- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find synopses of vital state-level developments, reference to recent Blum Center acquisitions, activities at cognate organizations, and a case study of the impact of educational finance monopoly (EFM) on the quality of educational budgeting. We are also appending a copy of the Editor's "School Choice Advocates Have No Excuse for Frustration," an antidote to the post-Prop. 174 blues.
ARIZONA
The educational reform package sponsored by Rep. Lisa
Graham, featuring a pilot education voucher program, failed in the legislature.
Unable to gain the one last vote needed to pass Graham's proposal in the
Arizona House, supporters of the plan then turned their attention to an
alternative educational reform package, sponsored by Sen. Bev Hermon. Hermon's
plan included very limited education vouchers, but any vouchers disbursed
under the Hermon plan would have had to be approved by school boards. (Arizona
Republic, 03/21/94; 04/15/94) That alternate plan now has failed, as
well. In the Senate: 13 aye, 16 nay; in the House: 28 aye, 30 nay. Governor
Fife Symington, a staunch supporter of genuine choice, thinks that progress
has been made, and that choice has an excellent future in Arizona.
MICHIGAN
On March 15, Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved
a plan to increase the state sales tax to replace the bulk of residential
property tax support for the state's 3,286 public schools. Under the plan,
known as Proposal A, the state sales tax will increase from 4 to 6 percent
along with increases in the cigarette tax and the real estate transfer
tax. The state income tax, under Proposal A, will decrease from 4.6 to
4.4 percent. If voters had rejected the plan, then a package featuring
an increase in the state income tax would have been automatically adopted
in accord with a compromise measure reached by legislators and the Governor's
office in December. Approximately 70% of Michigan's voters preferred Proposal
A, which will take effect on May 1. (Education Week, 03/09/94 and
03/23/94; Detroit Free Press, 03/17/94; Wall Street Journal,
03/17/94; New York Times, 03/17/94)
Faced with widespread discontent from voters about high and ever-rising property taxes, the Michigan legislature took drastic action and repealed property tax support for public schools last July (an example of the 'meat-ax' approach mentioned in this issue's 'Editor's View on EFM and Budgetary Irrationality'). The property tax repeal left Governor Engler and state legislators to debate how best to restore public school funding. Engler and most Republican legislators supported the Proposal A sales tax package, while most Democrats and the Michigan Education Association (MEA) — the state's largest teachers' union — supported the income tax package. (See Educational Freedom Report #3, 11/24/93)
Many hoped the debate over school re-financing would also create an opportunity for dramatic restructuring of public education in the state. Vehement opposition from blocks of legislators and the MEA, however scuttled a plan for inter-district public school choice and forced Engler to curtail his wide-ranging charter schools proposal, making it more acceptable to the MEA. The charter schools plan that was eventually passed by the legislature limits eligible sponsoring agencies to public school boards and public universities and colleges and requires that all charter school teachers be state certified. (See Educational Freedom Report #4, 01/07/94) Efforts to introduce comprehensive parental choice legislation in Michigan are hindered by unusually severe state constitutional restrictions prohibiting choice programs involving private schools. Advocates of genuine parental choice are currently developing plans to amend Michigan's constitution to permit such legislative efforts.
MISSOURI
On March 8, 1994, a hearing was held on Senate Joint
Resolution 21 before the Senate Education Committee. Originally introduced
by Senators Kinder, et al., on January 26, SJR 21 would place an
amendment to Article IX of the Missouri Constitution on the November ballot.
If passed, it would give parents of K-12 students scholarships for their
children's education equal to fifty percent of the average amount of state
and local government spending per public school student. The scholarships
would be redeemable at any private or public scholarship-redeeming school.
SJR 21 is currently stalled in the Education Committee. (Information from
the 03/08 hearing and a copy of SJR 21 were provided courtesy of Mrs. Mae
Duggan. For further information, contact her at Citizens for Educational
Freedom, 9333 Clayton Road, St. Louis, MO 63124, 314-997-6361.)
NEW YORK
Mr. Frank J. Russo, President of the New York chapter
of Citizens for Educational Freedom, recently provided the Blum Center
with a detailed cost analysis of SB 5955/AB 9359, the proposed educational
choice legislation for the state of New York. The proposed legislation
would make education vouchers available to New York families on a phased-in
basis: both the monetary value of the vouchers and the number of
families eligible to receive them would be phased-in over three years,
beginning with families in the lower income brackets. The proposal also
includes a voucher supplement for children from families with the lowest
incomes. (See Educational Freedom Report #4, 01/07/94.)
The introduction to the cost analysis states, "The fiscal implications of this bill are determined by analyzing two counteracting cost impacts. On the one hand is the cost increase from providing vouchers to parents of students who today attend non-public schools. Offsetting this cost increase is a cost savings associated with the shift of students out of the more costly public schools into less costly non-public schools as a result of the availability of education vouchers."
