|
|
|
|
- Contents:
- IN THIS REPORT
Readers are alerted to some upcoming elections important to parental freedom; are informed of various state-level and national developments and recent documents; can examine David Kirkpatrick's analysis of "A Letter to the American People"; and receive Part II of the Editor's View on "Where Do We Go From Here?"
ELECTIONS
TO WATCH
The list of gubernatorial
candidates that support school choice this year is substantial. Here are
some states to watch (school choice supporters will be listed first): Arkansas,
Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), who has previously shown support for vouchers,
challenged by Bill Bristow (D); California, Attorney General Daniel E.
Lungren (R), who strongly favors vouchers, against Lt. Gov. Gray Davis
(D); Colorado, State Treasurer Bill Owens (R), who supports tuition tax
credits, against Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler (D); Florida, Mr. Jeb Bush (R),
who supports vouchers, against Lt. Gov. Buddy MacKay (D); Illinois, Secretary
of State George Ryan (R), who recently revealed his support for tuition
tax credits (see "Illinois" below), against U.S. Rep. Glenn Poshard (D);
Maine, Mr. James B. Longley, Jr. (R), former member of U.S. House who calls
for "earnest discussion regarding the merits" of genuine school choice,
against Gov. Angus King (I) and Mr. Tom Connolly (D); Minnesota, Mayor
Norm Coleman of St. Paul (R), who pledges to expand the state's current
tax credit and deduction program for educational expenses, against Attorney
General Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III (D); New Hampshire, Mr. Jay Lucas
(R), who supports increased school choice, challenging Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
(D); New Mexico, Gov. Gary E. Johnson (R), who declared his support for
school choice boldly last November, challenged by Mr. Martin Chavez (D);
Oregon, Mr. Bill Sizemore (R), who supports a ballot initiative that would
limit unions' abilities to use dues they collect for political purposes,
challenging Gov. John Kitzhaber (D); Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Ridge (R),
who has previously demonstrated support for school choice, challenged by
State Assemblyman Ivan Itkin (D); Vermont, State Rep. Ruth Dwyer (R), who
wants Vermont's public school choice program extended to private and religious
schools, challenging Gov. Howard Dean (D); Wisconsin, Gov. Tommy Thompson
(R), who strongly supported the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program (MPCP), challenged by Mr. Garvey Lawton (D). (Position summaries
taken from Education Week, 10/07/98)
ILLINOIS
As mentioned above,
school choice will play a significant part in the race for governor of
Illinois. Only days after he was endorsed by the Illinois Education Association
(IEA) for this year's gubernatorial race, Secretary of State George Ryan
(R) announced his support for tuition tax credits. Specifically, Ryan said
he would back a legislative proposal that would give $500 tax credits to
families who send their children to non-public schools. Mr. George King,
a spokesman for the IEA, has said that the union will not withdraw their
support for Ryan, even though the union does not agree on this issue, because
they believe that "he will put public schools first." (Chicago Sun-Times,
09/30/98)
A recent poll done by the Metro Chicago Information Center shows further evidence of the growing awareness of and support for school choice in Illinois. 63% of Chicago residents and 53% of suburban Cook County residents support the use of vouchers to allow low-income children to attend religious schools. Also, even larger percentages — 69% in Chicago and 61% in the suburbs — support vouchers for low-income children to attend secular private schools. In the six-county Chicago metropolitan area, 62% supported vouchers for low-income children used at private schools, while 55% favored vouchers used at religious schools. For more information, call the Metro Chicago Information Center at 312-580-2874. (School Reform News, 09/98)
MAINE
The Maine Supreme
Court will hear oral arguments on November 2 for the case involving four
Maine families who have challenged the exclusion of religious schools from
the state's tuitioning program. A Cumberland County Superior Court judge
ruled this summer that the program does not violate the constitution. See
Freedom Reports #60 and 54 for additional details. (Information
provided by the Institute for Justice.)
MICHIGAN
TEACH Michigan has
released its Michigan Learning parent guide in order to help Michigan
parents be better education consumers. Every other month this subscription
guide will provide a forum for discussion and information reports designed
to help Michigan parents make the best use of their options. For more information
contact TEACH at 517-394-4870.
