- In This Report
Readers will find in this issue summaries of pertinent developments in Puerto Rico and various states, an update on the charter school movement, comment on the Zobrest decision, preliminary results of the Milwaukee PAVE program, and a reflection on the need for unity among choice's natural constituencies.
PUERTO RICO
On September 3 Puerto Rico's government enacted
a trail-blazing pilot program providing true educational choice in San
Juan. It is a pilot program, not a universal one, and it is means-tested
and partial in its outreach. For these reasons, its therapeutic effects
in Puerto Rico will necessarily be limited. But having said that,
this also must be said: the Puerto Rican effort provides genuine
choice among its participants; it clearly establishes parents as the conduits
of government vouchers, thus exploding church-state myths and entanglements;
in the same action it elevates parents to the decisive position they deserve
in determining their child's educational environment; and by doing that
it establishes the correct relationship between educational ends (the intellectual
growth and empowerment of the child, with society as a corollary beneficiary)
and educational means (any school or school system presenting itself as
an alternative method for achieving the end). In this Puerto Rican
development, therefore, we see a direct and quite remarkable effort to
replace educational finance monopoly (EFM) with parental freedom in education.
For further information, consult the San Juan Star, September 4, 1993.
ALABAMA
The Alabama Family Alliance is currently reviewing
model voucher proposals and intends to draft educational choice legislation
when it is finished with its study. Proposals are being reviewed
by Mrs. Margaret S. Clarke, General Legal Counsel, The Alabama Family Alliance,
P.O. Box 59468, Birmingham, Alabama 35259.
CALIFORNIA
In a November 2 special election Californians will,
among other things, determine the fate of Proposition 174, an initiative
that would amend the state constitution to assure comprehensive choice
in education for all California families regardless of income. If
passed, Proposition 174 will make education vouchers, each worth about
$2,600, available to all school-age children, affording them the opportunity
to attend a private or parochial school if they and their families so choose.
The average K-12 tuition in California's private schools is $2,500.
As November approaches, debate over the merits of the proposal is intensifying.
Several recent developments are noted below.
Public School Choice It appears that the
effort to achieve choice has already begun to prompt changes in California's
public schools. On July 20 Governor Pete Wilson signed into law two
public school choice measures which, he said, "were unimaginable just a
year or two ago." AB 19, drafted by Assemblyman Charles Quackenbush,
will permit a limited number of families to enroll their children in public
schools outside their district of residence and AB 1114, drafted by Assemblywoman
Dede Alpert, will permit families to enroll their children in any public
school within their home district. Districts can deny applications
for transfer if desegregation plans would be upset by allowing the transfers.
For years prior to the appearance of Proposition
174, the California Teachers Association had effectively killed every effort
to enact public school choice legislation. As citizen support for
educational choice grew, however, the CTA overcame its long-standing opposition
to public school choice and eventually gave its support to AB 19 and AB
1114. (Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1993) It seems likely
that, in California as elsewhere, these "conversions" resulted in some
part from a hope that public school-only choice could be used to block
genuine parental freedom in education.
Field Survey As reported in the August 25
San Francisco Chronicle and the August 26 Los Angeles Times, a recent Field
Institute survey measured the attitudes of 763 registered California voters
toward Proposition 174. Of those surveyed, 36% said they supported
the initiative, 46% opposed and 18% said they were undecided. Those
who opposed the initiative most frequently gave two reasons for their oppositions:
it would hurt public schools by taking money from them and state funds
should not be used to support private schools. These attitudes show
the power of two of the classic smoke screens employed against choice,
and make clear that advocates of Proposition 174 face an uphill battle,
as expected, especially in light of the fact that opposing organizations
are forecast to outspend supporters by a margin of at least 3-1.
GEORGIA
Perhaps the outstanding educational choice question
in Georgia is this: can a 1961 law authorizing (but not funding)
vouchers, clearly drawn as a segregation defense, in 1994 become a basis
for liberating Georgia's black and white parents and students? There
is such a law, its plain language seems to give it educational choice potential
— and the effort to use it for such purposes is drawing fire from "all
the usual suspects" opposed to educational choice. (The Atlanta Constitution,
September 8, 1993 and The Atlanta Journal, September 8, 1993) The
ironies and potentials of this recently-arisen issue are obvious and large.
We will keep Report readers abreast of it.
ILLINOIS
SB 592 is a pilot voucher bill for Chicago.
It is getting growing support in both state legislative chambers, and Governor
Jim Edgar will sign it if it is passed, according to a news release issued
by the Family Taxpayer's Network on September 14, 1993. Originally
passed in the Senate on April 21 as the Scholarship Schools Pilot Program
Act, it was introduced in the House on September 15.
