|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will encounter important state-level and congressional developments, the Editor's Comment on a "flawed concept," David Kirkpatrick's instructive survey of growing support for parental freedom, and the Editor's View of the ACLU's only partial dedication to liberty.
CALIFORNIA
Proposition 226, the Campaign Reform Initiative which
will appear on a state ballot this coming June, has gained the attention
of the Wall Street Journal and Britain's Economist. (For
more information on the initiative, see Freedom Report #55.) The
Wall Street Journal (03/18/98) describes Prop. 226 as "a powerful
threat to labor's political clout." The Economist (04/04/98) reports
that if it passes, "the AFL-CIO contends that it would cut labour's campaign
spending in California by 80%." The proponents and the opponents of Prop.
226 each claim that they will spend about $10 million on the campaign.
Governor Wilson supports the initiative.
Assembly Republican Leader Curt Pringle's "Opportunity Scholarships" bill was due to receive a hearing in the legislature on April 22. For more details on the bill, see Freedom Report #55. Gov. Wilson supports this initiative as well.
A Wall Street banker, corporate takeover specialist Theodore J. Forstmann, has announced that he will donate millions of dollars towards the creation of a privately funded voucher program for thousands of underpriviledged Los Angeles children. He says that the Los Angeles program will be a larger version of the program he and Wal-Mart heir John Walton started in Washington, D.C. Richard Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles, says that although the program will be too small to change the schools, nonetheless, "We need a revolution now." He believes that it is "evil to ask a parent to send a child to a school that is a disaster." Forstmann says that he is merely trying to give poor families the same choices as people with money have: "If you are not a rich person, you are at the complete mercy of the education monopoly." To qualify, a family of four must have an income of $35,802 or less. Vouchers will not cover more than 60% of private school tuition. (Los Angeles Times, 03/17/98)
FLORIDA
On April 9, on a vote of 63-49, the Florida House approved
an amended version of H 4383, which would create a limited tuition voucher
program for impoverished and disabled preschoolers. Under this proposal,
almost 29,000 preschoolers would be screened to determine if they were
ready for public kindergarten. Those deemed not ready would be eligible
to receive vouchers for tuition costs at any kindergarten, public or private.
The voucher amounts would be the equivalent of what is spent per pupil
in public kindergarten — about $3,500. The bill now awaits action in the
Senate. (Miami Herald, 03/31/98)
LOUISIANA
A statewide voucher proposal for low-income preschool
students was close to final approval in the Louisiana legislature until
the Senate tabled the bill last week, effectively killing it for this session.
The initiative, HB 117, was created in the House as an amendment to a routine
bill by Representative Charles McDonald. The House approved the amendment
on a vote of 70-31, and the bill to which it was an amendment passed the
House on a vote of 99-3 in the first week of April. The bill then went
to the Senate, where it was finally tabled. Governor Foster had voiced
his support for this initiative. (New Orleans Times Picayune, 04/17/98,
04/09/98)
MICHIGAN
School Choice YES, a Midland group seeking a constitutional
amendment that will allow school choice in the state of Michigan, filed
its petition language with the state's Election Bureau in early March.
Executive Director Gary Glenn has said that his group is undecided as to
whether or not a 1998 ballot initiative is what they want, but filing petition
language allows them to pursue it if they choose. School Choice YES would
have to collect 308,908 signatures by July 6 to get its proposal on this
year's ballot. Glenn believes that there would be certain advantages to
waiting until a 2000 ballot initiative. Although some Republicans have
voiced support for the initiative, others privately said at the beginning
of March that they see no reason to force the debate this year. Governor
John Engler does not endorse the initiative, because he thinks it "needs
a lot of work," according to his spokesman. (Detroit News, 02/26/98;
Detroit Free Press, 03/10/98)
MINNESOTA
A privately funded voucher program has been established
for low-income children in Minneapolis and St. Paul — the KidsFirst Scholarship
Fund. The anchor donors are Ron Eibensteiner, a Twin Cities entrepreneur,
and his wife, Laurie. They are long-time school choice activists. Twin
Cities Federal Bank of Minnesota will be underwriting all administrative
expenses of the program. KidsFirst will provide at least 50 scholarships
worth up to $1,200 each to Twin Cities children who qualify for the federal
free and reduced-price lunch program. Scholarship winners will be chosen
by lottery and will receive the scholarships for grades 1-6 for three consecutive
years. The scholarships can be used for tuition at any private elementary
school in the area. For more information on KidsFirst, contact Margie Lauer
at 612-573-2020.
