|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find commentaries on important school choice developments among the states and within the nation, David Kirkpatrick's answer to the question "Will We Ever Learn," and the Editor's View on financial self-interest as EFM's basic principle.
CALIFORNIA
Governor Pete Wilson
has signed into law a bill which greatly expands California's charter schools
law. It raises the cap on the number of state charter schools from 112
to 250 in the first year and then allows 100 more charter schools each
year thereafter. It furthermore allows new or existing schools to convert
into charter schools with enough petition signatures from parents or teachers.
The new law is tougher in its requirements of parental involvement, teacher
credentialing, and financial management in charter schools.
When signing this bill, Governor Wilson provided an appropriate context for its significance on the long-term path to genuine educational choice: "Most important of all, it will give parents a far stronger voice." As a result of the law's approval, a charter schools ballot initiative for November has been shelved. (Los Angeles Times, 05/08/98)
FLORIDA
H 4383, the kindergarten-level
choice proposal mentioned in last month's Report, has died in committee.
The proposal had been approved by the House on April 9 and forwarded to
the Senate, where it was referred to the Senate Committee on Education.
It died there on May 1. Governor Lawton Chiles likely contributed to the
death of the bill in the Senate when he made a media-oriented visit to
a downtown Miami YMCA's prekindergarten program on April 10. There he clearly
voiced his opposition to any form of genuine school choice.
Before H 4383 had left the floor of the House in April, the debate over its merits provoked such a high level of emotional energy on the House floor that two Representatives — Republican Reps. Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat, opponent of school choice, and Carlos Valdes, proponent — began a physical fight in the plush aisles of the Florida House. The fight broke out after Valdes had pointed out that Rodriguez-Chomat's children are enrolled in private schools. (Miami Herald, 04/11/98, 04/10/98)
IOWA
Late breaking news:
on May 6 Governor Terry Branstad signed House File 2513 into law, which
increases Iowa's tuition tax credit from 10% to 25% of the first $1,000
of tuition expense — from $100 to $250. The bill was drafted by Gov. Branstad's
office. It was approved by the House on March 26 and by the Senate on April
15. (Iowa Catholic Conference Newsletter, 05/07/98)
MASSACHUSETTS
A group of parents
with children in Catholic schools has filed a lawsuit in a Boston federal
court, claiming that the Massachusetts Constitution wrongfully denies them
tuition aid. The suit alleges that the state's 1854 Anti-Aid Amendment,
which disallows any public money from going to religious schools, violates
the parents' rights under the First Amendment of the federal Constitution.
The suit says that this law prevents the legislature from enacting any
form of genuine school choice. The Becket Fund, a public interest law firm
in Washington, D. C., filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. (National
Catholic Register, 04/05-11/98)
NEW JERSEY
Mayor Bret Schundler's
name appeared twice in the Wall Street Journal during the month of April,
both occasions on account of his dedication to educational choice. The
April 10 issue features a letter to the editor from Mayor Schundler in
which he defends school choice against the separation of church and state
argument, which he rightfully notes is a "red herring." He states, "Those
parents who seek alternatives to the government's education monopoly by
sending their children to schools that reinforce the message of there being
absolute rights and wrongs should not be legally discriminated against
by having to pay extra to educate their children accordingly." True separation
of church and state, he says, will occur when parents are able to use education
dollars as they see fit.
Then on April 27 Mayor Schundler was mentioned again on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal as someone who demonstrates "how bold political leadership can cow the political power of the teachers' unions." Namely, Mayor Schundler "saw his slate of candidates for [Jersey City] school board sweep all four open seats." The candidates' opponents were backed by the Jersey City Education Association.
OHIO
A study was released
in late March by a team at Indiana University, led by Kim Metcalf of the
education school, which assesses the Cleveland Scholarship Program and
concludes that no academic gains were made by the group it tested. It evaluated
94 third grade scholarship recipients against a sample of 449 third grade
students of similar background who remained in the city's public schools.
After it accounts for socioeconomic background and demographic factors,
the study concludes that "there are no significant differences in achievement
between scholarship students and their [public school] peers." (Education
Week, 04/15/98)
However, Paul Peterson of Harvard University, Jay Greene of the University of Texas at Austin, and William Howell of Stanford — who last year released a different study of the Cleveland Scholarship Program — have stated that the Indiana University's assessment of the program is problematic in a number of ways.
