|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will encounter a variety of state-level school choice developments, a picture of several national efforts, a potpourri of Blum Center news and new documents, the Editor's View on D.C. smoke, and David Kirkpatrick's commentary on "A Foolish Consistency."
ARIZONA
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham
Keegan has officially put her support behind the private school tuition
tax credit law passed on April 7 by the Arizona legislature. (See Freedom
Report #46.) Keegan announced on October 28 that she was intervening
in the lawsuit which was filed against the law by the local teachers unions
in September. The law, which will allow tax credits of up to $500 for those
who donate to organizations that fund private and religious school tuition
scholarships, is scheduled to take effect in 1998. Oral arguments for the
lawsuit have been scheduled for December 18. (Arizona Republic,
10/29/97)
CALIFORNIA
Governor Pete Wilson held a press conference in Sacramento
on November 13 to announce the successful completion of the signature drive
to qualify the Campaign Reform Initiative for the June, 1998, California
ballot. Gov. Wilson was joined by Mark Bucher, head of the initiative,
and Pat Rooney, longtime advocate of education reform. Mentioned in Freedom
Report #49, the initiative would require labor unions and employers
to obtain annual written and signed consent forms from union employees
before deducting any money from their salaries for political purposes.
Proponents of the initiative had a goal of raising about 700,000 signatures,
but more than 740,000 signatures were actually collected in favor of placing
the initiative on ballot next June. It requires 433,269 approved signatures
to get an intitiative on the ballot.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted October 9-13 showed 82% support for the initiative, a CNN/USA Today poll of October 3-5 showed 72% support, and a Tarrence Group poll of October 7-9 showed 67% support. Despite the deviation between these polls, together they provide clear indications of majority support.
Citizens of the state of Washington approved a similar ballot initiative in 1992 with more than 70% voting in favor of the initiative. Before that initiative was approved, more than 48,000 teachers were paying for the political activity of their unions. After the initiative was passed, only 8,000 teachers continued contributing. Look for the results of this initiative next summer. (Information provided by the American Education Reform Foundation and the office of Secretary of State in California.)
DELAWARE
Representative Deborah H. Capano introduced a bill into
the Delaware House on June 25 which would provide scholarships worth up
to $2,700 per child to offset the costs of private school tuition. HB 367
would provide annual scholarships to the parent or guardian of any Delaware
student who attends an accredited non-public school, and whose public school
district has chosen to participate in the program by vote of school board
or referendum. Also, the scholarship program would be phased in one grade
year at a time, starting with First grade in the first year, until all
grades are eligible after twelve years. Individual scholarship amounts
would vary based on family income, with a maximum value of $2,700. Rep.
Capano believes that this program "can turn things around by providing
Delaware families the full choice in education they deserve." She stated,
"Reform cannot come from the good intentions of government. It can only
come from the changes that consumer choice, competition, and free market
will bring." (School Reform News, 11/97)
MICHIGAN
The Michigan Education Association (MEA) has been fined
$61,651 by an administrative law judge for violating the state's campaign
finance law. On October 13 the judge ruled that the MEA had failed to collect
payment for $62,000 worth of polling data that it collected and shared
with the Michigan House Democratic Fund, which helped elect Democrats to
the state House. Michigan law disallows labor unions from making donations
or loans to support political candidates. Anne Corgan, director of the
compliance and rules division of the office of Secretary of State for Michigan,
stated, "Our theory is that MEA's inaction to collect the debt was forbearance,
and thus a loan." MEA officials said it would appeal the decision. (Education
Week, 11/05/97)
VIRGINIA
A private school tuition tax credit plan for Loudoun
County is on its way to the county's Board of Supervisors for consideration.
The plan was developed over a month ago by the county's Tax Equity Committee
in an effort to relieve Loudoun County's overcrowding problem. Last year
their enrollment was 21,733. This year enrollment in the county is 23,873,
and they expect an enrollment of 25,917 next year. The tax credit plan
would provide credits of up to $1,250 per child with a maximum credit of
$3,000 for a family each year. The Tax Equity Committee resolved on November
3 to send the plan to the county's Board of Supervisors, on a vote of 5-4.
