- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find comments on vital state developments, on an enlightening international comparison, and on the people and processes of the Blum Center.
ARIZONA
This month the Arizona legislature considers the
merits of an education voucher plan known as the Parental Choice Grant
Program. Sponsored by Rep. Lisa Graham, and supported by Gov. Fife
Symington, the program would make education vouchers, each worth up to
$1,500, available to a limited number of low-income families who are not
currently sending their children to independent schools. The vouchers
could be used at any public, private or parochial Arizona school accredited
by the North Central Association. The education vouchers would be
available to 2,000 children from low-income families during the ‘94-’95
and ‘95-’96 school years, to 4,000 children during ‘96-’97 and ‘97-’98,
and to 8,000 children during ‘98-’99 and thereafter. Children with
disabilities who are accepted into the program will be awarded larger grants.
(Copies of this proposal are available from the Blum Center.)
As may be expected, the education establishment in Arizona adamantly opposes even this relatively small parental choice program, declaring that tax dollars in principle should never be used to educate children in private schools. A December 30, 1993, Wall Street Journal editorial points out, however, that Arizona already provides vouchers to approximately 2,000 emotionally or physically disabled students to attend private schools. Under Arizona’s alternative placement law, hundreds of other public school students designated as “unable to profit” from public schools are sent to private schools with their parents’ consent. Teachers’ unions in Arizona are now publishing an amendment to the alternative placement law that would grant school districts the authority to send disruptive students to private schools without the consent of their parents.
“Their chutzpah is unbelievable,” Mr. Jeffry Flake, Executive Director of Phoenix’s Goldwater Institute, remarked in the Wall Street Journal editorial. “While they oppose giving parents choice in education, they want school bureaucrats to have more freedom to transfer problem students to private schools.” Perhaps the actual principle involved is different from the stated one: be sure the educational finance monopoly (EFM) controls all allocation, whether to public or private schools.
FLORIDA
Although the 1993 legislative session considered,
but did not approve, four bills concerning educational choice, there are
similar proposals already planned for the next (February 8 – April 8, 1994)
legislative session. Rep. Carlos Valdes (R-Miami) is sponsoring a
“G.I. Bill for Florida Students,” HJR 39, which would amend the State Constitution
to allow the use of funds at accredited Florida schools selected by parents
of K-12 students. (Information provided by Kenneth Roeder and the
Florida Federation of Catholic Parents’ Parent to Parent, An Educational
Choice Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2, November/December, 1993)
MICHIGAN
Last July, the Michigan legislature and Governor
John Engler repealed property tax support for public schools. Since
then, both the legislature and the Governor have had to wrestle with two
contentious and politically divisive issues: how to restore some
of the nearly $7 billion cut from public education last summer and how
to effect at least a degree of genuine reform of public education in Michigan.
Because Michigan’s constitution contains unusually severe restrictions
that prohibit parental choice plans involving private schools, reform
and financing proposals are focused, for the time being, on the state’s
public school system.
Gov. Engler, along with House and Senate Republicans, favor a school re-financing package that features a state sales tax increase combined with a state income tax cut. Democrats are proposing a plan that relies primarily on an increase in income taxes. Both plans include reimposing some property taxes, although Democrats are proposing about twice as much in property taxes as Republicans. Michigan voters will themselves soon determine which plan will actually be implemented. They will be asked in a March ballot measure to approve or disapprove Engler’s sales tax increase proposal. If voters disapprove, then the Democrats’ income tax increase plan will be implemented.
The debate over education reform has proved much more acrimonious than the debate over refinancing. Gov. Engler has argued that parental choice is the key to education reform. Within the limits of Michigan’s constitutional strictures, he has pushed for charter schools and interdistrict public school choice. The “Michigan Education Association teachers union — which is mostly aligned with Democrats — opposes any school choice plan. …” (Detroit Free Press, 12/07/93) (See also Educational Freedom Report, No. 3, Nov. 24, 1993) On Nov. 29, Engler agreed to a compromise charter schools plan that is considerably more restrictive, and thus more palatable to the MEA, than his original plan. Under the compromise plan, only public school districts, community colleges and state universities can sponsor charter schools. Moreover, with rare exceptions, all teachers in charter schools must be certified by the state and collective bargaining will apply to charter schools. At this time the final form of an interdistrict public school choice compromise is uncertain. (U.S. News & World Report, 12/20/93; Detroit Free Press, 12/01/93 and 12/23/93; Midland Daily, 12/26/93, and updating from Mr. Robert Wittmann, Director of Education Policy, Mackinac Center for Public Policy)
MISSISSIPPI
Thousands of outraged students, parents, teachers,
and government officials jammed the State Capitol in Jackson, Mississippi,
on December 5 and hundreds of students walked out of a local public high
school the following day over a controversy surrounding school prayer.