The three wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the Indiana University study has four major problems with it. First, it only analyzes third grade test scores, ignoring any data from earlier grades. Second, it uses implausible, inflated second-grade scores as a comparison to rate achievement. Third, the study inexplicably excludes all data gathered from the two newly established Hope schools. Peterson, Greene, and Howell had found significant achievement levels among students from the Hope schools. Fourth, Metcalf's team "used inappropriate statistics that have been shown to underestimate program effects." The three state that if these four elements are corrected, "choice-school effects are positive in all subject domains."
Peterson, Greene, and Howell add that it takes time, more than a year, for a choice student to adjust to the new environment of a choice school. They point to the testimony of a choice school parent from Indianapolis, Barbara Lewis. She says that her son underwent a period of transition from public school culture to a culture of discipline and homework. Then, she says, "My son blossomed into an honor roll student." The Peterson, Greene, and Howell study will be available in a book forthcoming from the Brookings Institution, Learning from School Choice. (Wall Street Journal, 05/07/98)
Also in Ohio, a proposal has been introduced in the legislature, HB 654, which would create a statewide voucher program for children to attend any school chosen by their parents or guardians. Under this proposal education dollars would simply follow students to their school of choice. The first phase of the program would cover kindergarten through fifth grade and would eventually include grades K through 12 by July 1, 2006. Funding would come from an education trust fund for each county consisting of 66% of state income taxes collected in the county and the county's share of lottery profits on a per capita basis. Additionally the state would set up an equalization and special program fund. The proposal was originated last fall by the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. (Ohio Education Report by the Buckeye Institute, Spring '98)
PENNSYLVANIA
On April 16 a group
of eight residents from the Southeast Delco school district filed a lawsuit
in state court against their district, challenging the school board's March
18 approval of a local voucher program. The program was approved on a vote
of 7-0, with two abstentions. It would provide vouchers worth $250 to $1,000,
depending on student grade level, to students whose families send them
to private or public schools outside the district. Organizations backing
the plaintiffs include the People for the American Way Foundation and the
Pennsylvania Education Association. (Education Week, 04/22/98)
The lawsuit alleges, first, that the school board exceeded its authority under state statutes by adopting the program. Second, it claims that the program's expenditures to religious and private schools would be in violation of state constitutional provisions. The Institute for Justice will represent the school board in the lawsuit. (Information provided by the Institute for Justice.)
Similar voucher programs have been approved by school districts in Vermont (see Educational Freedom Report #39) and in New Jersey (see Educational Freedom Report #54). The Chittenden, Vermont, program was ruled unconstitutional on June 27, 1997, by a Rutland County Superior Court Judge and currently awaits ruling in the Vermont Supreme Court. The Lincoln Park, New Jersey program was halted by an order from the state Education Commissioner last April on the grounds that it did not have legitimate legislative approval.
Meanwhile, in a recent letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Linda Morrison — policy consultant and senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis — addressed the "fiscal disaster" currently facing the School District of Philadelphia and SEPTA, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. In this letter she strongly recommended school choice via tuition tax credits as part of the solution. Ms. Morrison stated that although tax credits will not solve all educational problems, they will provide parents with the freedom they deserve while relieving overburdened districts. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 04/27/98)
TEXAS
The Children's Educational
Opportunity Foundation of San Antonio (CEO) announced towards the end of
April that it will provide up to $50 million over the next ten years to
any children of the Edgewood school district who are interested in attending
private schools or public schools in other districts. Although CEO has
been providing partial-tuition scholarships to the San Antonio area since
1992, this represents the first program in the nation to offer scholarships
to all low-income students in one district and cover the total cost of
tuition for most of those students.
Fritz Steiger, president of the CEO America Foundation, said at the announcement of the Edgewood scholarships program that he wants to give "every parent in that district a level playing field and the opportunity to make a choice." Scholarships for the district of Edgewood, called "Horizon Scholarships," will be worth up to $3,600 each for K-8 students and up to $4,000 each for students in grades 9-12. Mr. Steiger guesses that at least 300 to 500 families will take advantage of the program in the first year.