Clearly stipulating the assumptions used in arriving at its cost estimates, the analysis provides two sets of anticipated financial effects: one set derived from "pessimistic" assumptions (minimizing the number of students likely to utilize education vouchers and minimizing the 'avoidable costs' saved with each student transfer to a private school) and a second set derived from "optimistic" assumptions (maximizing likely student use of the vouchers and maximizing the 'avoidable costs'). Under the "pessimistic" assumptions, taxpayer savings could grow to more than $67 million during the first year of the program and to more than $498 million by the fifth year. Under the "optimistic" set of assumptions, taxpayer savings could be greater than $405 million for the program's first year, reaching more than $2 billion in the fifth year. Although the cost analysis described briefly here is, by its nature, highly speculative, it can serve nonetheless as a useful illustration of one of the ways in which a well-designed educational choice program may help to contain rising education costs. (See this issue's 'Editor's View on EFM and Budgetary Irrationality.') Copies of the "Summary of Financial Impact on State and Local Education Costs in New York Resulting from Adoption of Voucher Bill # S.5955/A.9359" are available from the Blum Center upon request, or contact Mr. Frank Russo at (516) 883-0922.
PENNSYLVANIA
Currently in Pennsylvania, five Republicans and seven
Democrats are competing for gubernatorial nominations. The winners in the
two primaries will face each other in the November general election. As
the primary races pick up steam, the candidates' views on education reform,
in general, and parental choice in education, in particular, have gathered
considerable interest among voters and in the press. Recently, the Philadelphia
Inquirer asked the candidates to explain their positions on education
reform. The views of the Democratic candidates were featured on March 28,
while the positions of the Republicans appeared the following day. None
of the Democrats declared their support for comprehensive choice in education,
although three noted their support for charter schools or for public school
choice.
Among Republican candidates, four of the five declared their support for comprehensive choice programs, with the fifth declaring that taxes for the support of public schools should be collected only from those who choose to send their children to public schools — choice by another name. Two of the Republicans also noted their support for charter schools. Mike Fisher supports pilot charter school programs as well as comprehensive parental choice. John F. Perry believes that parental sovereignty in education can best be assured by eliminating tax payments for education by those who do not wish to utilize the public schools. Ernie Preate supports a pilot choice program similar to the one proposed recently by Rep. Lisa Graham in Arizona. Tom Ridge declared his support for comprehensive choice, beginning with a program designed for Philadelphia, as well as for charter schools. Sam Katz supports a plan that would allow citizens of local school districts to decide in local elections whether to adopt an educational choice program in their district.
PUERTO RICO
Education Secretary José Arsenio Torres announced
at the beginning of this month that $26 million will be allocated to the
second phase of Puerto Rico's school voucher program. Opponents insist
that the voucher program is unconstitutional. On Friday, March 11, the
San Juan Superior Court began hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by the
Puerto Rico Teachers' Association challenging the constitutionality of
Law 71, which established Puerto Rico's education voucher program. (San
Juan Star, 03/12/94; 04/01/94)
Law 18, the Educational Reform Law, also remains controversial as teachers continue to demand that the law be amended to insure their job security. Hundreds of teachers marched on the Capitol of Puerto Rico on March 22, calling for immediate changes in the law. House Speaker Zaida Hernández Torres stated the next day that he is working on amendments to the law, but refuses to rush the job and cannot say when an amendment bill will be ready. (San Juan Star, 03/23/94; 03/24/94)
BLUM CENTER RECENT
ACQUISITIONS
The Blum Center now has available copies of 1994 Ohio
legislation, including HB 606, challenging the constitutionality of current
school funding, and HJR 14, providing for school funding by levying additional
sales tax. A copy of Missouri's SJR 21, mentioned above, is available as
well.
The Blum Center has also received from Mr. Daniel J. Cassidy at Mayor Bret Schundler's office a copy of "The Jersey City 'Children First' Education Act." Copies are available from the Center upon request. For the approach taken by Mayor Schundler, see Educational Freedom Report #6, 02/18/94.
Also recently acquired is Professor Stephen A. Hoenack's summary commentary on his "Econometric Study of Alternative Designs of an Educational Voucher System in Minnesota," which is an abbreviated layman's guide to the technical, full-length study referred to previously in Educational Freedom Report #4, 01/07/94.
Another excellent addition to Blum Center holdings is Caroline Minter Hoxby's November, 1993, draft version of her "Do Private Schools Provide Competition for Public Schools?" Ms. Hoxby's conclusion, as quoted from the draft abstract and reflecting American experience, notes that "greater private school competitiveness significantly raises the quality of public schools, as measured by the educational attainment, wages, and high school graduation rates of public school students." Not surprisingly, this further verifies an oft-made Blum Center contention (see, e.g., the case of Sweden in Educational Freedom Report #7, 03/18/94): public schools are prime beneficiaries, not victims, of parental freedom in education.
