- IN THIS REPORT
Readers will find a forecast of a special Report #10, state and territory updates, a compilation of new materials and activities at the Blum Center and allied organizations, and the third part of a three-part Editor's View on educational finance monopoly (EFM).
As we recount the school choice near-misses, and see the impediments raised up against it, it is vital at the same time to recognize a fact: during the 1993-'94 state-level legislative season there has been a tremendous amount of school choice activity in many states — more than ever before, it seems safe to say. And much of this activity has "legs," in today's parlance. It will be back, stronger than before, in all likelihood.
REPORT
#10 TO BE DEVOTED TO OECD STUDY
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has just released a new study of educational choice in several industrialized
nations. The central thrust of the study is evident and powerful: school
choice without financial penalty, intelligently designed, produces excellence
in school environments, in parental commitment, and in staff dedication
to making the schools attractive and compelling. Above all, it provides
a natural framework for parents to fulfill their responsibilities. Seen
from an American perspective, such realities seem near-miraculous. Given
this, it was little short of amazing to see American newspapers, absent-mindedly
echoing news service sources on which they rely, report on the study with
headlines such as "School Choice Seen As Furthering Segregation — Practice
May Widen Gap Between Rich and Poor" (Rocky Mountain News, May 6,
1994).
The OECD report, naturally, observes that choice, if not harmonized with other social policies and objectives, could (see the 'may' in the headline) contribute to segregation. But, of course, the report also notes that such a result can be easily avoided, and that the worst segregation has occurred under America's educational finance monopoly, where the wealthy have abandoned the inner cities. The next issue of the Freedom Report will provide a comprehensive summary of the OECD's outstanding evidence of choice's great virtue.
ARIZONA
Rep. Lisa Graham of Paradise Valley, principal sponsor
of the pilot education voucher program recently defeated in the Arizona
legislature by a narrow margin (See Educational Freedom Report #8.),
has declared her intention to run for state superintendent of public instruction.
Asked about the superintendency, Graham was quoted as saying, "It is a
very interesting post. . .and it offers tremendous bully-pulpit opportunities."
(Arizona Republic, 04/19/94)
CONNECTICUT
A Connecticut plan to allow local school districts the
option of implementing educational choice programs was narrowly defeated
earlier this month amidst hectic end-of-session activity in the state House
of Representatives. Having gathered significant bi-partisan support, the
proposal nonetheless failed on a 71-71 House vote following a lengthy floor
debate that began on Saturday, April 30, and lasted into the early hours
of Sunday, May 1. House Democratic leader, Rep. Thomas Luby, was a principal
sponsor of the proposal, along with Republican Representatives Timothy
Barth and Paul Knierim.
The plan would not have mandated state-wide choice in education, but instead would have granted local school boards the authority to implement parental choice programs in their districts if petitioned by at least 2.5% of registered district voters and after conducting public hearings. If, under the plan, a school board determined to implement a parental choice program, it would also have to determine whether to limit the program to public school choice or to extend it to include the provision of "empowerment scholarships" to children from low-income families for use at private schools, both religious and non-religious. "Empowerment Scholarships" would be worth up to 50% of the average per-pupil cost in the local school district. The plan would also have authorized the creation of charter schools.
Although supporters of the plan were unable to gain the one additional vote needed for passage in the House, they nonetheless have made considerable progress over a year ago when another educational choice proposal, sponsored by Reps. Barth and Knierim, was defeated by a 95-53 vote. Matthew Boyle, Director of the Connecticut Federation of Catholic School Parents, reports that inclusion of the local district option in this year's proposal convinced a number of wavering legislators to back the plan. (Hartford Courant, 05/01/94, 05/02/94; Connecticut Post, 05/02/94; Sunday Republican, 05/01/94)
The Blum Center wishes to thank Mr. Matthew Boyle, Rep. Timothy Barth, and Ms. Jeanne Allen and Ms. Dana Hunsinger of the Center for Education Reform for their helpful and timely updates regarding developments in Connecticut.