The program, costing as much as $5 million a year over a ten year period, will be funded by both the CEO America Foundation and James R. Leininger of San Antonio, founder of KCI Inc., which manufactures hospital beds and equipment. (Education Week, 04/29/98)
WASHINGTON,
D.C.
On April 30 the U.S.
House of Representatives passed the "Washington, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Act" on a vote of 214-206. The bill was already approved by the Senate
last November, so it now moves on to the office of President Clinton, who
has promised to veto it. The bill would provide about 2,000 students in
D.C. with vouchers of up to $3,200 to attend schools of their choice.
The bill originated in the House last June, where it was introduced by House Majority Leader Dick Armey. It was then passed by the House as part of the District's appropriations bill on October 9. An amended version was then approved by the Senate on November 9 by voice vote. The bill then returned to the House where it had to be ratified in its amended form before it could proceed to the President's office. Shortly after that Rep. Dick Armey pulled the bill from the House floor, before it could be ratified, with the intention of reintroducing it in early 1998, at a time when greater support for it could be secured. The bill was then approved on April 30. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 05/01/98)
On May 5 Senate Republicans enlisted two D.C. parents to lobby for the voucher bill in an attempt to persuade President Clinton to reconsider his veto promise. Wesley Walker-Bey, who has three children in D.C. public schools, asked during the public hearing: "How can an individual in good conscience not support this bill? I know they read the newspapers. I know they hear about the killings in school." Another parent, Virginia Walden, has been able to remove her son from the public schools and enroll him in a Catholic high school thanks to a donation from her neighbor. She said, "The changes in him have been extraordinary. He is, for the first time in his educational experience, enjoying school and succeeding academically and socially." (Washington Times, 05/06/98)
WISCONSIN
On May 5 Milwaukee's
Common Council approved a proposal which allow the city to sponsor charter
schools independent of the local public school board. Mayor John Norquist,
longtime advocate of parental freedom in education, signed the ordinance
on May 13. The ordinance is scheduled to take effect by the end of May,
and it requires that each charter school be individually approved by the
city.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwuakee is the first local government in the nation to allow municipally-sponsored charter schools. There are currently 17 charter schools in Wisconsin, but only one in Milwaukee. Critics claim that it is on account of school board resistance that Milwaukee does not now have more than one charter school.
The ordinance passed by the Common Council creates a seven-member Charter School Review Committee, which includes former public school superintendents Howard Fuller and Robert Jasna. Recommendations made by the Committee must be approved by the Common Council. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 05/06/98; Education Week, 04/29/98)
NATIONAL
NEWS
On April 23 the Senate
approved an education bill, on a vote of 56-43, which includes Senator
Paul Coverdell's proposal for tax-free education savings accounts. A House
version of the proposal was approved last fall on a vote of 230-198. President
Clinton has promised to veto the bill. Under Senator Coverdell's proposal
families could save up to $2,000 in a special education savings account.
Interest would accrue tax-free, as long as any withdrawals would be used
for education purposes, including tuition at private or parochial schools.
Families with children in public schools could use withdrawals for education
expenses other than tuition, such as tutor, computer, or school uniform
costs. Last summer President Clinton threatened to veto Congress' entire
national tax plan because it included a version of this bill. (Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, 04/24/98; Wall Street Journal, 04/24/98)
In Freedom Report #57 I portrayed parental love as the foundation for argument in defense of school choice. Parental love, readers will recall, is understood to be simply the surest guide to ensuring the child's welfare, there being no other motive within society equivalent to it. In the current essay I want to explore what is clearly the foundation of the defense of educational finance monopoly (EFM): the self-interest of various persons and groups who materially benefit from maintaining EFM. The teachers' unions and other organizations that are formed around public school finance monopoly, the administrators, state and local educational bureaucrats, and the like, are the groups of which I am speaking.
