|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find stories on ALEC, significant state-level parental freedom developments, recent important articles from other sources, the Editor's View on the capacity of PTA's and school boards to control EFM, and David Kirkpatrick's reflection on Albert Shanker.
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE
EXCHANGE COUNCIL
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the
nation's largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state
legislators, works regularly with legislators across the country to promote
Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism,
and individual liberty. To that end ALEC publishes materials each year
which aid the advancement of parental freedom in education. ALEC's 1997
State Legislator Guide to Teacher Empowerment, published in February,
lists as its first education goal, "returning the right of parents to choose
the most appropriate education for their children."
ALEC has developed model legislation for a number of issues related to education. ALEC's model legislation for parental freedom in education, updated at the end of last month, is called the "Education Certificate Act." It aims to "maintain and improve the quality of elementary and secondary education by providing parents the opportunity of choice in the selection of schools for their children." The bill requires the department of education (in whichever state the bill might be introduced) to establish a program whereby children, through the use of educational certificates, may attend participating public or private schools as requested by their parents.
ALEC works with legislators in various states, especially members of its task force, to adapt the model legislation to fit the particular state's political environment. Versions of this bill have been introduced in both Florida and Michigan. In Florida SB 194 was introduced on January 9 by Senator McKay, and it would have created the Parental Choice in Education Act. SB 194 was withdrawn from consideration on March 4. In Michigan HB 4068 was introduced by Representative David Jaye, and it would create a resolution that would give Michigan voters the ability, by ballot initiative, to amend the Michigan Constitution regarding vouchers. The Michigan Constitution currently disallows genuine school choice. HB 4068 is currently being considered by the House Committee on Education.
ALEC also publishes each year the Report Card on American Education, an exceptionally useful and detailed analysis of the progress of the American educational system. It provides yearly statistics for each state on graduation rates, expenditures, teacher salaries, test scores, and state rankings in particular subject areas. The analysis of 1996 ought to be available this summer. Additional information on ALEC or any of the topics mentioned above can be obtained by contacting Lee Mac Vaugh, Task Force Director, at (202) 466-3800, extension 248.
CALIFORNIA
Governor Pete Wilson has reintroduced the voucher bill
which he had strongly supported last year as part of a Republican-sponsored
package of education measures. The bill would allow students in poorly
performing schools to be eligible to use "opportunity scholarships" at
a private school of choice. Last year the bill was approved by the Assembly
on a vote of 41-35, but the Assembly and Senate were not able to reach
consensus on it. For more information on the bill, please see Educational
Freedom Report # 42. (Education Week, 02-19-97)
IOWA
Governor Terry Branstad included in this year's budget
for Iowa a provision which will increase the state's tax credit for private
school tuition costs from a maximum of $100 to a maximum of $200. The provision
was approved by the Senate Education Committee on a vote of 10-5 and now
will be considered by the Ways and Means Committee. If approved by that
committee, it will proceed to the House for its consideration. (Information
provided by Bart Rule of the Iowa Catholic Conference.)
KANSAS
Representative Kay O'Connor introduced on February 14
her "Parent Control of Education Act" as HB 2379. For years the Blum Center
has used Rep. O'Connor's legislation as a model for school choice advocates.
The bill would establish a statewide program, phased in over six years,
which would eventually allow all K-12 students in the state to attend the
school of their choice — public, private, or parochial. The value of vouchers
would also be phased in, so that by the sixth year students in grades 9-12
would be eligible for vouchers valued at 100% of the state's per-pupil
expense. The current expense is $ 3,648. Extensive details on the proposal
and a profile of Rep. O'Connor appeared in the March issue of School
Reform News. For more information, please contact Rep. O'Connor toll-free
at 1-800-277-6368 (I.D. # 3092).
MICHIGAN
In a February, 1997, poll of 600 Michigan residents,
54% would favor a proposal that would use state tax dollars to fund scholarships
which would allow poor children in failing schools to attend the public,
private, or religious schools of their parents' choice. The poll was conducted
over the telephone for TEACH Michigan by EPIC-MRA (Michigan Researchers
Associates). 33% said they would be opposed to the proposal, while 13%
were undecided. The poll showed particularly strong support in favor of
the proposal in urban areas, such as 60% of those polled from Detroit.
