|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find information on recent parental freedom activities around the nation, several important documents lately released, a case of battering the truth in Racine, Wisconsin, David Kirkpatrick's larger look at EFM's reckless use of that truth in his "Don't Let Them Get Away With It," and the Editor's View on markets as servants of parental love for their children.
COLORADO
On February 6 the Colorado House Education Committee
killed a bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Hagedorn, which would have set up
two privately funded pilot voucher programs for at-risk students
so they could attend private and parochial schools. The bill's purpose
was to test whether or not such programs are indeed helpful to at-risk
students. Opponents of the bill, taking the infamous church-state smoke
screen to a new extreme, said that the proposal would have intermingled
the state and religion because it would have required state universities
to study how well students learn in religious schools. (Rocky Mountain
News, 02/07/98)
FLORIDA
Representative Steve Wise, at the request of House Speaker
Dan Webster, has withdrawn his private school voucher proposal, "PEEP,"
from consideration in the Education Innovation Committee for the time being.
(See Freedom Report #54 for details on PEEP.) The request was made
after the Committee had decided to table a similar voucher bill in the
middle of February. Both Wise and Webster have stated that withdrawing
PEEP does not signify the end of the school choice debate for 1998. An
aide to Webster has said, rather, that he wants more time for people to
consider Wise's bill, along with other school choice proposals, before
any further action is taken. Action may yet be taken during the legislature's
special session, which opened on March 3 and runs for 60 days. One proponent
of school choice, Rep. Carlos Lacasa, said, "I hope it doesn't slow down.
I want to go to a voucher plan so bad you can't imagine." (Miami Herald,
02/17/98)
IDAHO
The Idaho House's Revenue and Taxation Committee defeated
a $1,500 private school tuition tax credit proposal last month. Although
the headline in Education Week read,
"Idaho Tax-Credit Proposal Falls Flat," the final vote was 9-8 against the program, which hardly constitutes a severe defeat. A similar proposal passed the Idaho House last year but failed in the Senate. (Education Week, 02/18/98)
NEW MEXICO
Unsurprisingly, the first attempts at genuine school
choice legislation supported by Governor Gary Johnson did not pass the
New Mexico legislature this session. Last November Gov. Johnson revealed
a package of educational reform goals for New Mexico which included statewide
parental choice in education by the year 2002 (see Freedom Report
#54). The legislative attempts made this session included two voucher bills.
The first, HB 231, was sponsored by Rep. W.C. "Dub" Williams and it would
have phased in universal school choice over a number of years. It died
early in the session. The second was targeted at low-income students and
died more recently. The governor's office regards these results as successful
first steps in their drive to achieve parental freedom in education. (Information
provided by the office of Gov. Gary Johnson.)
NEW YORK
Last summer a group of school choice proponents decided
as an experiment to offer scholarships to all students entering grades
1-6 at the Giffen Memorial Elementary School so they could attend private
schools of their parents' choice. The organizers of the scholarship program,
known as A Better Choice (ABC), picked Giffen because its students' test
performance was worst among all elementary schools in the Albany area.
ABC says that 105 of 458 eligible students took advantage of the offer.
(The school district disagrees, stating that only 77 students left.)
The group which organized ABC now claims that its experiment was a success, because it demonstrates how genuine school choice does not destroy public schools but provides them with the impetus to make genuinely effective reforms. Since July, Giffen school acquired a new principal, two new administrators, and twelve new replacement teachers. The new administration has enacted a comprehensive improvement plan which aims to increase parental involvement, professional development, and student behavior.
ABC's Executive Director Tom Carroll said, "We had two goals from the beginning. One was to help give students a choice. And the other was to give the school district a kick in the pants." Mr. Fritz Steiger, President of CEO America, a private scholarship organization based in Arkansas, said that as a result of the ABC program, a number of groups from cities around the country have approached him, asking him to replicate the Giffen experiment in their cities as soon as next fall. (Education Week, 02/11/98)
OHIO
On March 2 the Ohio State Controlling Board agreed, on
a vote of 4-3, to cover a 41% cost overrun in the Cleveland Scholarship
Program. The program was budgeted at $7.1 million this year, but in fact
cost about $10 million. However, Mr. Thomas Needles, education aide to
Governor Voinovich, blamed the overrun on faulty budget assumptions, and
said that the Governor's office remains "fully committed to the success
of the program." The largest portion of the overrun was due to problems
with transportation, described more fully in last month's Freedom Report.
