian love of and dedication to their children, and
recognition of education as a key part of the child's success or failure,
it would be natural to expect a dynamic variety of educational models and
forms, reflecting the variety of parental perspectives on the world.
Indeed, in those democratic societies which recognize that parents' educational freedom should match their responsibilities, a natural growth of educational pluralism is precisely what we find. Two examples will suffice, both involving societies far more homogeneous than ours, in which one might expect less natural educational diversity than in the United States. Denmark is not only more homogeneous than the U.S., it also builds extensive formal religious education directly into the curricula of its state schools. Presumably, the effect of that would be to lessen one of the prime motives — a desire for religious education in the schools — many American parents have for moving out of our governmental schools. Yet, despite such unifying realities, Denmark, with one of the best of all parental choice systems, is witnessing a gradual, natural growth in school pluralism, to match the gradual, natural growth in societal and parental pluralism. From 1982 to 1991 the number of Danish children in private schools, as a proportion of children in all schools, rose from 8.13% to 10.97%. That represents an increase of 35% in the proportion of parents who, exercising their freedoms under true school choice, decided that an independent school would be best for their youngsters. (Private Schools in Denmark, Danish Ministry of Education and Research, Copenhagen, 1992.)
In Australia, another democracy more homogeneous than ours, but also with an essentially ideal system of true parental choice of schools, a similar story is told. From 1981 to 1991, the number of Australian children in private schools, as a proportion of children in all schools, rose from 23% to 27.9%. That is an increase of 21% in the proportion of parents who, given the appropriate freedom of a true choice policy, decided that their youngsters' educational welfare would be best served by independent schools. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], What Works in Innovation: School Choice, Paris, 1993. Background Report from the Australian Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education, and Training.)
These two evolutions away from monolithic one-size-fits-all schooling and toward educational pluralism are exactly what common sense would anticipate, given free societies, democratic regimes, and parental freedom of school choice. In the U.S. natural diversity and experiential discontent did in fact stimulate parental desire to choose independent alternatives, as a few typical examples will show. In 1990 the Milwaukee Public Schools commissioned the Milwaukee Public School Attitude Survey, completed by Hyco, Inc., in August, 1990. One question asked parents how they would use a comprehensive voucher for $3500 were it available to them, and the response was: 31% said they would choose a "private" school, another 25% would select a "church-related" school, 10% would opt for "another public school" — and only 20% would keep their children where they were! Similar results were reported in August, 1995, when the Empire State Survey, jointly sponsored by the Empire Foundation and the Lehrman Institute, found in a telephone survey of 1218 New York City residents that 66% of New York City parents with children in public school said they would send those children to private schools if funds were available. (As cited in Public Agenda's 1994 study on public school education, First Things First.) A final illustration: in 1995 the organization Public Agenda released Assignment Incomplete: The Unfinished Business of Education Reform. This was based on a national telephone survey testing Americans' attitudes toward public schools. In the report's own words: "Perhaps most ominous for advocates of public schools, almost six in ten (57%) parents with children now in public schools would send their children to private schools if they could afford to do so — 36% to a religious school and 21% to a non-religious private school."
Despite such parental desire for educational freedom, what actually happened in the U. S. during the time of the Danish and Australian pictures just presented? From 1981 to 1991, the number of kindergarten through twelfth grade American students in private schools, as a proportion of such students in all American schools, fell from 12% to 11%. (See the Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, 1995, table #228, p. 151.) That is a fall of 8.5% in the proportion of American youngsters in independent schools. By way of context, and contrast with the other two democracies just noted, it is important to note that American society in 1981 was already far more heterogeneous than the other two. By 1991, with legal and illegal immigration patterns continuing and social diversification proceeding apace, that disparity probably widened. It is vital to note, as well, that during the decade in question, serious, fundamental criticism of American public education grew significantly, presumably providing additional natural motive for considering leaving the monopoly's system and creating a more diverse educational landscape.
Given greater natural social diversity at the 1981 beginning of our three-nation comparison; given increasing diversity from 1981 to 1991; given a crescendo of criticism directed against EFM's one-size-fits-all schools; and given consistent evidence that American parents if free to choose would choose; one can reasonably project that a policy of parental freedom in the 50 states from 1981 to 1991 would have produced an increase in educational and school pluralism and in independent enrollments. The facts are, however, that pluralism and the independent sector declined. The Catholic aspect of that sector was decimated, as we saw previously. There is, I think, an inescapable inference to be drawn from this ten year, three democracy comparison: America's parents have been and are being artificially and coercively — the coercion of the golden chain and the financial vise — prevented from exercising their right to select the school environment they think best for their children, and that is the most ghastly specter in American educational funding.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 |
 |