Mrs. Pat Grigsby of the Tax Equity Committee estimates that the plan would
save the county about $4,150 for each student that participated. (Washington
Times, 11/04/97)
WASHINGTON D.C.
The "Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Act" has
been pulled from the floor of Congress until a later time, probably in
early 1998, when proponents can solidify even greater support for it against
its opponents, which include President Clinton.
Last month we reported that the Act was passed by the House as part of the District's Appropriations bill, but that the Senate's version of the spending bill did not include it. Congress has been under pressure to pass the Appropriations bill since beginning of its fiscal year occurred on October 1. Delay in the passage of the spending bill has so far cost the District millions of dollars, and part of the delay has been due to debate over the inclusion of the Scholarship Act.
Because the House version of the spending bill differed so greatly from the Senate version, House Speaker Newt Gingrich directed Rep. Thomas Davis to revise the bill so that it could pass more easily. In the revised version of the Appropriations bill, the Scholarship Act was rewritten as a stand-alone bill that the President could easily line-item veto without killing the entire Appropriations bill. With this deal having been made, Senator Edward Kennedy, who has blocked Senate bills in the past on account of vouchers, said that he would not filibuster the newly written bill. He would, however, vote against it, he stated at that time. The Senate was therefore able to pass the compromise version by voice vote on November 9, late Sunday night.
Yet after the Senate-approved version of the Appropriations bill came to the House floor, its last stop before the President's office, Rep. Dick Armey pulled the Scholarship Act from the package. Contrary to what was reported in the Wall Street Journal on November 14, the bill is still fully alive. As stated above, proponents will delay further action on the bill until a time when greater support for it can be secured in all arenas. (Washington Post, 10/29/97; information also provided by the American Education Reform Foundation and Nina Shokraii of the Heritage Foundation)
NATIONAL NEWS
In addition to the voucher proposal for children in the
District of Columbia itself, Congress was considering two other proposals
this session which would promote parental freedom on a national level.
Neither, however, was able to pass Congress this session.
The first of these was the"A+ Education Savings Account" bill, authored by Senator Paul Coverdell and co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Torricelli. It would have allowed families to put up to $2,500 of after-tax dollars into a savings account each year for K-12 education expenses, including private and religious school tuition costs. The accounts would then have earned tax-free interest. The plan was originally introduced as part of the national tax plan last summer, but was removed after President Clinton threatened to veto the entire package on account of the plan. Versions of the plan were then re-introduced this fall as independent bills in both the House and the Senate.
The plan was sponsored in the House this fall by Rep. Newt Gingrich, along with numerous co-sponsors, where it passed on a vote of 230-198 on October 23. In the Senate, however, opponents of the Coverdell A+ Accounts performed a successful filibuster on the bill, likening it to a voucher program and arguing that it would draw money and students away from public schools. Proponents of the bill failed to get cloture on it on two separate occasions — on October 31 and on November 4 — which would have halted the filibuster and brought the bill up for a vote. Although a simple majority of senators voted in favor of ending the filibuster on both occasions — 56-41 on October 31 and 56-44 on November 4 — the Senate requires a 60-vote majority to break a filibuster. Sen. Coverdell remarked that "come February 1998, this bill will be back before us, and we will ultimately secure passage of it." (USA Today, 11/05/97; Education Week, 11/12/97)
The second bill with national scope was the "Helping Empower Low-Income Parents" (HELP) scholarship proposal, HR 2746, sponsored chiefly by Rep. Frank Riggs and additionally by Republican leaders and Democrat Representative Floyd Flake. This bill would have allowed school districts from across the country, with the approval of their states, to use money from the Title VI omnibus block grant to fund vouchers for low-income students. The vouchers could have been used at any public, private, or parochial school.
Key lawmakers put the bill on a fast track after an October 24 committee vote on it was cancelled. The House voted 214-198 on October 31 in favor of letting the bill come to the floor without a committee hearing on it. Then on November 4 the House voted 228-191 against passage of HR 2746. A House Republican aide said in reaction to the vote that "the unions threw an extraordinarily large amount of resources into defeating this." Had it passed, the bill would have faced opposition in the Senate and a fairly certain veto from President Clinton. Rep. Flake stated, "The movement is definitely not going to stop because of that vote," while Rep. Riggs said, "We will be back for another debate on another day. It's only a matter of time before the members that are opposing this will eventually succumb to public pressure." (Education Week, 11/12/97, 11/05/97)
Announcements
¨ Next month's Freedom
Report will be dedicated to our regular year-end summary of state and
federal school choice news.