Many other persons and organizations radiate out from these core groups, other self-interest groups, such as politicians and political parties that have wedded themselves closely with educational unions at local, state and national levels. It happens, incidentally, that most of these party affiliations are Democratic at the present time, but my point is not a partisan one. My point, rather, is that in pursuit of their own self-interest the educational unions have made themselves key constituents, funding and working constituents of political parties pertinent to the educational funding process, and in most states that has meant Democratic party affiliations and, of course, at the national level, the affiliation of the teachers unions is almost exclusively with the Democratic party. Indeed, they are without question the most important single constituent group within that party, able to dictate educational policy and to extract from Democratic leadership, including the President of the United States, support for intensely self-interested positions. In addition these educational self-interest groups are supported by various co-opted "altruistic corollaries," as I call them, such as the PTA, school boards, and so forth; and by some other organizations which share tactical objectives with EFM, for example, the ACLU, in seeking to marginalize religion's influence in society, naturally allies with EFM's interest in marginalizing education's private sector.
But the very core of EFM's defense is that massive group of direct, material beneficiaries of monopoly itself — the educational unions and bureaucrats, who fight to maintain monopolistic control of school funding, and fight off parents' attempts to free themselves. It is vital to note here, as always, that the comments made up to this point and to come are comments not critical of the abstract idea of union, not a critique of union members and union leaders acting as one would expect them to act, indeed. That is exactly the point. The problem of educational finance monopoly is far more insidious, deeply rooted, and hard to dislodge than would be a simple story of "bad guys doing bad things." The story of EFM and of the unions' control thereof is a story of bad policy, which has led to bad structures around which self-interested parties have wrapped themselves.
As economist Thomas Sowell wrote in a recent Forbes column (3/23/98): "Our public schools have not failed. They have succeeded incredibly in carrying out their own agenda, wholly at cross-purposes with the goals of those who pay the bills and those who send their children to them to be educated." He continued: "In even the worst of the worst schools, typically in the low-income and minority neighborhoods, the teachers' unions bitterly oppose letting even a fraction of the students go to private schools with vouchers.
"This is not caprice or racism. It is naked self-interest."
Naturally, in defense of such policies and structures, the self-interest groups cannot expect popular support if they simply proclaim their selfish dedication. Hence, the massive employment of smoke screens — false arguments meant to distract the listener's attention from the reality of things. Long-standing policy leads to social inertia, a kind of knee-jerk assumption in favor of the status quo, and social inertia can be manipulated by the self-interested groups, groups of massive numbers, extremely deep pockets for financing purposes, and a great deal of free time for political organization and participation, using the aforementioned smoke screens to defend an otherwise indefensible public policy.
But when all the smoke is cleared, the altruistic corollaries and their protective cover dislodged, and the flag-waving, "bedrock of democracy" fictions exposed, all that is left is material self-interest protecting a monopolistic grip on funding. Providing parents the opportunity to assign some or all of the tax dollars already raised for education, seen objectively and apart from a monopolistic status quo, is not an "attack on public schools" or anything else. It is the wholly benign and obviously natural way to do things, as enlightened democracies around the globe know and do.
National Education Association President, Robert Chase, and the American Federation of Teachers' President, Sandra Feldman, in their January 21st, '98 "Progress Report" on their efforts to merge the NEA and the AFT, and thus create the AFL-CIO's largest trade union, referred to "unprecedented assaults on the very idea of public education," but do not itemize and illustrate. That is because they cannot. The genuine "unprecedented assaults" are not on "public education" but on the unions' monopolistic control of monopoly finance which deprives parents of school choice.
These virtuous "assaults" are coming from the rising tide of people who are beginning to realize (as shown by school choice-supporting polls all around the nation) that school choice will be rational, benign, and fruitful public policy. Far from attacking public schools no other thing could help them as much, for if American parents had choice without financial penalty, as do their Australian, Dutch and Danish counterparts, for example, all schools, public and private, would be educationally advantaged. As I often say, all schools will strive to be choiceworthy when all parents have school choice.
That is a natural result of an environment in which parents are free to compare, and schools are encouraged to excel. Such natural truths, known to us in all facets of our lives, are denied only by those with vested interest in the educational status quo. As people increasingly see that the defense of EFM is essentially just the protection of material self-interest, we can anticipate with great pleasure replacing EFM with school choice without financial penalty.
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 |
 |