|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find a post-election assessment of the political climate for parental freedom, important news from the Blum Center and other organizations, part two of the Editor's View on the church-state smoke screen, and David Kirkpatrick's reflection on "The Eye of the Beholder."
Parental
Freedom in the Elections of November
5, 1996
Long-time readers
of the Freedom Report will recall that issue #15, November 15, 1994,
assessed the impact of the November 8 elections on parental freedom and
declared that "Today the political world is safer for school choice." As
successful passage of school choice legislation in Ohio and Wisconsin,
and significant positive developments in many other states and Congress,
make plain, that was an accurate assessment of electoral results as they
pertained to parental freedom in education. What of the just-concluded
election of November 5, 1996?
A Presidential candidate dedicated to the expansion of parental freedom lost to one dedicated to educational finance monopoly (EFM), of course. The loss had little or nothing to do with school choice, however. Indeed, in the "debate," the EFM-defender did his best to portray himself as a champion of parents' prerogatives, thereby inadvertently testifying to the power of school choice. But, as exit polls re voter motivation make clear, this Presidential election was decided, as they tend to be, on the basis of voters' perception of economic well-being. With consumer confidence at extremely high levels, reflecting a favorable time in the economic cycle, the incumbent had become a shoo-in before the primary season was concluded.
Congressional elections produced few surprises. Republican control of both houses continues, and with it a basically positive disposition toward parental freedom, and disposition against EFM and its main defenders. Unfortunately, likely key education-related committee chairmen are not very helpful re achieving justice for America's parents, but perhaps they can be educated by Senate and House leadership. Be that as it may, apart from direct responsibility for the often-disastrous monopoly schools of the District of Columbia, the federal government for school choice purposes is a relatively small player. The important action is at the state level. How did parental freedom fare in vital state contests? A review of some results suggests that, overall, the political world is no less safe, perhaps even a bit more safe, for school choice.
FLORIDA
Representative Steve
Wise, a leading proponent of school choice in Florida's legislature, was
re-elected with 72% of the vote from his district. Rep. Wise considers
his re-election very much a victory for school choice, since his opponent
in this race was a member of the local teachers union and a former county
teachers union president in the area. Rep. Wise's office commented that
the Florida legislature is in "great shape" for school choice, especially
since the new Speaker of the House, Representative Dan Webster, favors
Rep. Wise's efforts. (Information provided by Gary Lieffers of Rep. Wise's
office.) For more details, contact Gary Lieffers at 904-573-3925.
ILLINOIS
Illinois Republicans
lost control of the House, which may require school choice supporters to
change tactics, since the previous Speaker of the House, Lee Daniels, was
in support of the latest school choice bill, the "Educational Choice Act."
(See Freedom Report #35 for more on the Educational Choice Act.)
Supporters of the bill nonetheless believe that it is within 2-3 votes
of passage. For more details contact Jack Roeser at 847-428-9206.
INDIANA
Stephen Goldsmith,
Mayor of Indianapolis, lost the gubernatorial race on a fairly close vote
of 51% to 47%. Mayor Goldsmith is well known for his active support of
school choice, and his platform for governor stressed local control and
"grassroots innovation." He is currently in his second term as Mayor. (Education
Week, 10-23-96; New York Times, 11-07-96)
IOWA
In Iowa there has
been some shifting of forces in the House and Senate, but support for school
choice remains approximately the same. The Iowa House went to a 54-46 Republican-Democrat
make-up, from its previous make-up of 63-37. Republicans, however, gained
control of the Senate. For more details, contact Bart Rule at 515-243-6256.
KANSAS
Representative Kay
O'Connor, champion of school choice in the Kansas legislature, won her
re-election with 80% of the vote. Rep. O'Connor said that the Senate in
Kansas also picked up several school choice supporters, but aside from
that the legislature remains basically the same. The state of Kansas, she
believes, is ripe for greater school choice activity, and two things specifically
are being done to rouse support in Kansas. First, Rep. O'Connor has been
traveling across the state several times a week to speak on school choice.
To Freedom Report readers she extends her offer/challenge to speak
anywhere in the state of Kansas that she is invited, and at no charge besides
perhaps a reimbursement for traveling expenses. Second, Citizens for Educational
Freedom (CEF) in Kansas has been taking on new life, and Rep. O'Connor
has high hopes for its future. For more details contact Rep. O'Connor at
1-800-277-6368 (ID# 3092), or by fax at (913) 764-4492.