For more information on the poll please contact Bryan Taylor, Executive
Director of TEACH Michigan, at (517) 394-4870.
MINNESOTA
Momentum is building in support of Governor Arne Carlson's
education reform package, "Students First". The package includes a $150
million tax credit and deduction which parents can apply to non-public
school tuition, supplemental resources such as tutoring, and home schooling
expenses. (For more information, please see Freedom Report # 42.)
Testimony for this momentum can be seen in an array of recent newspaper
articles from across the country. On January 31 the Wall Street Journal
published "Minnesota Smart," an editorial which commends the governor "with
impeccable moderate credentials" for turning the educational goals espoused
by the National Governors Association into political reality by making
the benefits of education available to all parents. Report Card,
the California paper which focuses on educational reform, featured an article
in its January/February issue entitled "Arne's Army: School Choice Gains
Momentum in Minnesota." Education Week ran an article on March 5
called "In Switch, Minn. Legislators Back Education Package." On February
14 the Saint Paul Pioneer Press reported, "Carlson Renews Efforts
in Private-School Tax Break Push." In that article it explains that Gov.
Carlson, at a Capitol news conference, stated, "Don't underestimate my
determination on the tax breaks." At that press conference Gov. Carlson
clarified that the private-school tax credits are central to his reform
package. He has also emphasized that the bill has been designed to aid
all parents, and it is expected that two-thirds of the funding will be
used by public school parents. Activity on the bill is not expected until
April.
The strength of the grassroots movement in support of school choice continues to grow. Minnesotans for School Choice (MSC) will host a school choice rally at the state capitol on April 8, and they anticipate that over 1,000 people will participate. For more information on the rally and other school choice activity in Minnesota, please contact Kristin Robbins, Executive Director of Minnesotans for School Choice, at (612) 293-9196.
NEW YORK & WASHINGTON
D.C.
The March 12 New York Times carried a large story
with large and positive implications for parental freedom in education.
It concerns the decision by Congressman Floyd Flake, of Queens, New York,
to support Congressional efforts to bring school choice to parents of America's
inner cities. What is newsworthy here is that Congressman Flake, a Democrat
and member of the Black Caucus of Congress, is joining forces with the
Republican majority in the House of Representatives. He is doing that,
he says, because his constituents need and want the strength school choice
can give them.
OHIO
The Blum Center offers its congratulations to Mr. David
Brennan, Ohio industrialist and school choice advocate, who was presented
last month with the Governor's Award to Ohioans for his tireless
efforts to improve the lives of others through community service. A significant
portion of this service entails the advancement of parental freedom in
education in Ohio. Mr. Brennan was appointed Chairman of the Governor's
Commission on Educational Choice in 1992. The currently running Cleveland
Scholarship Program was developed out of the Commission's recommendations
to the Governor, and Mr. Brennan led the way in the opening of two new
Cleveland schools: Hope Central Academy and Hope Ohio City Academy. Both
schools participate in the scholarship program. The Blum Center commends
Mr. Brennan for his dedication to parental freedom in education.
Also from Ohio, there is this crucially important story in the March 11, 1997, Plain Dealer: state legislators led by Rep. Michael A. Fox are attempting to spread the "good news" of Cleveland's choice program to Youngstown by revising the state's budget accordingly. It is too early to tell if they can succeed this session, but the case represents a perfect illustration of how a good example will attract others to its cause.
WASHINGTON
State Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire has filed
a lawsuit which charges the Washington Education Association with a multiple
violations of campaign finance law. According to the February 26 issue
of Education Week, "The suit alleges that the WEA failed to correctly
report hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions and loans
for political activities, and that it improperly collected and spent union
dues to finance political purposes."
In November of 1992 Washington voters approved Initiative 134, which changed the state law regarding campaign finance disclosure. Initiative 134 prohibits unions from using mandatory payroll deductions for political activities without annual, written reauthorization from each union member. The Attorney General's suit claims that the WEA tried to circumvent the reauthorization process, using mandatory dues to fund the Community Outreach Program (COP). It claims that the COP exists to influence directly the political process with regards to particular candidates or ballot measures. The suit states as well that COP funds were used for contributions to political committees, such as WEA-PAC, and that the WEA improperly financed and failed to report approximately $233,000 in contributions to campaigns which were organized to defeat charter schools and vouchers initiatives. Also, the suit claims that the WEA reported some of its contributions to WEA-PAC as loans rather than donations. The suit was filed on February 12 in Thurston County Superior Court, but no court date has yet been set. (Additional information was provided by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.)