¨ Please note that this month the Freedom Report includes an order form for Blum Center materials. If you are interested in receiving particular materials from the Blum Center, please fill out the form and return it.
¨ David Kirkpatrick, Distinguished Fellow at the Blum Center, announces the release of his latest book, School Choice: The Idea That Will Not Die. The book is a collection of David's writings on school choice from 1992 to 1996. It is available in paperback from Blue Bird Publishing, 2266 S. Dobson, #275, Mesa, AZ 85202; tel. (602) 831-1829; toll free (888) 672-2275; fax (602) 831-1829. The publisher is Cheryl Gorder, and the list price is $12.95.
¨ Fans of David Kirkpatrick will be pleased to know that he was also recently interviewed by George Clowes, Managing Editor of the Heartland Institute's School Reform News. In the interview, appearing in the November issue (Vol. 1, No. 9), David responds to the critics of vouchers. In it he says, "Opponents of vouchers always talk about schools and systems. What about the kids?" School Reform News can be obtained from the Heartland Institute at this telephone number: (847)202-3060.
¨ For those interested in the constitutionality of school choice, the Heritage Foundation has released a background pamphlet on the issue, written by Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice: "School Choice, the Law, and the Constitution: A Primer for Parents and Reformers." The Heritage Foundation can be contacted at this telephone number: (202) 546-4400.
Acquisitions
¨ We recently received
and warmly recommend Everson Revisited: Religion, Education, & the
Law at the Crossroads, edited by Jo Renee Formicola and Hubert Morken,
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 4720 Boston Way, Landham, MD
20706, tel. (800) 462-6420. It presents an excellent array of commentaries
on the substance and implications of the 1947 Everson decision,
a decision that, for good and ill, established many of the legal categories
surrounding parental freedom in education.
¨ The Blum Center has on file a copy of Representative Capano's HB 367, from Delaware, as explained in detail above in the Delaware state analysis.
Noteworthy Items
¨ Nina Shokraii, Education
Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., has recently
authored a number of policy papers and executive memoranda which are well
written and very useful to those watching the issue of parental freedom
in education, especially activity in the federal legislature. The topics
she has covered include Senator Coverdell's A+ Education Savings Accounts
plan (see National News above), Representative Frank Riggs' HELP Scholarship
plan (also in National News), and "How Members of Congress Practice School
Choice." She has also co-authored a study comparing public and private
education in the District of Columbia. To obtain copies of these reports,
please contact the Heritage Foundation at (202) 546-4400.
¨ We call attention to an article which appeared in the October 29 issue of Education Week: "Science Proves a Big Mystery to U.S. Pupils." The article states that at the end of October, after five months of delay, the nation received the results of the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test in science. The results: among the 4th and 8th graders who took the test, only 29% were assessed as being at or above a "proficient" level of understanding. Only about 21% of 12th graders were deemed "proficient" or "advanced" in science. 43% of 12th graders were not even at a "basic" level of achievement. A third of all 4th graders and 39% of 8th graders were below the "basic" level.
The same issue of Education Week contains an advertisement from Bob Chase, President of the National Educational Association (NEA), which calls for "structure, discipline, and standards" in public schools, but which nonetheless roundly rejects school choice as a solution to the educational ills of America.
Why do I refer to the major arguments against parental freedom and school choice as "smoke screens" rather than serious arguments? I do that when evidence and objective analysis have proved an argument to be fallacious, but conscious people continue consciously to use it. That kind of behavior can only be described as a smoke screen, that is, an attempt to mislead and misdirect a public discussion which the smoke-spewer knows will be lost if conducted on true grounds.