In some cases, private school tuition costs were higher than expected.
Also, the program was originally budgeted for 2,500 students, when in fact
3,000 participated. (Plain Dealer, 03/03/98)
As a tribute to the successful nature of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, the Wall Street Journal presented an editorial on February 23, "A Chance to Equip My Child." This piece, by Amity Shlaes of the paper's editorial board, takes an extensive look at how the Cleveland Scolarship Program has helped one particular inner-city black family. Thanks to the Cleveland Program Mr. Delvoland Shakespeare no longer needs to live in an attic so that he can send his two sons to a local Catholic school — Our Lady of Peace.
Mr. Shakespeare had decided before the Cleveland Scholarship program existed that Our Lady of Peace was the best place for his children, because when he visited the local elementary school, he saw it surrounded by drug dealers, winos, and prostitutes. Our Lady of Peace provided his children with a number of things not otherwise available to them: civility, lessons in phonics, and computer skills. The Shakespeares now have the chance to equip their children. The editorial pithily remarks: "Sometime in the coming weeks, Ohio's State Supreme Court will have to decide whether it can stand to see its citizens this happy."
For additional evidence of the success of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, please refer to "Recent Acquisitions" below, where we describe a recent study by the Public Policy Forum of Milwaukee on Milwaukee's and Cleveland's school choice programs.
VERMONT
Oral arguments were presented before the Vermont Supreme
Court on March 10 for the Chittenden school disctict case. See Freedom
Reports #54 and 39 for more information on the Chittenden case.
WASHINGTON STATE
As part of the largest financial settlement of state
campaign-finance abuses in Washington, the Washington Education Association
(WEA) agreed to return $5 to each of its 65,000 members. A total penalty
of $430,000, including penalties and legal fees, puts a formal end to a
lengthy dispute over allegations that the WEA had intentionally circumvented
a 1992 state law disallowing it from using regular membership dues for
political purposes without annual, written permission from members. The
WEA apologized in a February 27 statement and acknowledged that it had
failed "to fully understand the campaign-finance-reporting law and to make
sure we filed every report correctly." (Education Week, 03/11/98)
WISCONSIN
Oral arguments were presented before Wisconsin's Supreme
Court on March 4 in the case which challenges the constitutionality of
expanding the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to include religious
schools. Readers of the Freedom Report will remember that since
the last time this case was presented before the Wisconsin Supreme Court
— in 1996, when their 3-3 decision sent the case back down to a lower court
— one of the justices who voted against the expansion of MPCP has been
replaced. We hope that the replacement, Justice Patrick Crooks, will bring
a more enlightened viewpoint to the decision currently being made. The
Supreme Court is expected to release its decision by this summer.
A 27-page report by the Greater Milwaukee Education Trust was released on February 16 which states that even though the Milwaukee Public Schools system's spending has increased 66% over the past ten years, it has not been able to improve its graduation rates, attendance rates, or overall grade-point average during that time. The report says, "Billions of dollars, state-of-the-art school reforms and five committed superintendents in 10 years have only had limited success in turning our schools around." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 02/17/98)
NATIONAL NEWS
According to the results of the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study, released on February 24, U.S. 12th-graders ranked near
the bottom of the industrialized world in international math and science.
Moreover, some of the Asian countries which easily beat American scores
in the lower grades — Singapore, Korea, Japan — chose not to participate
in the study of 12th-graders. Among the 21 countries participating in the
12th grade study, American students only scored higher than Cyprus and
South Africa in mathematics, falling 100 points behind the leader, the
Netherlands. In science Americans beat out Italy, Hungary and Lithuania
in addition to Cyprus and South Africa. Among the top-performing 10% to
20% of each country's students, America scored second-to-last in math and
last in science.