MISSOURI
Representative Rich Chrismer has introduced HB 1472 in
the Missouri House, the "Challenge Scholarships Bill," which would provide
low-income families with tuition scholarships for their children. The scholarships,
worth about $2,500 to $3,000, could be used for private school tuition
or private tutoring expenses. Eligible grades would include K-12, and families'
total income must not exceed 200% of the poverty line. Co-sponsors include
Reps. Auer, Foster, Levin, Pryor, Purgason, Dolan, Hendrickson, Donovan,
and Loudon. (School Reform News, 03/98)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
On April 1 the New Hampshire Senate passed SB 456, sponsored
by Senator Jim Rubens, on a vote of 16-8. The bill would allow up to five
school districts in the state, with a 2/3 vote in each district, to establish
full parental choice in education. The House version of the bill, HB 1476,
was defeated in February. For more information on these proposals, see
Freedom Reports #56 and 54, or call Judy Alger at 603-786-9562.
NEW YORK
A bill very similar to Arizona's recently passed tax
credit law (see Freedom Report #54) has been introduced in the New
York legislature this year. The "Educational Tax Incentives Bill," A 10240
in the Assembly and S 6686 in the Senate, would permit tax credits of up
to $500 against personal income taxes to offset contributions to a school
tuition organization or for purchase of instructional materials. Both versions
await action.
PENNSYLVANIA
On March 18, on a vote of 7-0, the Southeast Delco school
board approved a tuition voucher program for its 1998-1999 students. Under
the plan approved, the district would reimburse parents each year for sending
their children to private or religious schools at these rates: $250 for
kindergarten students, $500 for students in grades 1-8, and $1,000 for
high school students. The initiative was led by board member Byron Mundy.
Two board members abstained. Few doubt that the plan will soon be tested
in court. (Education Week, 04/01/98)
According to a new poll by the Lincoln Institute of Public Policy Research, support for school choice in Pennsylvania is strong, especially among younger voters. 69% of all voters surveyed favor a school choice plan that includes religious schools, and among voters who were 18 to 34 years old, support rose to 80%. Interestingly, those groups were less inclined to support a school choice program that did not include religious schools. (School Reform News, 03/98)
For an eyebrow-raising look at the position of the Pennsylvania School Counselors Association with regard to parental rights, please see the page three "Editor's Comment: Talk About 'Flawed Concepts!'"
TEXAS
In a poll conducted February 16-26 by Scripps Howard,
"The Texas Poll," 1,001 Texans were asked several questions regarding parental
freedom in education. 54% support legislation that would create a voucher
program for students in low-performing public schools to attend private
schools. 36% oppose such a measure and 10% are undecided. Also, though
this question was put in a way often detrimental to parental freedom, 46%
support all public school students using vouchers to attend private
schools, with 43% opposed and 11% undecided. 66% of Hispanics and 62% of
African-Americans support the limited program; 55% of Hispanics and 53%
of African-Americans support vouchers for all. (Information provided by
CEO America. For copies of the report, call Putting Children First at 512-476-6195.)
The Texas chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) has embraced the causes of Putting Children First, a Texas grass roots organization devoted to the promotion of school choice. 69% of the 40,000 members support a tax-funded proposal that would allow students to attend their school of choice. In another poll of 3,200 members of the NFIB, 55% believed that the high school graduates they hire lack the basic skills necessary to do entry-level work. (CEO America, 02/98 press release)
UTAH
According to a survey conducted last year by R. T. Nielson
for the Utah Coalition of Freedom in Education, 79% of Utah voters support
choice in education for parents which includes public, private, and parochial
schools. Only 16% said they were opposed. 61% said they favored using tax
dollars for scholarships that would follow children to schools of their
choice. (School Reform News, 03/98)
WISCONSIN
Republicans now control the Senate in Wisconsin again
after having lost it two years ago over an unpopular tax increase. The
news is noteworthy here, because, according to the Wall Street Journal,
the promotion of choice in education through tax credits played an important
role in Wisconsin's Republican candidate, Mary Lazich, winning an empty
Democratic district. (Wall Street Journal, 04/09/98)
An insightful interview with Milwaukee's Mayor, John Norquist, appeared in the March, 1998, issue of School Reform News. In it Mayor Norquist reasserts his complete dedication to the cause of parental freedom in education. Mayor Norquist perceives school choice as the key to urban renewal: "People with kids and money don't want to live in the city, and that's the school monopoly that's making that happen." Mayor Norquist believes that "K-12 education has been hermetically sealed and separated from the marketplace for so long that the urban advantage has been muffled completely." In the past Mayor Norquist has been highlighted in editorials by the Wall Street Journal and Britain's Economist for his stance on school choice.