MICHIGAN
On August 19, Michigan's Governor John Engler,
an outspoken critic of the educational finance monopoly's stranglehold
on the property taxpayers of Michigan, delivered a mighty blow to defenders
of the status quo. He signed into law a bill which abolishes the
state's property tax in 1994, wiping out an amount which totals $6 billion
and provides 65% of the state's school funding. The Governor's refusal
to "accept a monopoly of mediocrity" in Michigan may be a dramatic step
for school choice supporters in Michigan, and reflects popular discontent
with ballooning property taxes and the apparent inability of public schools
satisfactorily to educate children. (Business Week, September 6,
1993)
Citing the perilous situation of Kalkaska, Michigan,
a spokesman for the Governor said, "We think Kalkaska is a perfect example
of why the system needs to be improved." (New York Times, September
2, 1993) In Kalkaska, schools were required to close last March —
three months early — for lack of money due to a failed property tax increase
proposal. Voters rejected the proposal after three other such attempts
in twelve months.
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
In poll after poll the strongest support for choice
in education comes from minority parents of children trapped in failing
inner-city public schools. The educational establishment, often admitting
that these schools are performing dismally, claims the answer is not choice
but more money. Provide urban school districts with dramatically
increased funding to build attractive facilities and programs, opponents
of educational choice assert, and educational performance will follow.
That hypothesis has been put to the test in Kansas
City, Missouri, and the results were examined in an article that appeared
in the August 28 edition of The Economist.
Under a unique 1986 federal court desegregation
order, the Kansas City school district was directed to undertake a massive
building and curriculum reform program. The physical facilities of
Kansas City's public schools soon became world-class in quality.
Unique and innovative courses of study were introduced. "So far,"
The Economist noted, "the price tag for the experiment has come to $1.3
billion over and above the normal school budget. That is an extra
$36,111 for each of the system's 36,000 places."
Despite this enormous infusion of money, educational
performance as measured by reading and math scores has not improved, while
the drop-out rate has continued steadily to climb. The Economist
observed that the Kansas City "school system is running an experiment based
on every educationalist's daydream — what if I could build my own school
system, regardless of cost? — and coming up with uniformly negative conclusions."
The article states that those negative educational conclusions lead to
a further conclusion: "The Kansas City experiment clearly underlines
the lack of any simple relationship between spending more money and getting
better results."
OHIO
In April, 1992, the Governor's Commission on Educational
Choice began to develop a plan for implementing choice in education in
Ohio. "The Ohio Scholarship Plan" was completed in December, 1992.
The Plan calls for pilot voucher programs, either
one of two recommended programs, to be established in the local school
districts if approved in a given district by a majority of voters.
The scholarships or vouchers would be worth 45% of the average per-pupil
cost in the district's public schools, or the actual cost of tuition in
a chosen independent school, whichever is less.
The Ohio legislature is expected to consider the
recommended plan in 1994. For further information contact the Chairman
of the Governor's Commission on Educational Choice, Mr. David L. Brennan,
at 159 S. Main Street, 6th Floor, Akron, Ohio 44308; (214)
996-0202, FAX (216) 762-3938.
OKLAHOMA
An organization called "Oklahomans for Integrity
in Government" is planning an initiative petition drive to amend the state
constitution and allow vouchers in Oklahoma schools. Model voucher
proposals are currently being examined to assist proponents in designing
draft legislation to submit to the Oklahoma legislators. Mr. Robert
H. Creson is listed as the Vice Chairman of Oklahomans for Integrity in
Government, 10305 Alameda Drive, Norman, OK 73071, (405) 329-6246.
OREGON
Three years ago Oregonians rejected a $1,200 voucher
proposal called Measure 11, introduced by Oregonians for Educational Choice,
which would have allowed parents to send their children to public or private
schools of their choice. But Martin Buchanan of Hillsboro, chief
petitioner of Measure 11, is going to try, try again. He filed a
new school choice proposal last month and is collecting signatures for
the fall election of 1994. (Oregonian, August 12, 1993)
CHARTER SCHOOLS
The charter school option is a form of public school
choice and has become a popular method of trying to achieve greater flexibility
and responsiveness within the public school systems. A charter school
is a public school that has had many of the normal regulations and mandates
lifted from it in exchange for agreeing to attain certain educational goals.
Teachers and administrators with alternative educational visions can petition
the state for a "charter" and, if granted, receive funding on a per-pupil
basis comparable to other public schools in that state or district.
As of August 10, 1993, six states have enacted
charter school legislation, with more sure to follow. The six states
are Minnesota, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts
and Wisconsin. The American Association of Educators in Private Practice
(AAEPP) has recently compiled a summary of existing charter school legislation.
(AAEPP, Chris Yelich, 1-800-252-3280).
Charter schools, it must be emphasized, do not
really substitute for genuine, comprehensive choice in education.
Under a charter school system, educational funds are not made available
to parents and families to determine their children's educational environment.