WISCONSIN
Longtime correspondents of the Blum Center may remember
that in 1993 Ms. Linda Cross, a teacher from Hortonville, Wisconsin, ran
in the race for state superintendent of schools against John Benson, who
was endorsed and backed by the local teachers union — the Wisconsin Education
Association Council (WEAC). At the center of Ms. Cross' campaign was a
strong devotion to parental freedom in education through school choice.
Mr. Benson barely won that election, and Ms. Cross once again will face
Mr. Benson on April 1 for the position of state superintendent. Ms. Cross
continues to advocate parental freedom in education, and has greatly emphasized
in this year's campaign the need for greater local control in Wisconsin
education. Reports are that Governor Tommy Thompson has endorsed Ms. Cross
and described her as "an excellent candidate."
On March 13 Ms. Cross and Mr. Benson met in Madison to debate school choice. Both agreed that public school choice ought to occur in Wisconsin, and they agreed that it would occur in the near future. Mr. Benson, true to his NEA-WEAC bloodlines, rejected true school choice which includes religious schools, and as an excuse for doing so, he relied on the church-state smoke screen which is typical of those bloodlines. Ms. Cross by contrast, presumably because she knows the real issue is parental freedom in education, and not the illusion of church-state intermingling, supports true school choice as found in the expanded Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 03-14-97)
In another state race to be decided April 1 which significantly concerns parental freedom in education, Supreme Court Justice Jon Wilcox will be challenged by Walter Kelly. Justice Wilcox voted last February to sustain the constitutionality of the legislature's expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to include religious schools. Like John Benson, Justice Wilcox's opponent in this race has the endorsement and support of WEAC.
The Blum Center notes in regard to these two elections, both important to the school choice battle in Wisconsin, that they are off-year elections. One of the primary realities of off-year elections is low voter turn-out, which provides a built-in advantage for well-funded, tightly organized pressure groups such as WEAC. Advocates of parental freedom in education will therefore watch these races carefully.
Noteworthy Items
¨ Dr. Joseph Viteritti
of New York University has published an excellent article on the constitutionality
of school choice in Vol. 15, No. 1, of the Yale Law & Policy Review
entitled, "Choosing Equality: Religious Freedom and Educational Opportunity
Under Constitutional Federalism." Dr. Viteritti examines the United States
Constitution's First Amendment, properly understood as a balance between
disestablishment and free exercise, and how it relates to parental freedom
in education.
¨ The February 24 issue of Business Week contained an editorial which criticized President Clinton's promise to give $50 billion in tax credits to middle-class Americans for college. In itself this promise is a good thing, the article suggests, but the President's "good intentions are misplaced," because it is the K-12 sector of education that badly needs attention. Business Week believes that the money could be better spent on charter schools, rewarding good teachers, increasing Pell grants — or "why not simply offer the tax credits to parents for any level of education, from first grade to college senior? Let them decide on their own families' educational needs and how to finance them."
Corrections
¨ The Blum Center apologizes
for the misspelling of two names in last month's Freedom Report.
Please note the proper spellings of Senator Robert Welch (under "WISCONSIN")
and Dr. Cecelia Rouse (under "Surveys, Reports, & Studies").
- There are people who recognize that we suffer under an
educational finance monopoly (EFM) but who imagine that monopoly's destructive
characteristics in this case can be offset by such internal mechanisms
as parent-teacher associations and school boards. The facts are contrary:
such groups tend to be co-opted by the professional defenders of the status
quo, the educational unions and bureaucracies. When that happens, the
PTAs and school boards, far from contributing to educational quality, become
part of the problem. The "parent" components of PTAs, and the citizens
making up boards, tend to become cheering sections for, and give protective
cover to, EFM's most self-interested parties. At that point, no one
is serving as a countervailing force, and the system is effectively out
of control in serving itself. (For a more comprehensive analysis of how
the foxes get the keys to the hen house, see, e.g., pp. 101-113 of my Financing
Education: The Struggle Between Governmental Monopoly and Parental Control,
1996.)