KANSAS
The Kansas School Voucher Act, introduced as HB 2754
in the state House earlier this year and subsequently denied debate on
the House floor, has recently been revised by Rep. Kay O'Connor, the principal
sponsor of the original bill. Rep. O'Connor plans to introduce the revised
version when the legislature reconvenes next year. Rep. O'Connor's case
for school choice in Kansas received a boost from the results of an annual
survey conducted by the Teachers College of Emporia State University. Results
of the survey, released on March 9, 1994, indicate that 53% of all Kansans
favor "the adoption of a voucher system" in their state, while only 35%
oppose it. Interestingly, 25% of Kansas parents with children in public
schools would prefer to send their children to different schools. Of that
25%, nearly 3/4 would prefer to send their children to parochial or private
schools. (KATE VIII: Kansans' Attitudes Toward Education, February,
1994)
NEW JERSEY
Legislative efforts to authorize implementation of Jersey
City Mayor Bret Schundler's plan for comprehensive educational choice in
his city have been temporarily delayed. Supporters of the plan, including
Governor Christine Whitman, are currently struggling with the New Jersey
Education Association over proposed state budget cuts and do not wish to
engage the powerful teachers union at this time in a second fight over
educational choice for Jersey City residents. Attention will likely be
turned to Mayor Schundler's proposal this fall and, if successful in the
legislature, it could be implemented beginning with the 1995-'96 school
year. (New Jersey Record, 04/19/94)
PUERTO RICO
Parental freedom in Puerto Rico has suffered what we
hope will be just a temporary setback. On April 19, San Juan Superior Court
Judge Flavio Cumpiano ruled that Puerto Rico's Law 71, which established
an experimental parental choice program, violates the Puerto Rico constitution.
Law 71, enacted last September, created an education grant program, known
as the "Special Scholarship and Free Selection of Schools Program," for
elementary and secondary students on the island. The law suit challenging
the program was filed by the Association of Teachers of Puerto Rico, the
local affiliate of the National Education Association.
Law 71 makes education grants, worth up to $1,500, available to Puerto Rican families allowing four types of choice: a) public school students may enroll in a public school other than the regularly assigned school; b) current private school students may enroll in any public school; c) current public school students may enroll in a private school, whether religious or non-religious; and d) exceptionally gifted public high school students may enroll in university courses. Special scholarships intended for use under option "c" are available only to families with annual incomes of less than $18,000. Judge Cumpiano ruled that option "c" — the use of special scholarships by families to enroll their children in private elementary or secondary schools — violates Section 5, Article II. of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, which states, in part, "No public properties or funds shall be used for the support of schools or educational institutions other than those of the state." Judge Cumpiano rejected the argument that the option "c" special scholarships do not constitute support for private educational institutions. He allowed the three remaining options under Law 71 to stand. Since the court's ruling rested solely on sections of the Puerto Rico constitution that relate to education, it does not speak to constitutionality under the Constitution of the United States. Both the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Institute for Justice are appealing the decision to Puerto Rico's Supreme Court. (San Juan Star, 04/23/94; 04/30/94; Education Week, 05/04/94)
Meanwhile a package of proposed amendments to Law 18,
Puerto Rico's community schools law, awaits action by the Puerto Rican
House and Senate. Thus far, 112 public schools have been transformed into
self-governing community schools under Law 18. According to Education Secretary
Torres, the latest package of amendments, introduced at the demand of public
school teachers, would diminish the most significant features of the nearly
one-year-old reform effort. It would reintroduce the bureaucratic wedge
between families and schools that existed prior to the implementation of
Law 18. (See the Editor's View below.) He also believes that Governor Pedro
Rosselló will not agree to any amendments that diminish the empowerment
of parents under Law 18. (San Juan Star, 04/27/94)
RECENT ACQUISITIONS
We have received the latest Heritage Foundation's "School
Choice Programs, What's Happening in the States," 1994 edition, compiled
by Allyson Tucker and Will Lauber. This very useful survey, bringing together
pertinent information from many sources including the Educational Freedom
Report, can be obtained from the Heritage Publications Department,
214 Massachusetts Ave., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-4999, (202) 546-4400,
FAX (202) 544-2260.
Also recently acquired, compliments of Rep. Kay O'Connor of Kansas, is a revised draft of HB 2754, and a copy of the Teachers College, Emporia State University study, "KATE VIII, Kansans' Attitudes Toward Education," dated February, 1994, both of which are referred to above. Copies of the KATE VIII study may be obtained by contacting the Jones Institute for Educational Excellence, The Teachers College, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS 66801-5087.
We have also received from Robert Wittmann, Director of Education Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, MI, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Library of Congress report, "Choice Programs and State Constitutions: The Inclusion of Sectarian Schools," by David M. Ackerman, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, dated March 2, 1992. Although the publication is two years old, it is useful for its summaries of pertinent constitutional provisions in thirty-eight states which appear to have the greatest negative impact on whether or not to include sectarian schools in a school choice program in that state. Copies are available from the Library of Congress.