OHIO
On September 28 the
Ohio State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case against the Cleveland
Scholarship Program. (The program was first ruled constitutional on July
31, 1996 by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Lisa Sadler, but that decision
was overturned by the Ohio Court of Appeals in May of 1997 by a vote of
3-0.) Each side in the oral arguments was allowed 25 minutes of argumentation,
and the defense divided that time among three attorneys from the Institute
for Justice. After 50 minutes the justices questioned both sides intensely,
focusing about half of their questions on two procedural provisions of
the Ohio Constitution. The first was the constitution's "uniformity" clause,
and the second was the program's enactment as part of the biennial budget
bill. For additional questions about the case, call the Institute for Justice
at 202-955-1300. (Information provided by the Institute for Justice.)
TEXAS
Last spring the Children's'
Educational Opportunity Foundation of San Antonio announced that they would
offer up to $5 million in scholarships each year for ten years to low-income
students in the Edgewood District, which has approximately 13,000 students.
District administrators estimate that about 580 students have used the
scholarships to attend private schools rather than public schools. Administrators
had projected that about 300 to 350 students would take advantage of the
offer. As a result, district officials have stated that they must redouble
their community-outreach and marketing efforts to cover the expected $6
million that they will lose in state aid next year from their $82 million
annual budget. (Education Week, 09/30/98)
WASHINGTON,
D.C.
U.S. House Majority
Leader Richard Armey dropped his voucher provision for low-income D.C.
students from this year's D.C. appropriations bill in order to ensure timely
passage of the spending bill. (See Freedom Report #62.) However,
Armey said, "We know we'll be back with an even larger majority in the
House and Senate next year." (National Journal's Congress Daily,
10/06/98)
NATIONAL
NEWS
On September 28 Mr.
Ted Forstmann announced the details of the Children's Scholarship Fund
(CSF), which he is co-sponsoring with Mr. John Walton. In June they together
pledged $100 million of their own money to the CSF, to be matched by the
same amount by other donors in various cities across the country. To this
point they have matched $70 million in donations from 36 cities, so the
program will begin with a $140 million fund. The program will function
on a statewide level in Arkansas and Michigan. Approximately 35,000 low-income
K-12 students will receive annual scholarships that will range from about
$600 to $1,600 in value. (Education Week, 10/07/98)
U.S. Rep. Bill Gooding, Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, successfully removed Rep. Frank Riggs' voucher amendment from the bill that renews the nation's Head Start program for five more years. Rep. Riggs' amendment was regarded as a controversial provision that was holding up an otherwise routine piece of legislation. House Democrats had said that they would block the bill from reaching the House floor unless Riggs' amendments were removed. With the amendments gone the House passed the bill on a vote of 346-20 with little debate. (Atlanta Constitution, 09/15/98; Washington Post, 09/14/98)
Acquisitions
¨ The
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy published an article
in its Summer, 1998, edition (Vol. 21, No. 3) by Dr. Joseph Viteritti of
New York University entitled "Blaine's Wake: School Choice, the First Amendment,
and State Constitutional Law." Dr. Viteritti discusses the influence of
the Blaine Amendment, its effect on litigation in state courts, and its
relationship to school choice in general.
¨ The Blum Center has received two articles that examine the recently failed merger attempts between the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The first, "United They Fall? Merger of Teacher Unions Could Backfire, Providing New Hope for Change," by Charlene K. Haar, published in Organization Trends, July, 1998, was written before the failure of the merger and provides a careful analysis of the proposal's political impact. The second, "NEA-AFT-AFL-CIO? Not Just No, But HELL NO!" by Rich Gibson was published in Z Magazine, July, 1998, as well. This article is also on the internet at this address: "http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/mergerconvention.htm".
Noteworthy
Items
¨ Please
see the September, 1998, issue of School Reform News for an in-depth
interview with Rev. Dr. Floyd H. Flake, Former Democratic U.S. Representative
and senior pastor of the Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church, who
strongly supports school choice. For copies of School Reform News
contact the Heartland Institute at 312-337-4000, or "http://www.heartland.org"
on the internet.
- One unfortunate feature
of the education reform movement is that reformers seem no more interested
in the views of public school teachers than the establishment. A number
of surveys over a period of many years have found that, when asked, very
large numbers of teachers support reforms. For example, a survey in the
May 1971 Phi Delta Kappan said 45% of the teachers (and 43% of the
administrators) supported school choice. Despite the opposition of their
organizations to this idea, USA Today, in August of 1990, reported
most teachers agreed that schools would be better if parents could select
the one their child attended.