NATIONAL NEWS
Debate continues in the U.S. Senate over Sen. Paul Coverdell's
"A-Plus Education Savings Accounts" proposal (see Freedom Report
#54). A House version of the proposal was approved last fall on a vote
of 230-198. On March 19, for the second time since last fall, Senate Democrats
managed to offset Republican plans for a vote on the bill. It requires
60 votes in the Senate to stop debate on a bill and bring it up for a vote.
The March 19 vote to end the Democratic filibuster fell two votes short.
(Education Week, 04/01/98)
Education Secretary Richard Riley once again formally rejected school choice in an April 6 speech. Also, GOP leaders have announced that before next fall, when Congress adjourns, floor votes will be held on the issue of parental choice in education, although no specific proposal was mentioned during the announcement. (New Orleans Times Picayune, 04/07/98; Washington Times, 04/10/98)
Noteworthy Item
¨ The Cato Institute has
released a report (March 16, 1998, Policy Analysis # 298) called "Money
and School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment"
by Paul Ciotti. This report offers further evidence that increased spending
in education does not automatically lead to better student performance,
nor to racial integration. "The results were dismal."
State Representative Sam Rohrer sponsored a bill to strengthen parents' rights in Pennsylvania's public schools. An official of the Pennsylvania School Counselors Association wrote Rep. Rohrer, protesting the bill and Rep. Rohrer's defense of it. The letter from the Counselors Association is greatly instructive as to the mentality educational finance monopoly (EFM) defenders bring to the policy table.
First, that letter asserts that "counselors, teachers and administrators are not the government," but "merely professionals" able to judge students' needs in a "more objective manner than can parents." But, of course, when they are employees of EFM such people are part of government, specifically, part of governmental bureaucracy. What possibly could cause such government employees to deny it? And when they are members of unions and bureaucratic structures defending EFM for reasons of material self-interest, those same people cannot claim "objectivity" on matters of control.
But the letter then gets to the heart of the matter, declaring "The idea that parents know what is best for their children is a flawed concept at best." The letter writer goes on to say that responsible parents would not presume to know more about the child's medical needs than would a physician, or more about the child's legal needs than would an attorney. Therefore, by implication, we are to believe parents should be equally deferential to EFM's counselors, teachers, et al.
What a self-serving confusion of thoughts and categories! The claim for the primacy of parents' rights in education is not based on technical skills, but on motivation. Parents can be expected to want and seek the child's welfare more so than any other social agency. In order to do this with efficacy, parents need alternative schools from which to choose. And, equally crucial: when it comes to the physicians and attorneys referred to by the letter writer, parents are free to choose among such professionals. Most parents, by contrast, unless financially independent, are stuck with the monopolistic staff to whom their children are assigned. In short, the attack on Rep. Rohrer is based on false analysis and drastic misunderstanding, and in making an analogy to physicians and attorneys in competitive environments it actually subverts any defense of EFM by professionals who are sheltered by that monopoly. (Counselors Association letter to Rep. Rohrer supplied by Robert C. Heckman, Senior Vice President of 'Of the People.')
The March 25, 1998, Wall Street Journal carried a letter from the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The letter explains why the ACLU opposes true parental freedom in education. Presumably, the Legal Director should know his organization's mind fairly well, and presumably a letter to WSJ is done with some care. On these two assumptions, it seems fair to use this letter as an accurate portrayal of the ACLU's attitude toward parental freedom in education via school choice without financial penalty.
There are in the letter three points worth commenting on. The first is, no doubt, the key one for grasping the ACLU's position. The second and third are different, and on the face of it look like absurdities to which the letter writer is driven to give some support to the first and major point.
