The Blum Center's

Educational Freedom Report
 
No. 61 - July 17, 1998
 
Contents:

 
 

IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find a summary of recent state-level school choice developments, information on pertinent documents, David Kirkpatrick's analysis of Vermont's choice experiences, an essay by the Blum Center's David Urbanski, the Editor's View on the Blum Center's future, and also his View on Mr. Clinton's assault on the hopes of D.C. children.

THE EDITOR'S VIEW ON THE FUTURE OF THE BLUM CENTER
FOR PARENTAL FREEDOM IN EDUCATION: WE'RE BAACCKK!

In the July, 1997, Freedom Report I announced that the Blum Center would close May 31, 1998, in conjunction with my retirement as Raynor Professor of Political Science.  Then, in last December's Freedom Report I noted that several important matters prompted me to continue the Center through July 31, 1998.  The retirement occurred as scheduled, and on June 1, 1998, I became Professor Emeritus and Executive Vice President Emeritus at Marquette.

 When I announced the Center's impending closing, I noted, also, that we would encourage and assist other organizations to carry on the Blum Center's work.  I am delighted now to say that the Blum Center itself will carry on the Blum Center's work beyond July 31, 1998.

 This unexpected but happy fact is the result of an initiative taken by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.  In late January I was approached by the Foundation's President, Gordon St. Angelo, and Project Coordinator, Robert Enlow:  if funds were available, would the staff and I agree to develop a partnership with the Foundation and continue the Blum Center's enterprises?  My response:  Yes, with pleasure, for helping America's parents achieve educational freedom is a completely worthwhile endeavor.

 With such assurance, the Friedman Foundation put together a support package for the Blum Center at Marquette, and we will sail on.  We are very pleased to be collaborating with the Foundation which bears the names of school choice pioneers.  Fr. Virgil C. Blum, S.J., after whom the Center is named, and also a parental freedom trailblazer, was a great admirer of Milton Friedman and would be thrilled to know that the Friedman name will henceforth be associated with his in the work of the Blum Center.

COLORADO
 Mr. Steve Schuck, a Colorado Springs developer, is leading the push in Colorado once again for a November ballot initiative that would allow $2,500 state tax credits for tuition at private schools.  Mr. Schuck also headed similar ballot initiatives in 1992 and 1996, both of which were defeated by voters.  Just as in 1996, the Colorado Education Association challenged the initiative in the state's supreme court, claiming that it poorly explained eligibility for the annual tax credits.  The court rejected that claim during the second week of June.

 Colorado now represents the only state that could have a tuition tax credit ballot initiative this November.  Schuck believes that the political landscape has changed in favor of the initiative since the last attempt.  This year's Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Owens has stated that he favors the use of vouchers, which Schuck thinks will have an effect on voters.

 The tax credit would parents allow parents with children in independent schools to take tax credits worth about 50% of the state's per pupil spending costs for public school students.  The program would be financed with an "educational opportunity fund," established with the unused 50% of per-pupil state aid.  The initiative would explicitly prohibit a decrease in the state's per-pupil spending, and it would disallow the state from increasing regulatory power over private schools.  Proponents have until August to collect the 80,000 names they need to put the initiative on the ballot in November. (Rocky Mountain News, 06/15/98)

MICHIGAN
 On July 6 a school choice movement which began in Michigan gained the support of E. Edward Jones, head of the four million member National Baptist Convention of America, along with a $10 million pledge from Wal-Mart heir John Walton.  The $10 million will go towards establishing a private school scholarship program, modeled after the United Negro College Fund, for primary and secondary African-American students.  This development is the direct result of a May 6 meeting in Grand Rapids between African-American ministers and School Choice YES!, which organized the meeting.  School Choice YES! is pushing a tuition tax credit initiative for the state's 2000 ballot.  The national Baptist group does not officially speak for local Michigan ministers, but many are expected to join the effort. (Detroit News, 07/07/98)

PENNSYLVANIA
 On June 5 Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua broadened his request for school choice in the Philadelphia area by sending letters to officials in ten suburban school districts, asking that they consider supporting a private school voucher program.  Only two weeks before Cardinal Bevilacqua had sent a letter of the same kind to Philadelphia's Mayor Rendell and School Superintendent David Hornbeck.  (See Freedom Report #60.)