MINNESOTA
Relatively few changes
have occurred on the school front in the Minnesota legislature: the DFL
still retains control of both the House (70-64) and the Senate (43-24).
Nonetheless, Governor Arne Carlson plans to move full speed ahead with
his school choice plans (see Freedom Report # 32) and grassroots
school choice activity is being newly spearheaded under the organization
of Minnesotans for School Choice (MSC). See "Organization Information"
below for additional details on MSC. (Information provided by Kristin Robbins
of MSC.)
NORTH
DAKOTA
Governor Edward T.
Schafer, who was re-elected on a vote of 66% to 34%, said during his campaign
that he would sign a bill offering tax credits to parents for tuition at
private schools in North Dakota. This will be Schafer's second term as
Governor. (Education Week, 10-23-96; New York Times, 11-07-96)
OHIO
While nothing dramatic
occurred within the Ohio legislature this time around, four more Republican
seats were gained in the House, leaving the Republican-Democrat make-up
at 60-39. According to David Brennan, Ohio business leader and school choice
advocate, this gain further solidifies support for school choice in the
House. For more details contact David Brennan at 216-762-3938.
WASHINGTON
Ballot initiatives
173 and 177 were defeated in the state of Washington, with sixty percent
of Washington citizens voting against both initiatives. I-173 would have
authorized tuition vouchers for non-sectarian private schools in the state,
and I-177 would have authorized the creation of charter schools. Ron Taber,
sponsor of I-173, does not consider these results a setback, since "political
campaigns don't facilitate discussions over new concepts. Initiative 173
is a new idea, and it simply takes more time to explain it than we have
in a political campaign." Taber, who also lost the race for superintendent
of schools in Washington, is still considering his next move in facilitating
the discussion of school choice in Washington. With similar spirit, Jim
and Fawn Spady, sponsors of I-177, are already gearing up to approach their
next school choice focus: the education of the Washington legislature on
matters of parental freedom. For more details contact Ron Taber at 360-456-8343.
(Education Week, 11-13-96; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 11-06-96)
WISCONSIN
While Wisconsin remains,
like many states, largely the same regarding school choice support, the
newly elected Speaker of Wisconsin's Assembly, Representative Ben Brancel
of the 42nd district, has stated that he is in favor of expanding school
choice beyond its current form in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program
(MPCP). One Representative, Neal Kedzie of the 43rd district, was newly
elected with a platform that included the expansion of school choice, and
at least one Representative besides Brancel who favors the expansion of
choice, Rick Skindrud of the 79th district, was re-elected this year. (Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, 11-13-96; Wisconsin State Journal, 11-03-96)
LESSONS
FROM CANADA
Non-Roman Catholic
parent groups in Ontario are suing the provincial government to receive
the benefits of school choice — a benefit which Ontario's Catholic minority
has always had. Since the establishment of the Confederation of 1867, provincial
and local governments have both contributed to a tuition financing plan
for Catholic parents. The provision was designed to protect religious minority
rights in the province. Now, however, Ontario contains many minorities
other than Catholics: Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. 1.5
million children attend public schools in Ontario, more than 600,000 attend
Catholic schools, and about 60,000 attend other religious schools. According
to 1991 estimates by the Ontario Ministry of Education, if the lawsuit
is successful, parents of those 60,000 will be entitled to the approximate
equivalent of $230 million a year in U.S. dollars. Benjamin Levin, the
dean of continuing education at the University of Manitoba stated that
Ontario has provided aid to Catholic parents "for years and years" without
having "ruined anything or created any disasters." (New York Times,
10-30-96)
JEWISH
GROUPS DEFEND VOUCHERS IN OHIO
Back in issue 17 of
the Freedom Report, the Blum Center called attention to the growth
in support for school choice among Jewish groups. Again we call attention
to this very significant constituency as two Orthodox Jewish groups have
separately filed amica briefs with Ohio's 10th District Court of
appeals in defense of Cleveland's voucher program, which got underway this
fall. (See Report # 39's special insert for more details on the
Cleveland Scholarship Program.) The Institute for Public Affairs of the
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (IPA) and Agudath Israel
of America submitted their briefs at the beginning of this month, both
of which argue for the constitutionality of the Cleveland plan. The testimony
of the latter group echoes an all-important point which friends of parental
freedom stress constantly: school choice is constitutionally sound regarding
the separation of church and state, because it is aid to parents,
not aid to schools or aid to churches. The process of appeal for the Cleveland
Scholarship program is moving along, but no calendar of procedure has been
released as yet. (Plain Dealer, 11-05-96)
Special
Note from the Editor
Dr. Laura A. Weber,
Blum Center Assistant Director, will end her services on December 19. In
January, 1997, she will begin teaching at Creighton University in Omaha.
