- IN THIS REPORT
Many Report readers, whether working for educational choice or reporting on it, have told us that they particularly appreciate having a universal context. What is happening, where, everywhere? As a result, we are producing this special round-up Report edition devoted entirely to necessarily brief status reports. Many of our correspondents have provided information for it. Even with such generous help, we know gaps will exist, and we anticipate another and more complete round-up later in the year.
Given the Report’s space limitations, we will concentrate on action or proposals which aim for comprehensive choice without financial penalty, i.e., programs which assist parents to choose any qualified school, public, private, sectarian; and which, accordingly, would replace educational finance monopoly (EFM) with parental allocation of some or all of education-dedicated tax dollars. Public-only choice programs, including charters, typically leave EFM intact, and cannot accommodate the ethical and religious motivations of many parents.
ARIZONA
A Parental Choice Grant Program, sponsored by Rep.
Lisa Graham, and supported by Gov. Fife Symington, is expected to be voted
on during the week of January 17, 1994, by the Arizona legislature.
The program would provide education vouchers worth up to $1,500 for 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.
They 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.
CALIFORNIA
California’s well-publicized Proposition 174 was
defeated on the Nov. 2 ballot. That proposition would have amended
the state constitution to provide $2,600 vouchers to California families
to enroll school-age children in public, private, or religiously-affiliated
schools. Within a day of its defeat, three new education voucher
proposals were filed with state officials. Whether the basic work
needed to change the results is being done remains to be seen. The
January 6, 1994, San Francisco Chronicle reported that prominent sponsors
of one initiative had decided to wait until the 1996 ballot so as to have
time for such political spadework.
COLORADO
A ballot proposal called “Parental Choice in Education”
has been filed by Steve Durham, a former Republican senator from Colorado
Springs, for placement on the November, 1994, Colorado ballot. Using
the sate average of per-pupil expenditures for public school students,
the plan would provide full-cost scholarships to low-income families, half-cost
scholarships to middle-income families, and 20% scholarships to upper-income
families. Durham’s proposal still needs about 50,000 signatures of
registered voters to place it on the ballot.
An additional legislative initiative has also been introduced in Colorado which would provide tax credits to parents of students attending non-public schools. The tax credit would be based on income, with the greatest amount awarded to lower-income families.
FLORIDA
Although the 1993 legislative session considered,
but did not approve, four bills concerning educational choice (HB 801,
HB 1021/SB 1756, HB 1157/SB 2156, HB 1175/SB 1900), 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.
GEORGIA
A 1961 Georgia law authorizing education vouchers
for students wishing to attend non-sectarian private schools was unearthed
in August, 1993, by Atlanta attorney and choice advocate Glenn Delk.
Although the law has recently been labeled “unusable” by state officials,
widespread interest stirred by the law set the stage for October 28 and
29 hearings on educational choice. New choice proposals are being
drafted by Sen. Sallie Newbill and by Sen. Roy Allen. At least one
of these proposals is expected to be introduced some time this month in
the state legislature.
ILLINOIS
SB 592, the Scholarship Schools Pilot Program Act,
a pilot school choice program for a sub-district of Chicago, passed the
Senate, but was blocked in the spring by the House Education Committee.
It did come up for a full vote in the House in the fall, but was defeated.
HB 890, the Illinois Educational Choice Act, which would have provided
$1,000 scholarships for all Illinois students to attend public, private,
or religiously-affiliated schools, has been reintroduced every year since
1989, and was again defeated in the spring.
KANSAS
HB 2514 and SB 184 were introduced in the Kansas
legislature and are being considered this January in education committees
in both the House and Senate. HB 2514 would allow students attending
non-public schools to obtain books on the same basis as students attending
public schools. SB 184 is voucher bill which would allow parents
to enroll their children in the school of their choice, public, or non-public,
and receive a voucher worth $3,600 toward the payment of tuition.
MARYLAND
In January, 1993, Governor Schaefer proposed a modest
choice program that would provide education vouchers to low-income Baltimore
students. The proposal met with stiff opposition from the NEA-affiliate
in Maryland and subsequently died in committee. TEACH Maryland anticipates
greater educational choice legislative activity during the 1995 legislative
session.
MICHIGAN
In July, Michigan’s legislature abolished property
tax support for public schools, creating both a $6.5 million gap in the
education budget for 1994-’95 and an opportunity for education reform in
the state. Since Michigan’s constitution contains unusually severe
restrictions that prohibit parental choice plans involving private schools,
reform efforts have focused, for the time being, on the public school system.