 Cardinal Bevilacqua intentionally chose ten districts that were encountering overcrowding problems or money problems.  As in his letter to Rendell and Hornbeck, Cardinal Bevilacqua argued to the ten district officials that a school voucher program would help solve both space and financial problems.  He also insisted that a voucher program is not only perfectly legal, but "a matter of justice." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 06/14/98, 06/09/98)

VERMONT
 In the last several months, some very small towns in Vermont have engaged in formal acts of civil rebellion by refusing to comply with Vermont's "Act 60," under which Vermont's courts have ordered the state's towns to send their property taxes to the state capitol for the purpose of achieving equalization in educational spending across the state.  The Wall Street Journal has argued that this rebellion, started in the town of Tiny Dover, "reflects the burgeoning anger nationwide over the consequences of these so-called 'equalization' lawsuits."

 In short, Act 60 represents less and less local control over school spending at a time when educational spending continues to rise and performance continues to drop.  "Nor is it an accident," the paper says, "that the teachers unions support these [equalization] efforts even as they resolutely oppose school choice, which would force their underperforming schools to reform and compete with, say, private inner-city academies."  The Wall Street Journal points out that these small town officials have withheld their money, regardless of consequences, as a matter of principle — a rebellion worthy of the state's radical forefather, Ethan Allen. (Wall Street Journal, 06/02/98, 05/29/98)

NATIONAL NEWS
 On June 24 the Senate passed a compromise version of Senator Paul Coverdell's "A-Plus Education Savings Account" proposal on a vote of 59-36.  The bill now awaits action from President Clinton, who has vowed to veto it.  (For a commentary on President Clinton's resolve to veto school choice efforts, please see the "Editor's View on President Clinton's May 20 Assault on Hope for D.C. Children," page four.)  A House version of the bill was passed last fall on a vote of 230-198.  The bill, HR 2646, would amend the federal tax code to allow parents to establish tax-free savings accounts for the K-12 and college expenses of their children. (Education Week, 07/08/98)

 The National Education Association (NEA) has officially rejected a merger proposal that would have combined them with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a smaller association.  Nonetheless, both organizations have stated that they will continue to work closely together.  Sandra Feldman, head of the AFT, said that they will especially pursue their common top goal of "putting an end to vouchers."  NEA delegates rejected the proposal 5,624 to 4,091; approval would have required a two-thirds vote. (Wall Street Journal, 07/06/98)

ANNOUNCEMENTS
¨We are happy to announce that Blum Center now maintains its own home page on the World Wide Web.  It is part of the Marquette University web page, and it can be accessed with the following address:
                                http://www.mu.edu/blum
 The Blum Center Home Page currently offers: an introduction to the Blum Center and its views; a list of school choice materials written by our Director, Quentin L. Quade; an index of our newsletter, the Educational Freedom Report, summarizing each issue; and full-text versions of ten Blum Center pamphlets.  In the future we plan to post more pamphlets and full-text versions of each Freedom Report.  For comments or questions about the Blum Center's home page, please contact us at 414-288-7040.

¨ An interview with Freedom Report Editor and Blum Center Director Quentin L. Quade appeared in last month's issue of School Reform News (Vol. 2, No. 6).  "Strap on the Armor and Go: Never Give In!" can be found on page 20, the back page, of the June issue.

NOTEWORTHY ITEM
¨A very interesting figure has joined the ranks of those who support parental freedom in education — Mr. Arthur Levine, President of Teachers College, Columbia University.  He announced his "reluctant" conversion in a June 15 Wall Street Journal editorial.  He now supports only the most limited of limited school choice programs, for children in the worst of the worst schools. In his own words, "No parent should be forced to send a child to send a child to such a school.  No student should be compelled to attend one."  Oh boy, do we agree.
 

Can Freedom Be a Failure?
     By David D. Urbanski
     Blum Center Managing Director

 More and more Americans each year voice support for school choice.  This should come as no surprise in our democratic culture, because school choice is nothing other than a demand for freedom.

 Avid opponents of school choice tend to treat the idea like it is brand new and needs testing if it is to be allowed in our nation.  It especially seems new compared to the idea of the American public school system.  "We cannot let wild, new ideas like school choice disturb the smoothly running, Good Old Public School System — the foundation of our democratic society."  The idea behind school choice is not new in any respect.  The idea is freedom.  As the general populace grows in its understanding of what drives the school choice movement — freedom — they are becoming more and more supportive of the idea.