Wingfield High School, where Principal Bishop Knox was dismissed on November
24 for allowing a student to recite a short prayer over the intercom, has
been the focus of this controversy. The students and Mr. Knox have
drawn overwhelming community support, as well as the outspoken approval
of Gov. Kirk Fordice (R), and a group of Mississippi lawmakers who favor
a proposal to block money to schools that bar voluntary prayer. The
Mississippi branch of the ACLU vigorously opposed the prayer at Wingfield
High School, and will likely pursue legal action if the lawmakers are successful
in their efforts to enact such a proposal. On the “Larry King Live”
program on CNN, the head of Mississippi’s chapter of the ACLU, Lynn Watkins,
vehemently opposed Gov. Fordice’s claim that “any place that Americans
want to pray ought to be the place for religion.” (New York Times,
12/07/93) Far from being only a conservative, right-wing, Republican
issue, support for Knox and Wingfield High students has attracted biracial
backers in Jackson since September, where 85% of the Jackson public school
system is black, as is former Principal Knox. (Wall Street Journal,
12/06/93)
Such conflicts as this reflect the monopolistic imposition of one-size-fits-all schools on a diverse society. Readers of this Report realize, of course, that the natural way to accommodate the religious commitments of parents and students is to give them a choice of schools.
NEW YORK
A unique education voucher proposal has been introduced
as companion bills in New York State’s Senate and Assembly. The principal
sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Serphin Maltese with Sen. Dale Volker co-sponsoring.
In the Assembly, the principal sponsor is Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who represents
a Brooklyn district containing a large number of Orthodox Jewish schools,
with Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio co-sponsoring. The bills are supported
by the New York chapter of Citizens for Educational Freedom, the New York
State Federation of Catholic School Parents and New York PACE (Parents
Acting for Choice in Education). Supporters are hoping to win endorsement
soon from a variety of other groups.
The legislation would make education vouchers available to New York families on a phased-in basis: both the value of the vouchers and the number of families eligible to receive them would be phased-in over three years. In the first year, families with income among the lowest 1/3 in the state will qualify for vouchers, each worth about $1,700 (that represents about 20% of the cost per student in New York’s public schools). In the second year, families with income among the lowest 2/3 in the state will qualify for vouchers worth $2,550 (about 30% of the public school cost). By the third year, all families will qualify and the voucher’s value will increase to $3,400 (about 40% of the public school cost).
The proposal would also provide financial relief to families who choose to home-school their children (up to 50% of the standard voucher amount). Moreover, the measure would provide supplemental support to children from low income families (50% added to the value of each voucher granted to a child from a low income family).
For further information, contact Mr. Frank Russo, President of Citizens for Educational Freedom, at (516) 883-0922, or Mr. Kevin Donoghue, Executive Director of the New York State Federation of Catholic School Parents, at (516) 363-3657.
REACH CONFERENCE, PENNSYLVANIA
More than 150 advocates of choice in education,
from Maine to California, gathered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during
the week-end of December 10-11 to attend the “You’re Not Alone” Conference
sponsored by Pennsylvania’s REACH (The Road to Educational Achievement
Through Choice) Alliance. The conference featured 13 speakers who
addressed a wide array of issues pertaining to educational choice for a
variety of perspectives — including the economic (Myron Lieberman) and
the constitutional (William Bentley Ball and Clint Bolick); the political
(Robert Wittmann and Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler) and the personal
(Milwaukee mother Valerie Barrett). But it wasn’t only the remarkable
line-up of speakers that attracted so many to the conference; it was also
the opportunity to meet others from around the country working in their
own states to achieve genuine choice in education. By any standard,
the REACH-sponsored conference was a smashing success!
“ONLY IN AMERICA” ARE MORE NON-TEACHERS
THAN TEACHERS EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION
Non-teaching staff outnumber teaching staff among
American education workers, according to an international study conducted
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The results of the OECD study, based on 1991 data, were released in a December
1993 report called “Education at a Glance.”
The OECD Study measured the number of education workers as a percentage of national workforce in 19 industrialized countries. Among these 19 countries, the United States had the highest percentage of non-teaching staff. Indeed, the U.S. was the only nation among those arrayed in the story’s tables in which non-teaching staff exceeded teaching staff. The study found that while 5.6% of American workers are employed in education, only 2.6% actually teach. The remaining 3% are employed as administrators, bus drivers, counselors, etc. The study also found that among the same 19 countries the United States ranks second (Switzerland ranks first) in the amount of tax dollars spent per student.