The first ACLU point, which, if believed to be pertinent and efficacious, requires no other points, is that ". . . the use of public money to support religious education violates our nation's historic commitment to the separation of church and state." This main point has two insuperable problems which render it useless and senseless for any objective observer. To begin with, no enacted or proposed American school choice program aims "to support religious education." All such programs aim to improve education generally and to support parents' capacity to decide where their children will go to school. To the extent parents decide in favor of religious schools, the aid received by such schools is indirect (via parental conduits); and incidental to legislative intention. The Witters, Mueller, and Zobrest line of Supreme Court decisions affirms such law in education. Moreover, countless government programs that have indirect and incidental impact on religion already exist, without challenge. Social security and government pensions, for example, use tax dollars to support citizens' financial independence. Those retirees decide how to spend the dollars, and millions of them regularly support religious activity. Another example: state and federal tuition grant programs exist across the nation, providing tax dollars often used at religious colleges, by parent and student choice. The ACLU wants to pretend that expanding parents' K-12 educational choice uniquely compromises the separation of church and state, but that is precisely a pretense, not to be taken seriously by serious people.
The second problem with the ACLU's "church-state" assertion is more substantive. Their attitude actually singles out religion to be discriminated against. For political and social purposes, different religions are sources of values, sources of perspectives and points of view on various issues that arise in life. As such, those religions are no different from any other source of values. My attitude toward welfare aid, or capital punishment, or international intervention, or gun control, or school choice, or anything else, may be influenced by my religious convictions, or by my secular convictions, or by familial habits, or by inarticulate fear or elation, or by countless other sources. There are precisely countless sources of the values we bring to the public policy forum. Why is the religious wellspring the special target of the ACLU's vitriol? The answer is plain: the ACLU is prejudiced against religion, i.e., it pre-judges religious motive as especially hurtful among society's countless motives. Hence this essay's title: "'Liberty for Some' — Religion Need Not Apply."
Seen from such a biased point of view, school choice, even though not aimed "to support religious education," clearly may have that incidental effect, and the ACLU wants to stop it. Parents can, with ACLU agreement, use tax dollars to send their children to schools consciously stripped of all formal religious aspects, but completely imbued with other value systems such as secular humanism, civics-based moralisms, etc. There is no such thing as a value-free educational context, after all. But when it comes to religiously-based values in education, "We [the ACLU] will pre-judge them as socially destructive and go to any lengths to reduce their presence in society. We will strive mightily to bar the liberty of religiously-motivated parents, period."
When one opposes parental freedom because of prejudices that deep, all other proffered reasons for opposing it will be secondary at best, and simply manufactured, if necessary. That is the case with the latter two points in the March 25 letter. Each simply reiterates one or another standard educational finance monopoly (EFM) smoke screen against parental freedom. The only thing distinctive about these two points is that they happen to be known to be factually wrong. They are not simply alternative points of view, in other words. They are clear misportrayals and distortions of reality.
First, the ACLU letter asserts voucher programs cannot assist the vast majority of public school students, but only a handful who will be "carefully selected by private schools that have the luxury" of selecting. How oblivious to reality! Fact: school choice will aid directly exactly as many as the system allows, so if you strive to kill or limit choice, as the ACLU does, you have absolutely no grounds for accusing it of being partial. You made it partial. Fact: Among the most "selective" schools in the U.S. are public schools in wealthy suburbs wherein all students are selected by pre-drawn geographical boundaries. Fact: the most truly non-selective, "we welcome all students" schools in the U.S. are private, especially religious schools in the inner cities. Fact: any system of school choice can help all students, directly or indirectly, public or private, by introducing comparison and competition to the educational arena. These obvious, well-known facts should stop anyone attuned to the truth from saying such things as the ACLU here says.
Next, the ACLU letter says the small amount of money provided by most voucher proposals will not cover tuition costs "at the average secular private school," so poor families will only be able to use vouchers at religious schools. What an ironic and twisted comment! Fact: private school tuitions are sometimes forced to increase because lack of school choice naturally prevents parents from selecting them, thus reducing natural income flows. Thus, choice opponents such as ACLU help cause some higher tuitions, then keep vouchers absent or low in value and then criticize them as too low to ensure access to all schools! Fact: because parishes and churches sacrifice to keep religious schools alive, they are the predominant form of private schools in inner cities, and less expensive than others. So, EFM and ACLU, et al., drive up other private tuitions, wipe out non-religious alternatives, and then complain that only religious school options exist for the poor. Yes, EFM and ACLU — you've seen to that!
The ACLU's beginning prejudice against religious expression by parents' choices is profound, as we saw. It is so profound, indeed, that it apparently can cause the ACLU, in mounting secondary criticisms of school choice, to succumb to a kind of frenzied denial of truth and reality. Such a posture labels the organization as an unworthy commentator on parental freedom.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 |
 |