The so-far failed Congressional efforts to advance parental freedom a tiny bit this month have provoked from the educational finance monopoly's political allies a ferocious, even bizarre barrage of smoke screens. How else to describe, for example, the words of Representative William Clay (D. - MO) as he led opposition to a bill that would have permitted states to provide scholarships for the poor to attend private schools with some of the federal money states already receive for education. Representative Clay said, among other things, that passage of such a bill would have sent a "clear and chilling signal that Republicans have declared war on public education" (Washington Post, November 5, 1997). Such comments are, on their face, extraordinary for their extreme character. "Declared war on public education" sounds like either the statement of a person cut loose from contact with reality, or the statement of a desperate and conscious source of smoke screens. The tiny effort Clay was attacking was aimed first at helping youngsters who most need help; second, at a beginning erosion of educational finance monopoly (EFM) which damages all schools, governmental and private; and never at public schools, except to help them. It would have encouraged improvement in the public schools by introducing them finally, though in a minor way, to a condition of comparison and competition, which, in normal spheres of human existence is thought to encourage better rather than worse behavior. The proponents of parental freedom and school choice in the current Congress have no notion of "declaring war on public education"; they have no notion of trying to undermine public schools; they recognize instead that the public schools are themselves victims of educational finance monopoly because they are sheltered from normal stimuli to achieve excellence. To say that these wee efforts on the part of Republicans and a few Democratic colleagues represent a "war on public education" is simply to engage in the most extreme, smoke-belching commentary that one can imagine.
Another example comes from Representative Matthew G. Martinez (D. - CA). His astounding comment was that the proposal in question, in truth intended to help a few poor children around the country to achieve a decent educational experience, would "leave our public schools in ruins in search of a panacea for a few" (Washington Post, November 5, 1997). Again, we find the most extreme commentary used to describe what was at best a very, very modest effort to assist a few parents and their children. And, again, we find the scare tactic smoke screen: any erosion of EFM must be seen as an attack on public schools, when any objective observer knows well the public schools would, as educational providers, benefit from a vibrant independent sector. (See, for example, Alveda King's excellent survey of other democracies' experiences with competition in education [Washington Times, November 5, 1997]).
There was a parallel effort on the part of Senator Paul Coverdell and colleagues to create a new savings account program which would permit parents to set aside up to $2,500.00 a year and then let that money accrue interest without taxation, and later be used for purposes of enhancing the educational experiences of their children. Again, this most benign and elementary beginning of parental freedom in this country was denounced as "bad education policy and bad tax policy and a GOP giveaway to the wealthy" by the Democratic opponents in the House of Representatives (Washington Times, November 5, 1997). This particular attack is one of the most disgusting of all the attacks on the idea of parental choice. It is thoroughly rebutted in "Those Wicked Windfalls for the Wealthy" (Freedom Report #29, November 17, 1995). Stripped of smoke, what this charge of "giveaway to the wealthy" really says is this: "We [EFM's defenders] have made it impossible for you to assist parents generally. If you attempt to get the parental freedom ball rolling by using a program for which only some parents will qualify, we will attack you by saying your program will help only a few, or provide a 'windfall for the wealthy.' We force you into partial configurations, and then attack you for partiality." That is cheek, that is gall, that is the kind of hokum people will perpetrate only if they judge the press to be incapable of seeing the truth, or unwilling to expose the fallacies.
These are simply a few examples of the smoke screens provoked by events of the last week or two in Washington. They could be multiplied a hundred-fold, and in each instance would demonstrate further the increasing extremity of attacks on parental freedom and school choice. They also illustrate why the term "smoke screen" is not an unduly pejorative observation when applied to the statements of such people. As I noted in Chapter 10 of Financing Education: The Struggle Between Governmental Monopoly and Parental Control (Transaction Publishers, 1996), when we encounter people in argument our normal instinct would be and should be to engage those people with the expectation of learning from them, and in the hope that we might help them see whatever part of the truth we ourselves possessed. Such a normal instinct would be badly followed in the case at hand, however. The rhetorical defenses of EFM are not well-honed survivors of intellectual exchange. They are simply tools designed to achieve victory by blinding non-committed and innocent bystanders. Victory for EFM defenders means keeping in place the monopolistic policies which provide material benefits to those who are making the false arguments, and at all costs preventing parents and guardians from participating in the allocation of tax dollars dedicated to the education of their children.n
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 |
 |