David D. Urbanski, longtime Center Associate, will succeed Laura as Assistant
Director. Donna M. Blackburn will continue her responsibilities in clerical
and production areas, David Kirkpatrick remains as Blum Center Distinguished
Fellow, and I will carry on as Director. Finally, Joseph Schneider has
joined the Center's staff as a Center Associate.
Laura Weber has worked with me for the last six years, and has been with the Blum Center from its beginning. No one has had a deeper commitment to winning educational freedom for America's parents. Her contributions to that great task, and to the Blum Center's role in this effort, have been manifold and excellent. I invite Freedom Report readers to join me in expressing appreciation and in wishing Laura all the best as she embarks on her professional career.
Reports
and Studies
¨ Pam
Belluck reported in the October 27 issue of the New York Times,
"Hundred of parents of learning disabled children in New York City are
placing them in private schools and successfully applying to have the public
school system pay the annual cost." The annual cost runs between $20,000
and $60,000 per child. The article states that "experts say [these cases]
reflect the weaknesses of the city's special education system" and that
"if the public schools continue to lose children to private schools, the
public system could ultimately become less flexible in dealing with the
wide range of disabilities." The evidence in this article runs entirely
counter to a popular last-ditch smoke screen of school choice opponents:
"School choice at the very least disregards the welfare of the learning
disabled. Private schools are not equipped to handle learning disabled
children."
Recent
Acquisitions
¨ Apropos
to this month's Editor's view on the Church-State Smoke Screen, Joseph
Viteritti, research professor at New York University, published an article
in the November, 1996, issue of Commentary, entitled "The Last Freedom:
Religion, the Constitution, and the Schools." This piece addresses the
topic of recent school choice efforts in relation to the Establishment
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and it cites those U.S. Supreme Court
decisions that directly support the principles of school choice. Viteritti
says that school choice "strikes a balance between the disestablishment
of religion and its free exercise — the inexorably twinned aims of the
First Amendment. [School choice] is sound public policy, it is fair, and
it has even been upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme
Court."
Organization
Information
¨ Governor
Arne Carlson's commitment to school choice and the growing momentum of
school choice support in Minnesota have allowed the Choice-in-Education
League of Minnesota (CELM) to expand and reorganize its efforts. In anticipation
of an exciting 1997 legislative session, CELM has changed its name to Minnesotans
for School Choice (MSC); hired a full time executive director, Kristin
Robbins; established a new headquarters in downtown St. Paul; and revamped
the board of directors with a bipartisan group of prominent business and
community leaders. MSC, currently trying to raise additional funds for
its efforts, will now take over the organization of grassroots legislative
action for school choice in Minnesota. MSC is therefore looking for any
parents or concerned citizens in Minnesota to contact their legislators
in support of school choice. For more information on MSC, please contact
Kristin Robbins at (612) 293-9196. MSC's address is 46 E. 4th St., Suite
900, St. Paul, MN, 55101, and the fax number is (612) 293-9285.
- To grasp fully the
fact that the struggle for parental freedom is about policy choices and
not mere legal interpretations, and once and for all clear away the church-state
smoke screen from the policy battleground over educational funding, it
will be helpful to dwell a bit on the realities of politics which rational,
responsible government should always recognize and manifest. The first
and most important of these realities is that politics inevitably involves
authoritative choosing among alternative paths of action. This choosing
and implementation of whatever path is selected is what the state exists
for, when other, voluntary social methods of decision-making have been
exhausted. The state is responsible for bringing an end to dispute and
disagreement, thereby protecting the social fabric and maintaining a relatively
peaceful order within which our lives may proceed. The method by which
it fulfills this vital task is to settle issues, to select among alternative
ways of settling them, and to be definitive, even when conciliatory, in
the act of choosing.