Also recently obtained is a copy of "Hope for Ohio's Children," documents including an executive summary of the Ohio scholarship program, introductory brochure, and several newspaper clippings regarding the plan. For additional information and copies, please contact Mr. Kevin J. Coughlin, Project Manager, 1018 Society Building, 159 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308, (800) 827-HOPE, FAX (216) 762-3625. Finally, we have received a copy of the San Juan Superior Court ruling in the case of Teachers Association of Puerto Rico v. Hon. José Torres, et al., dated April 22, 1994. (See Puerto Rico above.)
NEW ORGANIZATION
We have received information regarding a new organization
begun in Massachusetts called Parents' Alliance for Catholic Education
(P.A.C.E.), which will work to organize groups and individuals interested
in furthering genuine educational choice in Massachusetts. For additional
information, please contact Mr. Steve Perla, Executive Director, 781 Grove
Street, Worcester, MA 01605, (508) 852-2200.
NEW BLUM CENTER
PAMPHLET AVAILABLE
The Editor has published a new document entitled "School
Choice and Parental Freedom: A Challenge to All Catholics." It has been
shared with identifiably Catholic Blum Center correspondents for consideration
and use as they see fit. It may be that other Center correspondents, especially
those in the various jurisdictions who are attempting to encourage local
Catholic constituencies to become active for school choice, would have
an interest in examining "A Challenge." If so, just let us know.
FORTHCOMING BLUM CENTER
HANDBOOK
We are developing a handbook on school choice, entitled
"Paths to Parental Freedom" and including "lessons from abroad." Note,
e.g., the simple, lucid, ends-above-means, opening paragraph of the Danish
description of their approach to primary and lower secondary schooling:
- I often refer to EFM's results as "inevitable" or "inescapable."
Such terms are not used for dramatic effect. They are used precisely because
much of the indictment against educational finance monopoly does not depend
on statistical proofs, though such proofs are always welcome. EFM is monopoly,
after all, and it is indisputably true that monopolies, in providing services
or goods, are humanly inferior to freer systems in which people have choices.
That is why monopolies are routinely despised, and freedom to choose is
routinely sought. A state's monopoly of definitive power via police
and armed forces, so that it can resolve social disputes and establish
and defend a social order, is really the only praiseworthy monopoly. Anarchism
being the only alternative, state monopoly of ultimate power is praiseworthy
because necessary. And, even there, we recognize its potential for excess
and, under democracy, we have learned how to restrain that excess by relying
on competing political parties. Apart from this unique area, monopoly is
rightly seen as destructive of human welfare. It exists in educational
funding, however, as a result of historical accidents. Once in place, it
naturally defends itself, but it is, in fact, indefensible.
One of the worst inevitable results of the specific monopoly we call EFM is that it disrupts the natural relationship between family and school. In a natural setting, the family, most dedicated to the child's welfare, chooses a school which conforms to the family's sense of its nurturing responsibilities. Those responsibilities include providing for the child's intellectual development and ethical formation. In this sense, the school provides to the family vital services in an enlightened division of labor, and is seen as an extension of the family's care, not a supplanter of it.
When parents freely choose the child's school, public or private, they in effect form a moral contract with that school. They accept its character and its conditions, and agree to work within that context. This cooperative relationship is widely seen as one of the keys to successful education. Thus, the act of choosing enables families to provide for their child a school framework compatible with their educational and ethical aspirations; and it creates a compelling basis for parental involvement, deemed vital to educational quality.
What happens when "I choose" is replaced by EFM's "He has been assigned"? There is no moral contract naturally binding home and school. The schools thus created, necessarily, cannot try to provide an intellectual and moral climate reflecting particular families' values, for they are supposed to avoid "imposing" one set of values, especially religious values, on other children. The "common school" in that situation gravitates toward a lowest-common-denominator ethic, both for instructional and behavioral purposes. That, in turn, tends to develop a moral vacuum, and the vacuum tends to be filled by the latest secular trends. Such trends are inevitably value-laden — they are ethical positions. They simply have a source different from a specifically religious ethic. Though said to be "not religious," they inevitably represent ethical positions imposed on the captive and unsuspecting school audience. And they often have the effect of separating the child from the home's ethical norms.
Thus, today's social diversity has this effect: no imposed universal or common school can provide a suitable home for the educational and ethical aspirations of America's families. That which is primary, basic, and vital — families and children in their natural variety — is made to conform to that which is merely instrumental — one-size fits all, monopoly-protected public schools. That is another inescapable problem of EFM. And educational choice without financial penalty undeniably provides a solution. Free-to-choose parents will form natural moral contracts with schools, public or private. Schools, public and private, will strive to make themselves attractive to those parents. The instrumental will serve the primary.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 |
 |