The rapidly growing charter school movement finds such schools are often oversubscribed by students. They also are commonly overwhelmed by applications from teachers -- in one instance 1700 teachers applied for just forty positions.
Proof that not involving teachers is a mistake comes from the June 23rd National Summit of Teachers for Education Reform. "A Letter to the American People," was formally introduced at a news conference in the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., September 22 by myself and others, including Tracey Bailey of Florida, 1993's National Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto, a former New York City and New York State Teacher of the Year, Polly Broussard, of the Associated Professional Educators of Louisiana, and Ginger Tinney of the Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators.
Even prior to this formal effort to publicize the letter, hundreds of individuals endorsed it, including California's Governor Pete Wilson. One teacher sent the letter by e-mail to 100 or so of her friends and within 24 hours about 60 of them responded with their endorsements.
The following are excerpts from the letter:
"We believe the time has come for teachers, parents, and politicians--for all of us who see the fate of America in the faces of our youth--to demand fundamental reform of our education system. We must insist that all children have the opportunity to attend the best schools available, regardless of who manages them...
To this end, we must free teachers from restrictive rules, regulations, and mandates that require the use of unproved theories and the uncalled-for agendas being forced on them by distant bureaucrats and special interest groups...Teachers should be supported and encouraged in what they do best: teaching.
We believe the solutions to the problems that plague our public schools should include the following:...
The end of bureaucratic interference with the right of individual teachers to maintain a disciplined and scholarly atmosphere in their own classrooms;
The transformation of the major teacher organizations from political labor unions back into professional associations; and
The end of a monopoly in schooling that stifles innovation, discourages choice, resists change, claims all children as its wards by right, and ignores the cries of parents dismayed by its ineffectiveness and rigidity....
In order to promote fiscal responsibility, sound governance of schools, and parental involvement, we recommend the following concepts and reforms:
Schools should exist to serve students. Local leaders, educators, and parents must be empowered to help select the curricula, methods, and schools that best meet each student's individual needs.
Students should have the broadest possible access to the widest diversity of educational opportunities regardless of family income.
All educational systems must be free to operate without bureaucratic restrictions that limit the effectiveness of both public and nonpublic schools....
In order to promote teacher autonomy, we recommend the following concepts and reforms:
Eliminate monopoly bargaining, exclusive representation, and compulsory unionism, in order to increase accountability and choice for professional educators.
End the state-sanctioned special privileges that have been granted to teacher unions that are often used to block education reform.
Empower and encourage educators to take responsibility for themselves, for their profession, and their professional organizations....
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we believe that 'good character' must be restored to its historical place as a central desirable outcome of the public school enterprise. It is inadequate and irresponsible merely to concentrate on raising academic standards. Raising our moral standards will be the greatest gift we can give America's children. As Benjamin Franklin said, 'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom; nothing is more important for public wealth than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.'
It is time for a change in leadership. Those presently in control of the education system have run short of ideas except to lobby continually for more money. Do we need to repair our eroding school buildings, buy more books and computers, and redesign and improve teacher compensation in order to attract and keep the best teachers? Of course we do. However, until there are systemic changes, most education dollars will never get to where they can do the most good: the classrooms of America.
The signers below represent active classroom teachers, former educators, and concerned citizens across America who have come together to address the lack of urgency in reforming our educational system.
- - - - -
Classroom teachers are encouraged to be more involved in the education reform process, and to think and speak for themselves rather than let others claim to do so for them.
The full text of the letter, and a list of those who participated in the September 22nd news conference, and other information, can be found on my web page: www.schoolreport.com. For a hard copy or to endorse it, contact Dan Cassidy, Director of Education Policy, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 140 W. Main St., Box 568, Midland, MI 48640; tel. (517) 631-0900; FAX: (517) 631-0964; e-mail: cassidy@mackinac.org.