 Of course politics is very complicated, and often not so simple as merely choosing between freedom and a lack thereof.  In politics it becomes necessary to establish priorities and make practical decisions mindful of our resources, which are scarce.  We do the best we can in our democracy to preserve the political interests which serve freedom best.  Various constituencies promote their self-interests in an attempt to create legislative policies which best match their priorities, their visions of freedom.  Believers in democracy trust that when the self-interests of the general populace compete with each other in a controlled enviornment, sound policy will emerge.  The most important freedoms will be secured.

 Productive democracy depends on a vigilant general populace learning about issues, pressuring legislative representatives to support their priorities.  It is therefore not surprising that as more and more people come to know the true goal of school choice, parental freedom in education, they agree that it is of a higher priority than the upkeep of the financial monopoly of our public educational system.

 If there is one simplification which seems appropriate when it comes to school choice, it is that the whole issue boils down to a question of money.  The government regularly sets money aside for the education of children.  Someone must and will decide where and how to spend the money.  It is a mistake to take for granted who is directing the use of the money.  What kind of interests currently drive the use of educational funds in the public school system?  Are there other interests to be considered?

 With the exception of the several (limited) cases listed at the end of this editorial, the prevalent method of funding education in our country serves the interests of the public schools, their teachers, and their unions.  Is that a bad interest to serve?  Not necessarily.  The problem with the financial monopoly is not that it favors public school employee interests, but that it favors those interests to the detriment of a higher, more critical freedom: parental freedom in education.

 If a parent is unsatisfied with the education offered by the local public school — an education for which they have already paid — that parent's only alternative is to pay for another education at a private school.  In practice that double payment acts as a penalty.  Parents who truly want the ability to direct their children's education must pay twice, forfeiting the dollars they've contributed to public education, even though they never chose it in the first place.
 
 The consequences of that penalty are greatly affecting education in our nation.  The public school system's financial monopoly is not serving the interests of public school students.  The costs of public school education are enormous and increasing, while the educational results are pathetic.  A report done by the Cato Institute in March of 1996 ("What Would a School Voucher Buy?") said that the average tuition for all private schools in the nation, elementary and secondary, was $3,116 at that time — less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857.

 And what has the public school system done with that money?  U.S. 12th graders ranked nearly at the bottom of the industrialized world, according to the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, released earlier this year.  Forbes magazine reported recently that many companies in today's business world are discovering that their new hires cannot read, write, or add sufficiently.  If, as the defenders of the public school's financial monopoly would have us believe, they need more money to make progress, what have they been doing with the money they have already been given?  One can hardly suggest that the educational good of the children is their highest priority.

 Our government penalizes parents when they pursue their self-interests in the education of their children by holding the children financially captive in an education establishment which doesn't come close to serving their educational needs.  The existing monopoly first tells parents that they are not even capable of knowing how to pick decent educators for their children.  Then it binds the children to a failing system.  Support for school choice grows as the disproportionate lack of parental freedom in education becomes more manifest.

 Occasionally some defenders of the monopoly drop the typical, evasive rhetoric and state their beliefs baldly.  In Educational Freedom Report #58 (page 3, "Talk About 'Flawed Concepts'") we listed an example.  Earlier this year an official of the Pennsylvania School Counselors Association wrote a letter to State Representative Sam Rohrer in opposition to a parental rights bill he was sponsoring.  The letter stated, "The idea that parents know what is best for their children is a flawed concept at best."

That statement ought to cause tremendous outrage.  It contradicts the fundamental principles of our national heritage and political system.  It is equal to saying, "How dare those common, untrained parents suggest that they know more than we, the experts, do about the raising of children!  How dare you, Rep. Sam Rohrer, for trying to put genuine power into the hands of those misguided masses!"  Elitism of that kind cannot co-exist with democracy.  It is no surprise that self-interest of that kind would lose its political clout, given enough time.

 Right now there is embryonic but genuine school choice of various kinds in five states: Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, Arizona, and Iowa.  Among those, a program currently getting much attention is the Cleveland program.  The prevailing question which the media recently has been circulating is this: "Is the Cleveland Scholarship Program working?"  Well, the results were in a long time ago.  As soon as the Cleveland Scholarship Program began its operations, it was working.  It was succeeding in giving parents freedom in the education of their children.  That's the goal of school choice — parental freedom in education.  You can't tell the parents participating in the Cleveland program that it has failed.  It has provided them with the freedom that they want and deserve.  How can a basic freedom be a failed experiment?
 