As a result, the monopoly of educational financing remains unbroken, as
does the bureaucratic structure presiding over it. Moreover, charter
programs do not accommodate parents who seek ethically- or religiously-informed
schools for their children. Understood as one more step on the road
to comprehensive choice, however, the charter school option may well merit
support.
THE ZOBREST DECISION
In Larry Zobrest v Catalina Foothills School District,
decided on June 18, 1993, and a steady source of commentary since, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not bar a public
school employee from providing sign-language interpretation for a deaf
student enrolled in a religiously-affiliated school. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public school districts
to provide assistance essential to the education of disabled children.
The Catalina Foothills School District argued, however, that if it were
to provide James Zobrest with a sign-language interpreter at his Catholic
high school, such a practice would violate the establishment clause of
the First Amendment. By a 5-4 majority, the Court rejected that argument.
The 5-4 margin is deceptively narrow, for the Blackmun and Souter dissents
actually affirm the principles of parental choice as set forth in Mueller
v Allen (1983) and Witters v Washington (1986).
PRIVATE CHOICE AND
THE PAVE REPORT
Privately funded educational choice programs have
been growing in number since the summer of 1991 when Golden Rule Insurance
Co. of Indianapolis launched the country's first privately funded choice
program, the Educational CHOICE Charitable Trust. Necessarily limited
in scope because of limited funding, these programs nonetheless serve as
living illustrations of parents' desire for choice in deciding their child's
educational environment.
In August, Milwaukee's privately funded choice
program, PAVE (Partners Advancing Values in Education) released a "First-Year
Report." The study of PAVE's first year was conducted by Maureen
Wahl of Family Service America, Inc. Dr. Wahl examined not only the
demographic characteristics of participating families but also their reasons
for participating in the PAVE program and their satisfaction with the program.
The following excerpt is from Dr. Wahl's 1993 study, First-Year Report
of the PAVE (Partners Advancing Values in Education) Scholarship Program.
"A survey of PAVE parents indicated that the program
is achieving its goals. Low-income minority parents are taking advantage
of this opportunity to become educational advocates for their children.
Parents cite educational quality of private schools as the most important
reason for their school selection, followed by financial considerations,
a friendly and welcoming spirit, and discipline in the schools. The
overwhelming majority of parents are very satisfied with the PAVE program:
90% with their school choice; 93% with principals; 96% with teachers; 96%
with the school, classroom size, and instruction; 96% with the amount their
child is learning; 94% with materials; 96% with content; and 94% with opportunities
for involvement."
A VIEW ON HANGING
ALONE OR TOGETHER
Sometimes advocates of educational choice without
financial penalty see its beauty and its justice and imagine that a thing
so clearly right must inevitably be victorious. Those same people
can be prone to despair when a specific choice effort is shot down in flames.
One reason for these failures up to now is that many who want educational
choice for particular reasons — any of the natural constituencies
described in "All Roads Lead to Educational Choice" — look askance at others,
equally supportive of choice but for different reasons. Without urging
an artificial camaraderie, I do want to suggest that some of this antipathy
and isolation would give way to productive alliances if all who desire
educational choice would acknowledge several realities.
First, the essential educational conflict of our
time is between educational finance monopoly (EFM), on the one hand, and
parental allocation of some or all of education-dedicated tax dollars,
on the other. It is not between EFM and one or another specific form
of parental allocation, nor among choice alternatives.
Second, no specific choice proposal anywhere in
the U.S. has characteristics entirely pleasing to all natural constituencies.
But change requires a specific form within a given jurisdiction, and the
form chosen, in California, New York, Wisconsin, Florida, or wherever will
be a product of the particular history out of which it emerges.
Third, though that specific proposal's attractiveness
will vary among the different natural constituencies, they should all be
able to support it enthusiastically if it brings an end to EFM, and if
it is described as a beginning step. That will begin to restore parental
control, introduce competition and comparison, and provide the ability
to assess alternative means to the good end of educational achievement.
Fourth, once the huge stumbling blocks of inertia
and vested interest manipulation thereof are removed by EFM's demise, the
process of changing and perfecting educational funding policy will be greatly
simplified, and be more like normal policy exposed to political give and
take. In politics we do not expect normally to have done "it" — whatever
"it" is — "once and for all." So it can be in educational funding.
Once EFM is replaced with parental allocation of education dollars, there
is no reason to think the particular device we start with will or must
last. And that is why different natural constituencies, with different
perspectives, should be able to unite to unhorse EFM and start the process
of parental allocation.
Experience should convince them all that, as EFM's
defenders have shown time and again, advocates of parental freedom will
surely hang alone if they do not hang together. Just as surely, they
will be unstoppable if they join forces. United, they have the numbers
as well as justice on their side.
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 |
 |