TEACH Michigan and other genuine choice supporters there see such efforts
as only the first step to real reform, of course. Governor Engler
pushed for inter-district public school choice and a sweeping charter school
plan which was vehemently opposed by the Michigan Education Association.
On November 29, Engler agreed to a compromise charter school plan that
is considerably more restrictive than his original plan. The final
compromise version of an inter-district public school choice program remains
uncertain. In March voters will decide whether to restore Michigan’s
education budget through a Republican-backed tax package that features
a sales tax increase or through a Democrat-backed package featuring an
income tax increase.
NEW JERSEY
Jersey City Mayor Bret Schundler has openly declared
his intention to help bring choice in education to Jersey City families.
He is currently drafting a comprehensive choice proposal for the city.
It is expected that the state legislature will be asked to consider the
proposal some time in 1994.
NEW YORK
A unique voucher proposal, S. 5955, has been introduced
in the form of companion bills in New York’s Senate and Assembly.
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 third in the state
will qualify for vouchers, each worth about $1,700 (which represents about
20% of the cost per student in New York’s public schools). In the
second year, families with income among the lowest two-thirds 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).
Finally, it 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).
OHIO
In December, 1992, the Governor’s Commission on Educational
Choice issued its recommendation that a number of pilot education voucher
programs be created throughout the state. The proposal, known as
the Ohio Scholarship Plan, has the support of Governor Voinovich.
It was introduced in the state’s Senate (SB 236) and House (HB 564) in
November, 1993. HB 564 is now stalled in the House education committee,
which is dominated by legislators opposed to parental choice. Supporters
had hoped to have the bill assigned to the House finance committee.
SB 236 has gotten friendlier treatment in the Senate education committee,
which began public hearings on the measure January 11, 1994.
OREGON
Oregonians for School Choice have obtained more
than 10,000 signatures and are continuing to sponsor a petition drive to
obtain the 89,000 signatures necessary to get the Oregon K-12 Scholarship
Plan on the ballot in 1994.
PENNSYLVANIA
Companion bills HB 1655 and SB 1090, both comprehensive
choice proposals, incorporating the plan know as the “G.I. Bill For Kids,”
were introduced in the state legislature.
PUERTO RICO
Law 71, a pilot voucher program, was signed into
law by Governor Pedro Rosselló on September 3, 1993. This
is the first truly comprehensive (including all legitimately recognized
schools, public, private, religious) school choice plan covering U.S. citizens.
Families whose annual income is $18,000 or less are eligible to participate
in the program. The vouchers are worth $1,500 per student.
Law 18, a community schools program, was signed into law as well.
Implementation of the sweeping education reform package, spearheaded by
Education Secretary José Torres, has met fierce opposition from
Puerto Rico’s teachers’ unions. In its first year it is providing
Puerto Rico’s parents greater educational freedom than exists anywhere
in the United States, and clearly deserves to be recognized as the trail-blazer
it is among American jurisdictions.
Fr. José A. Basols, SCH.P., has kept the Blum Center apprised of these vital events, and we appreciate that.
SOUTH DAKOTA
HB 1242 was introduced in the South Dakota
legislature and would have provided $1,000 for each student in non-public
schools whose parents’ income did not exceed $20,000. The bill was
referred by the House education committee to the summer session of the
House and Senate legislative research council. Hearings were held
with no specific recommendations made. Because of the flooding in
eastern South Dakota, 1994 will not see relevant legislative activity,
but a voucher bill will be submitted again in the 1995 legislative session.
WISCONSIN
Companion education tax credit bills (numbered
SB 310 and AB 627) were introduced in the Wisconsin legislature in May,
1993. The measures would enable parents to recover expenses incurred
in the education of their children (to a maximum of $1,000 per child),
including tuition at private and parochial schools. The bills have
been referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Tax Exemptions. A
public hearing for SB 310/AB 627 was held on August 3, 1993. No further
action has occurred since then.
On September 30, 1993, a lawsuit was filed in federal
court by Landmark Legal Foundation on behalf of four Milwaukee families
who, although eligible for participation in the Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program (MPCP), have been consigned to a waiting list due to a lack of
space in the small number of non-religious private schools allowed in the
program. The lawsuit contends that the exclusion of religious schools
violates the parents’ constitutional rights to free exercise of religion
(1st Amendment) and to equal protection under the laws (14th Amendment).
The ground-breaking MPCP, begun in 1990, makes state funds available to
a limited number of low-income students who wish to attend private schools.
State Rep. Annette “Polly” Williams, who led the legislative battle for
the MPCP, supports the legal action.
- View
a different issue of the Freedom Report
Return to Blum Center
Home Page
|
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 |
 |