The Editor's View on President Clinton's
   May 20 Assault on Hope for D.C. Children

 Other needs in Freedom Report #60 made it necessary to limit comments on the Clinton veto of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Act.  That veto deserves deeper analysis.  After suggesting that this bill, simply aimed at helping a few thousand of the poorest of the poor in the District of Columbia, would somehow undercut public education, Clinton vetoed it and said "We must strengthen our public schools, not abandon them."  (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/21/98)

 And what is wrong with that?  Who would not want to "strengthen public schools," and who but a villain would want to "abandon them"?  What is wrong with that is that it is an irrelevant, cruel hoax.  It is at the same time a classic non sequitur — it follows from nothing, but stands alone as an obvious effort to blur the vision of any citizens watching the Washington spectacle.  The D.C. Scholarship Program aimed to help a few thousand parents and students presently ill-served by ill-performing public schools within the educational finance monopoly (EFM).  Far from abandoning those public schools, it would have related to them in two wholly positive ways:  first, without diminishing public school dollars, it would have reduced the number of children serviced, thus increasing dollars available on a per capita basis.  Second, and far more important, it would have served as the clearest possible stimulus to those public schools to do their work better and better, lest choice schools' successes and continued EFM failure lead to great expansion of the choice program.

 What else is wrong with the Clinton comment?  It perfectly expresses the most profound confusion of educational ends and means.  For Mr. Clinton, obviously, continued monopolistic control of school dollars by EFM is the end to be served.  In that confused state, one speaks of monopolistic public schools as ends-in-themselves rather than as one acceptable means toward the true end of socially-provided education:  the perfection of the children who are educated.  In pursuit of that true end, circumspect and rational public policy will say (as it says in enlightened democracies around the world):  "We will welcome on a level playing field all schools (and homes) that promise excellence in educational achievement.  These are the unnumbered alternative means to the one good end:  educational perfection of children under the watchful eyes of dedicated parents and guardians."

 Why would Mr. Clinton and the Congressional Democrats stray so far from such obviously rational, parent-focused policy?  Why would they deny at least beginning educational freedom to some of the District's poor parents?  Presumably because, when it comes to K-12 school funding, Clinton and his party are not the party of the poor, but the party of the privileged, those protected by EFM.  They are the "haves," obviously not concerned for the "have nots."

 I recall from many years ago a popular joke which aimed to portray how the "haves" may sometimes forget about, or even disesteem, the "have nots."  The joke concerned an entirely imaginary article to be found in an entirely imaginary issue of Readers' Digest.  The article, alleged to be by one of the world's richest men, a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates of his day, was entitled "I Upped My Income.  Up Yours."

 This old joke comes to mind and helps explain why Mr. Clinton would veto the legislation aimed to provide at least limited educational freedom to some of the District of Columbia's parents.  In killing this effort to assist some of the District's impoverished parents by enabling them to choose a school, Mr. Clinton and his allies — ready, willing and able to have their own children avoid all District schools — were in effect saying what the fictional author said lo those many years ago:  "We Upped Our Income.  Up Yours."  "We have ways to take care of our children, and we're certainly not going to worry about yours."

 The likely explanation for this cold-blooded assault on needy parents is obvious, of course.  The teachers' unions, the NEA and AFT, and their political colleagues, were completely opposed to even this tiny effort to assist those in need, for it would have been another crack in the wall of educational finance monopoly (EFM).  The rising tide of parent enthusiasm for school choice no doubt causes EFM's defenders to fear that, once begun, the likelihood is great that demand for expansion would be powerful.  It could and would expand only if parents were convinced that it was good for their children, of course.  But rather than see monopoly broken, and their own stranglehold on the financial spigot weakened, the educational unions and their allies declared all-out war on the District's poorest parents, those who might benefit most from school choice.

 The war took three forms:  first, to ensure that Mr. Clinton would promise to veto, though his proffered reasons were spurious.  Second, to try to provide cover for him, themselves, and all who joined with them by unleashing a torrent of smokescreens aimed at misdirecting public attention and public perception.  (See for a sample:  The Editor's View On Extreme Smoke Rising From The Potomac, Educational Freedom Report #53, 11/21/97.)  Third, to call on Congressional Democrats to side with their President, against the District's parents and the increasing preponderance of America's citizens who favor parental choice in education.  The teachers' unions and their various allies thus enforced their control over a subservient political party. n
 

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

Brooks Hall, Room 209

Marquette University * P.O. Box 1881 * Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881

Phone: 414-288-7040* Fax: 414-288-3170

E-mail: blumcenter@vms.csd.mu.edu

 

Copyright ©1998 Marquette University -- All rights reserved. Last update: September 1, 1998