Interestingly, the Netherlands, which enjoys one of the most liberal and comprehensive educational choice programs in the world, also has one of the lowest percentages of non-teaching education employees (0.7% non-teaching and 2.8% teaching staff). The OECD findings tend to bolster the contention that America’s monopolistic education funding structures encourage the proliferation of both non-academic staff and non-academic programs. Genuine parental choice in education, on the other hand, as one expects where comparison and competition exist, encourages schools to practice fiscal responsibility and to focus on academic needs and programs. (Information obtained from an article by Debra Viadero appearing in the December 8, 1993 edition of Education Week.)
RECENT ACQUISITIONS
We call attention to the newly-released The School
Choice Controversy, edited by Dr. James W. Skillen and published by The
Center for Public Justice which he directs. This book is dedicated
to analysis of the major constitutional issues raised by educational choice
without financial penalty, and contains excellent chapters by Cornell’s
Richard A. Baer, Jr., Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia Law
School, Phillip E. Johnson of California-Berkeley, and Dr. Skillen.
It is available from the Center, P.O. Box 48368, Washington, D.C.
20002-0368, (202) 546-0489, $6.99.
Another excellent addition to the Blum Center’s holdings is the updated version of the videotape, “Scholastic Vouchers, A Parent’s Guide to Real Choice in Education.” Copies may be obtained for $18.95 (includes shipping & handling) by contacting Kevin Donoghue at 57 Manhasset Ave., Manhasset, N.Y. 11030, (516) 365-3657, FAX (516) 365-8520.
The Blum Center has also acquired copies of N.Y. SB 5955, introduced by Sen. Maltese on 06/17/93, and the Oregon ballot initiative, Oregon K-12 Scholarship Plan which is currently being circulated in a petition drive by Oregonians for School Choice, P.O. Box 4084, Salem, OR 97302-1084. Also, copies of two new California initiatives, one filed by Jack Coons, Stephen Sugarman, and Terry Moe, and one by Ernest Scherer, Jr. are available.
We note, also, two studies recently received by the Blum Center. One is from William J. Tobin & Associates, (703) 941-4329, which reviews and analyzes 1993 state applications for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and offers affirmation of the primacy of parental choice, especially though the use of parent vouchers or certificates. The second is Professor Stephen A. Hoenack’s “Econometric Study of Alternative Designs of an Educational Voucher System in Minnesota,” which predicts effects on public and private enrollments, private school tuition charges, the funding and costs of public school districts, and state-level educational finance. For copies and information about the Econometric Study, call the Center of the American Experiment at (612) 338-3605.
REPORT APPEARANCE ALTERED
Readers of any or all of the Report’s first three
issues will note that we have changed the Report’s paper and appearance.
Though we had tested its copying properties before selecting it, and thought
it worked well, the fact is the original light blue marble paper posed
copying problems for various readers. Since we encourage such copying
we can hardly use paper which complicates the process. Hence, the
new paper which, we hope, better combines attractiveness, durability, and
copying ease.
BLUM CENTER STAFF
A Word from the Editor About Center Staff and Methods:
Some Report readers are original Blum Center correspondents and need no
introduction to the Center or its personnel. Others, however, are
new and know the Center only through the Report. For those, some
background could be useful. I have been on Marquette’s faculty since
joining it as an instructor in 1961. I have been a Professor of Political
Science since 1968. In that year I entered administration as Graduate
Dean and subsequently served as Academic Vice President (1972-74) and Executive
Vice President (1974-90). I left administration end-1990, and was
appointed Raynor Professor in 1991. During that same year I decided
to concentrate my work on educational choice issues, and then decided to
add a programmatic dimension to that work.
The Blum Center is that programmatic dimension. Conceived and defined in 1991, it began operation in August, 1992. Its basic premise, goals, and methods are described in the attached statement.
I have been joined in the Blum Center’s work by four excellent young people. Laura A. Weber is Assistant Director and a doctoral candidate in Theology. Nicholas A. Freres is Center Associate and Director of the Center’s Wisconsin Desk. David D. Urbanski is a Center Associate and graduate student in Political Science. Donna M. Blackburn provides administrative and production support for all staff members. Joining us this month is new Center Associate M. Marie Mattison.
THE NEXT REPORT
The next issue, #5, will be out in late January.
It will be devoted to a comprehensive summary of end-1993 choice status
across the country. We hope to give Report readers a good view of
the overall context within which the work of any particular person or group
is being done.
|
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 |
 |