- We need to remind
ourselves of the North Star of school choice: its meaning, its power, and
its utility. As used here, I recall for readers, the term tells us to a)
state how much we are going to appropriate for K-12 education, b) state
how many children are to be educated, c) divide a) by b), adjust as appropriate
for handicaps and low income needs and give the resultant number of dollars
to parents and guardians with one instruction: use these dollars most productively
to pay for the schooling, governmental or independent, that you think best
for the children in your care. There are both fundamental theoretical and
practical reasons for articulating this North Star vision, wrapping one's
mind around it, and then positing it as the summum bonum of one's
work for parental freedom and against EFM. First, nothing else is intellectually
satisfying or conclusive. There is no good reason for not adopting the
North Star as the objective toward which all individual actions can be
directed. There is in the logic of school choice no natural line to draw
limiting parental freedom, only accidental and arbitrary ones, for example,
transitory dollar or geographic lines that circumstances may necessitate.
To see this one need only look at the wholly virtuous "parent envy" that
quickly develops around any arbitrarily limited choice program. Consider
these words from a Milwaukee mother when asked if Milwaukee choice income
levels should be raised or eliminated: "We haven't taken a vacation in
five years so we could send our daughter to a Catholic school. Why should
a program be aimed only at people who make a little less than I do?" (Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel 8/9/98.) I submit there is no acceptable answer
to that question except a practical and temporary one: We may need
to start with such limits, but we cannot rightly finish there.
Second, we need the North Star to keep our balance and orientation, for in no U.S. jurisdiction will you go in one step from the educational finance monopoly (EFM) status quo to complete parental freedom without financial penalty. Many steps may be needed. But you will not know how to point your toes for each step if you do not have the North Star in sight. Thus it gives us the question we need to ask each educational "reform" as it arises: does the reform in question move us, as far as practical at this moment, toward parental freedom and away from EFM?
Precisely because of social inertia's grip and/or the fear of political repercussions, many whose instincts tilt them toward parental freedom and away from monopoly cannot easily achieve the clarity of Republican Governor Arne Carlson or Democratic Mayor John Norquist, but they can be encouraged to see the practical uses of the North Star. First, they can be invited to see that, far from being "radical," as even some pro-parent politicians are prone to call it, open espousal of the North Star idea avoids any ground for a "radical" label. The very idea that the ultimately good condition is some distance away, and will require several steps to get there, and such steps must be taken through the moderating processes of politics, logically and literally kills the charge of "radical." To say parents should have decisive control over the child's educational venue, that only accidents of history have taken it away, but that we can move back toward it by expanding parental capacity and replacing a finance monopoly through as many steps as we judge appropriate, is to make the whole matter an issue of political prudence, not extreme or radical action. To say such a thing says essentially: we will go precisely as far and as fast as the electorate wants — and who in a democracy openly can quarrel with that?
Another practical use of North Star clarity: it distinguishes for school choice workers the difference between means and ends. The North Star is the end, but there are many alternative means to arrive at it. Thus, it easily opens to the paramount fact of U.S. education reform: there are fifty-plus jurisdictions, each marked by a different history and political potential. Minnesota and Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio and Arizona, the five recently developed snapshots of American school choice, are very different, but each clearly has taken a step toward the North Star. And if you can see that, then you can see, too, that each, though different from each other and from all other places, can contribute to the overall momentum for parental freedom precisely because it is not just individual but also a step toward the common objective of the North Star. Exactly the same can be said of such excellent "works-in-progress" as New York's Assembly Bill A10240, Kay O'Connor's splendid Kansas legislation, Oregon's tax credit proposal SB1127, and Wisconsin's temporarily shelved SB310 tax-credit legislation — all these affirm the North Star and blow away many of the smoke screens EFM has put forth to block them.
Yet another important
practical contribution the North Star model can make: its sharp distinction
between ends and means makes it possible for future school
choice workers to avoid some of the fruitless and wasteful internecine
warfare of the past, in which those who for various reasons wanted choice
and the end of monopoly, permitted themselves to divide and then be conquered,
quarreling over different means — different dollar levels, or tax-credit
vs. vouchers, or what-have-you. They preferred to "hang alone" and
became easy prey for EFM's use of the iron triangles of political control,
social inertia, and inflammatory scare tactics. Only strong coalitions
of the "natural constituencies of school choice" are likely to be successful
(though shortcuts are always welcome, obviously), and such coalitions may
require a willingness to subordinate one's favored means to the ultimate
end — as long as the finally agreed-upon means actually moves us toward
the North Star.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 |
 |