Finally, the Blum Center has received a copy of Sam Katz's "Parents Taking Action: Improving Schools by Empowering Parents and Cutting Costs," which outlines his educational choice platform as he seeks the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Pennsylvania. (See Pennsylvania above.)
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES
We want to alert readers to an organization in Minnesota
designed to spearhead legislative efforts in the state. The Choice in Education
League of Minnesota (CELM), which has been working closely with the Choice
in Education Foundation, Inc., functions as an umbrella organization with
a four-part agenda. CELM goals include: 1) the development of a school
choice bill; 2) the establishment of a state-wide parents association;
3) preparation of materials for parent education; and 4) general organizing
of state-wide grass-roots support for the CELM-sponsored bill. CEF encourages
advocates of parental freedom in education in Minnesota to support CELM
efforts. Parental involvement in the legislative process is key to any
such efforts. For further information contact Mr. Michael Ricci, Executive
Director of the Choice in Education Foundation at 1821 University Ave.
West, Room 365 So., St. Paul, MN 55104, (612) 484-1854. (Above information
has been provided by CEF, Inc.)
As a last-minute reminder for Blum Center correspondents, we would like to call attention to the REACH Alliance's "Independence Starts With School Choice" Conference to be held May 5-6 in Philadelphia. Please contact Mr. David W. Kirkpatrick, P.O. Box 1283, 513 N. 2nd St., Harrisburg, PA 17108-1283, (717) 238-1878, for further information.
Also, the American Association of Educators in Private Practice (AAEPP) is sponsoring "EdVentures Conference II" for educators, charter school organizers, school officials, and school improvement advocates. The conference is scheduled for July 7-9 in Madison, WI. For additional information, please contact AAEPP's President, Chris Yelich, N7425 Switzke Road, Watertown, WI 53094, (800) 252-3280.
- Educational finance monopoly (EFM) inevitably leads to
budgeting in a vacuum, a kind of financial irrationality. In normal budgeting
we know what we want, know what we have available to spend, and know the
available alternatives and what they cost. That gives us the chance of
rational budgeting. We naturally rebel against having just one monopolistic
supplier, and we know why: without comparison and competition, there is
no way to determine the wisdom of an expenditure for goods and services.
Thus, monopoly breeds suspicion among consumers.
And not without reason, for the same monopoly encourages unreal budgeting by those protected by it. "Education" and "children" are good words, and educational budgets are often defended simply as having children's interests at heart. Anyone questioning such proposals can expect to hear "he doesn't care for the kids." The truth is, however, that one need not under appreciate children nor their education to question educational expenditures. One may and should question those expenditures precisely because they are proposed in a vacuum, a framework in which comparison and competition do not exist, and over-burdened taxpayers routinely are asked to buy what they cannot evaluate.
The central fact of EFM budgeting is that school budgets emerge from a system lacking normal restraints and competitive pressures. Like the rest of us, school administrations are not known for self-restraint, nor are the unions they represent. "More" is the typical budget request. School boards for the most part are expected to be cheerleaders, not serious challengers or generators of alternatives. As the then-Superintendent of Public Instruction told a gathering of Wisconsin school board members, they are to be advocates for children, not taxpayers, not even children and taxpayers. If they want to show concern for taxpayers, he said, let them join taxpayers' alliances! (Milwaukee Sentinel, 01/21/93) In many places the boards can set their own levy. In such budgetary processes, one finds no mechanisms for ensuring effective and restrained expenditure nor for assuring taxpayers that their dollars are being well-spent.
That is why educational referenda and bond issues often provoke meat-ax responses: No! The taxpayers are in no position to generate restrained alternatives, but they can say "no." Such actions do not necessarily mean too much was being asked for or spent on education. Rather, they necessarily mean the citizens lost confidence in the budgeting vacuum created by EFM, a system which too often justifies more expenditure by pointing to poorer performance.
Educational choice without financial penalty will not necessarily reduce tax expenditures for education. That depends on variables which can only be assessed in the actual process of budgeting. But what choice will necessarily accomplish is to create a context in which competition and comparison naturally occur. Educational alternatives can be assessed rationally. Schools which perform better for less will naturally be favored. And taxpayer confidence can be restored because argument and restraint will be part of the budgeting process.
Every specific educational choice proposal will have a different net financial effect. Most can realistically promise to pay for themselves, even bring savings, by a combination of two factors: each choice scholarship will cost only a fraction of the amount spent on public school students; and some number of those public school students will migrate to less expensive private alternatives. But the possibility of tax savings is not the essential financial difference between EFM and choice. What is essential and undeniably true is something else: with EFM we are engaging in irrational budgeting in a vacuum, and only a utopian would expect good things to happen. With choice we will have the chance to budget intelligently because we will have what we normally insist on in deciding a course of action: comparison and competition among alternative means to the end.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 |
 |