Has anyone seen Poor Truth lately? Has anyone asked how school children are supposed to love and honor that truth if they see teachers and teachers' unions defying it?
In February, in Racine, Wisconsin, members of the teachers' union suffered a sudden "attack" of an unspecified "sickness," leaving thousands of youngsters without school. Schools were forced to close because of this "sickout," in which more than 60% of teachers in the targeted schools called in "sick." What they were "sick" about is the fact that they and the school district have not been able to agree on a new contract. Of course, there is no right for teachers to strike in Wisconsin. State law forbids it. Even the state Superintendent of Schools said the teachers should separate their teaching responsibilities from their contract talks.
Accordingly, the school district sent the teachers' union a "cease and desist" order to stop the strike, a strike posing as a sudden, widespread epidemic of what some call "frustration flu." The job action, the district said, is "...in violation of the Racine agreement." The leader of the Racine teachers' union denied this, asserting that the teachers are "legitimately using their sick leave."
So, what seemed obvious to any objective observer — the Racine teachers were striking, in violation of state law and their own bargaining agreement — was baldly denied: "Union officials insist that absences have mounted as individual teachers, frustrated over working conditions, decided not to work when they felt ill." And, in classic illustration of how a union monopoly can perch on top of and exploit an educational finance monopoly (EFM), it turns out that under the prevailing contract, the union itself is the agency which is to test whether anyone is not using their sick leave correctly. "Foxes and henhouses, anyone?" (Foregoing citations from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/19/98.)
Compared to their peers around the nation, and compared to the average income of Wisconsin citizens, Wisconsin and Racine teachers are already compensated quite well. Wisconsin teachers are ranked sixteenth in pay scale, while Wisconsin citizens' income is at about the middle of the states. Wisconsin taxes are among the very highest in the nation. These facts may raise some doubt as to the validity of Racine teachers' contract grievances. However, the point of this commentary has nothing to do with whether Racine teachers are adequately paid. There are legitimate processes for settling that issue.
The point of the commentary, rather, is this: first, when the law prohibits strikes; when processes exist for settling negotiations; and when wider democratic policy processes exist to change the law if you believe it unjust; then strikes — and a strike is a strike is a strike, no matter how often you call it "frustration flu" — are illegal, should not begin, and should stop when challenged. That is what the rule of law is all about. No one is exempt. Second, brazen word games and euphemisms meant to hide ugly realities are themselves attacks on truth and the very concept of truth. Third, when illegalities and untruths are committed by those to whom youth are entrusted, then trust is broken most profoundly.
These simple realities were seen clearly by Eugene Kane,
a Journal Sentinel columnist. In the 2/26/98 edition he described
a fictional exchange between a teacher striker and a student now back in
class.
"Teacher: 'I see. Well, sometimes professionals are forced to make certain decisions about their careers, Spike, and sometimes those choices are hard ones.'
"Spike: 'Yeah, but my father says how are we kids 'sposed
to learn about being honest and having character and stuff when our teachers
think they can lie and break the law . . .?'"
Recent Acquisitions
¨ The Public Policy Foundation of Milwaukee released a report called "Choice School Accountability: A Consensus of Views in Ohio and Wisconsin" last month. One of the report's findings is that "an overwhelming majority of taxpayers in both Ohio and Wisconsin approve of the concept of private school choice." (76%) Most taxpayers also support expansion of school choice to all children regardless of income (53%). 83% believed that religious schools should be allowed to participate in choice programs. The report additionally found that a vast majority of taxpayers think choice schools ought to provide an array of information about themselves so parents could make informed decisions.
¨ The Heritage Foundation released the 1998 issue of "School Choice Programs: What's Happening in the States" by Nina Shokraii and Sarah Youssef. For copies, please contact the Heritage Foundation at (202) 546-4400.