But the act of choosing inevitably reflects acts of moral assessment. The act of choosing, personal or political, involves assessing options in terms of their relative rightness and wrongness, goodness or badness, or in terms of good-better-best or bad-worse-worst. There is no other way for humans, or political societies, to settle serious issues in dispute. And that, which will be obvious if one thinks about it, gives the decisive lie to one of the favorite nonsense statements of American politicians: "You can't legislate morality!" With notable irony, that statement is usually uttered by politicians who want to "wash their hands" of some issue and, rather than stating their position plainly say, in effect, that the issue cannot be acted on (knowing full well that 'no action' is an action whenever a contested issue presents itself). Often enough, those who utter these infamous words are among the most judgmental politicians, fully ready to "legislate morality" when it suits their purposes. For example, as a Catholic I have cringed at the sight of the many Catholic politicians who have tried to avoid, rather than directly embrace or repudiate, the clear implications of Catholic teaching on abortion by saying "you can't legislate morality," while in the next breath saying, e.g., "let us legislate [the morality of] a higher minimum wage," or an altered welfare or Medicare policy.
As I wrote long ago, and as countless others before and since have expressed in similar terms regarding the "can't legislate morality" red herring: "Pardon me, but there is nothing else to legislate." Whether we like it or not, and no matter how much we might want to take refuge behind the "can't legislate morality" figleaf so as to appear less threatening, when we choose legislatively among humanly important alternatives we are "legislating morality," i.e., we are enacting a policy which reflects moral judgments about relative goodness and badness. Thus, though we cannot by legislation or fiat instill a new morality in recalcitrant souls, when we are legislating we are most assuredly enacting someone's moral vision.
All citizens, and all legislators representing them, bring a moral code to decision-making which will guide their political activity. That moral code may be altruistic and admirable, or it may be essentially egoistic and objectively indefensible, but they will have a code of behavior which tells them how to evaluate political opinions. The content of these codes will vary widely, and may be too diffuse to have political effect, unless mobilized, organized, and harmonized by the political process, especially in the legislative arena and the political parties which seek supremacy within them. Those parties seek to build legislative majorities by building electoral coalitions, and they do that by shaping platforms, or policy positions, meant to appeal to broad segments of the electorate. These policy positions are moral choices on the great issues of the day. That fact is indisputable, no matter how often and how loudly some politician may utter the "can't legislate morality" slogan.
Just as values brought to bear on politics will vary, so do the sources or inspirations of these politically pertinent values. The moral code which directs a person, in his general living and in his political life as well may reflect family upbringing; or simple habit; or consciously-chosen philosophical convictions; or it may reflect religious teaching which the citizen takes seriously, such as the Ten Commandments or those general prescriptions amplified and specified in more particular credal statements.
When the citizen who is a religious believer finds in his belief system human values which should impact on his social conduct, he has every reason and every right to seek ways to manifest those values in his action. And, if it seems appropriate to him, he has every reason and right to offer these values as pertinent to public policy decisions. As we have already seen, those decisions inevitably will reflect someone's vision of right action, and to suggest that the believer-as-citizen cannot rightly bring his beliefs to bear on policy disputes is, in fact, to deprive him of both his religious and political rights. If a citizen believes that tax dollars for education, for example, should not be held only in the state bureaucracy's monopolistic hands, for assignment only to the monopoly's own schools, that is his policy position. He may arrive at that position because of libertarian convictions skeptical of state virtue in general. Or he may be moved by "free market" convictions against monopolies, seeing them as humanly destructive. Or humanist convictions may tell him that parents would be well-served by participating in the assignment of tax dollars. Or he may be driven by general dissatisfaction with American educational results. Or he may be compelled by religious conviction that his child's education will be best pursued within an avowedly religious context and he needs a share of spending capacity to ease the financial penalty he now confronts in choosing an independent school. The source of his judgment is politically irrelevant. Each of these motives is an entirely legitimate ticket to enter the political arena, there to join forces with others who share the policy objective — parental freedom via school choice without financial penalty — whatever their motives.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 |
 |