On January 15 there was called together a meeting of disparate groups labeling themselves the National Coalition for Public Education. The purpose: form strategy to choke off any congressional efforts to advance parental freedom in education. The National Coalition for Public Education has as its address "Care-of the National Parent Teachers' Association" (NPTA) in Washington. The background materials distributed for the meeting were prepared and designated by the National School Boards Association (NSBA). These included a so-called Issue Brief and a two-page summary alleged to be a pro-con on vouchers but in fact a purely one-sided presentation of many of the traditional smoke screens used to block parental freedom in education.
The organizations invited under the umbrella of the National Coalition for Public Education constitute a strange group, indeed, ranging from NOW to Americans United, to the ACLU, to the Anti-Defamation League, to the NAACP, to the American Association of University Women, to the League of Women Voters, and including, of course, the two major educational trade unions, the NEA and the AFT. The most interesting aspect of the gathering from my point of view, however, is the fundamental role played by the National Parent Teachers' Association and by the National School Boards Association.
The depth of the co-option of such groups as NPTA and NSBA by the professionals materially benefiting from educational finance monopoly can be seen in the slogan with which the NSBA introduces its Issue Brief on vouchers. It says, "Private school vouchers will weaken, not improve, public education." In this and in the three pages of documentation that they provide the NSBA repeatedly manifests the radical confusion of ends and means. People who are serious about achieving the educational welfare of America's youth will realize instantly that they must talk in terms of education, not in terms of one particular system by which education can be delivered. Public education is one alternative system for delivering education. As we saw last month, to the extent that it is discussed as the end of things it becomes unapproachable as monopolies do, and is defended blindly, at all costs.
The documentation from NSBA and from NPTA on vouchers shows they have fallen prey to the NEA-AFT-type portrayal of the issue: parental freedom is described as juxtaposed to, and always an attack on public education. The obvious facts are contrary: parental freedom, by stimulating educational comparison and competition, would encourage public education to perform effectively. Further examination of the Issue Brief shows it to be nothing more than a stale recitation of the standard smoke screens employed by the professional defenders of EFM. "Should we support publicly-funded private education?" is one of their questions. School choice does not aim to provide public support for private education. It aims to expand parental freedom. Private schools will indirectly benefit from such freedom only insofar as, by their achievements, they become objects of choice. Another question of the NSBA's Issue Brief: "Does the law permit using tax dollars to advance religious instruction?" The answer, of course, is that the law can have no such purpose. But that is not what school choice is all about. School choice, again, is simply to enhance the capacity of parents to choose schools they think most appropriate for their youngsters, and whether those include religious instruction or not is an irrelevant question. Common sense makes that plain and, happily, so do prevailing U. S. Supreme Court rulings. Another of their questions, "How many public school dollars would go to students already attending private schools?" That, of course, is a form of the insidious "windfall of the wealthy" assertion used by EFM's defenders (see Freedom Report #29). Insofar as there is in choice any "windfall for the wealthy" it is because the monopoly has forced poorer parents out of independent schools. Therefore, if choice systems are used by parents of children already in independent schools, those parents will inevitably be disproportionately more wealthy rather than less. That is no fault of choice. That is a direct result of the current injustices inflicted on the poor by EFM.
The last question in the NSBA Issue Brief's opening is "Can taxpayers afford to run two publicly-funded, separate, but unequal school systems?" I wonder if it would be possible to blow more smoke in one sentence than that? Choice does not involve running two publicly-funded, separate, but unequal school systems. It involves equalizing the capacity of parents to choose independent or public schools. So the questions for choice are, "Does it have a reasonable likelihood of increasing the quality of education available to all parents, rich and poor, middle class, lower class, upper class? Does it have that capacity and, by the way, does it also have the sure capacity of breaking the monopoly which presently exists and which cannot produce, by its very nature, the welfare of the youngsters and their parents?" The answers: "yes" and "yes."
The NPTA and NSBA, thought by some to be controls within the system and assurances of educational quality are shown in these materials to be co-opted corollaries of EFM's vested interests. I call them "altruistic corollaries," because presumably the members of school boards and the non-teacher members of parent-teachers associations have the common good at heart. But their tendency is to be mere mouthpieces for EFM's self-interested defenders. Anyone who imagines that serious reform of the current situation can be achieved by relying on such organizations as PTAs and local school boards simply does not understand the degree to which they are themselves now key parts of the problem of educational finance monopoly.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 |
 |