The opponents of parental freedom in education blow smoke vigorously and tirelessly, as Freedom Report readers know. Those smoke screens aim to hide a fundamental reality which freedom in education can empower and inspire. And what reality is that? The reality obscured by the smoke screens surrounding the question of parental freedom in education is the reality of parental and guardian love for the children in their care. The effort to achieve parental freedom in education rests on the understanding that it is appropriate to let parental love be a decisive definer of educational approaches. It would empower parents to exercise their love in decisive and sustained ways by empowering that love throughout the educational process, including particularly the selection of the educational environment most desired by the parents for the education their children will receive. This parental love as a driver and motor for educational achievement is disrupted and broken by educational finance monopoly (EFM), which monopoly in effect takes the child away from the parents and says "We, the faceless, unknown persons in the educational monopoly structures will take charge of these youngsters and we will administer to them an education reflecting our values and self-interests, not parental love."
As I use the term "love" here and elsewhere it simply means the disposition to do for another, to do things for another even at the sacrifice of oneself. And that is the normal attitude with which parents and guardians view their children: a loving attitude, a loving regard and care, a dedication to the welfare of those youngsters beyond even the concern that parents have for their own welfare.
Thus it is that parents and guardians have a natural inclination to want and to seek out the good for those children. I am not speaking as a utopian here. I am aware of the fact that not all parents fit such a model, not all are perfect. I am aware of the fact, in addition, that there are some dysfunctional parents who are destructive of children's welfare and perhaps even view the children as obstacles to their own satisfaction. But rational public policy does not build the general system of education for the aberrant, as I have often noted. Rational public policy does not quarantine the healthy and give license to the diseased. A rational society neutralizes the negative potential of aberrant parents, but it builds the general system of education respectful of the general reality of parental and guardian love and regard for children.
What better motive could there possibly be to harness as the basic determinant of key educational decisions? Parental and guardian love of and care for the children under their sway leads to a natural presumption: that parents, wanting and responsible for the selection of educational environments for their children, are more likely than other actors to seek the best for the child. That seems to be an obvious expectation if one begins with the realization that of all the persons and agencies within society, none will be as devoted to the welfare of specific children as the parents and guardians of those children. That is the most fundamental rationale for parental freedom in education via school choice without financial penalty: parents and guardians, who are most committed to the overall welfare of the children, are for that very reason the most likely agents to strive mightily to choose what is beneficial for the child. No other social agent or agency will have or can have the same dedication to and concern for the child's welfare. Thus, comprehensive devotion to that child's welfare leads to a concern for more than just intellectual and skill preparation and education. It leads naturally, also, to a concern for the moral environment within which such education will occur. EFM, because it necessarily is devoted to its own self-interest, and the maintenance of a monolithic educational structure, cannot provide for the kind of moral sensitivities that are a natural concern of parents when those parents have a decisive role to play in the selection of educational environment.
Today's educational finance monopoly aims to break the parents' capacity to choose. In that monopoly the child serves the system, rather than the system serving the child, and this is the primary reason why parental freedom in education is an imperative for a responsible society. There are many other reasons for wanting school choice. The standard reasons include the desirability of comparison and competition, and the desirability of a more efficient educational delivery system than monopoly can ever provide. All such reasons are important but secondary. The primary reason for seeking school choice and parental freedom in education is to restore to the parents of the United States the capacity to express their natural love for their children through the process of education. It is an unjust and warped reality that we presently confront. It is a reality which in effect cuts off the flow of parental love manifesting itself in the form of educational concern by making it impossible for most American parents to choose freely the educational environment they think best for their child. That is the reality today. That is the reality that needs to be replaced with a new reality: parental freedom in education via school choice without financial penalty. That is what heroes are working for in all the states, in all the political jurisdictions. Justice in education calls for giving parents and guardians the capacity fully to express their love for their children. This basic justice consists of enabling parents to fulfill their natural responsibilities.
And that is the point at which "markets" enter the picture. Markets — the need for schools to be seen competitively, so parents can compare and finally choose, the need, in other words for a variety or "market" of schools — enter the picture as servants of parental and guardian love for the child. If that love is to be exercised in action, those parents and guardians need an array of educational alternatives, and information about the alternatives sufficient to enable rational choices.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 |
 |