The school choice movement to enable more parents,
particularly low-income parents, to choose the schools their
children attend is gaining ground. As presidential and
congressional candidates hotly debated this issue last year, they
brought much-needed attention to the problems plaguing public
education today and heightened the interest in choice in both state
legislatures and school districts across the country. For
example:
-
At least 21 states considered legislation
in 2000 to create charter schools or voucher programs to enable
low-income parents to choose the best schools for their children.
On May 2, 2001, Indiana became the 37th state (with the District of
Columbia) to enact a charter school law.
-
At least 18 states considered tax credits
or deductions for educational expenses or contributions to
scholarship programs for low-income students. Currently, four
states already have enacted such legislation.
- The number of scholarships available for
low-income children to attend a school of choice increased, with
more than 50,000 students benefiting from 79 privately funded
scholarship programs and another 12,000 from five publicly funded
programs. The 80th private program was initiated in January
2001.
The
school choice movement became more bipartisan as well, gaining new
allies from Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. Indeed, President
George W. Bush made school choice an important element of his
education platform "to leave no child behind." In addition, a
richer and more impressive body of research is demonstrating the
positive effects of choice. School choice improves the academic
performance of at-risk children, promotes parental involvement, and
fosters competition and accountability in those public school
systems that allow increased parental choice.
Choice matters. Public school children
simply are not making the gains parents expect of them based on the
sizeable amount government spends each year on education--a fact
reinforced by the stagnant results of the 2000 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading. For almost four decades,
America has tried to solve its education problems with more and
more federal spending, yet America's children continue to fall
further behind many of their international peers on tests of core
academic knowledge. Merely increasing spending simply does not
increase either learning or test scores.
Public schools certainly need adequate
funding to help students excel, but they also need accountability.
Testing and choice are two policies that result in greater
accountability. President Bush's No Child Left Behind
education reform plan, released in January 2001, includes proposals
to improve testing and choice. Regularly testing students
and publicizing the results would motivate teachers and schools to
improve, while vouchers would help disadvantaged students escape
schools that continually fail to help them learn.
School choice fosters innovation,
competition, and the motivation to change. It challenges the
status quo, particularly in the legislatures and courts, by arguing
that mediocrity is no longer good enough for America's students.
Even former critics of school choice are now agreeing that choice
matters. For example, John Witte, a professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was hired by Wisconsin to evaluate the
effectiveness of Milwaukee's choice program. Originally, Witte's
research led him to conclude that expanded choice had little
impact. Now, however, based on the overwhelming weight of the
evidence since his original study, he concedes that choice can be a
"useful tool to aid low-income children."
Congress also has a role to play,
particularly in reauthorizing the 36-year-old Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which has sent roughly $130 billion
in federal dollars to the states to fund numerous categorical
education programs. In the future, Members should consider
including measures to promote accountability, flexibility, and
parental choice. Currently, the states accepting these funds expend
significant time, at great cost, to meet complicated federal
formula and application guidelines. Yet they are not required to
show results: specifically, that the children in their programs are
improving academically. Despite billions spent under Title I to
close the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged
students and their peers, the gap is widening. Parents are
understandably disillusioned. They deserve results, and they need
accountability to regain their faith in public education.
President Bush is recommending strong
improvements in annual testing in order to highlight what is
working in education. Such testing would enable public school
districts to improve curricula and services and empower parents to
choose the best school for their children. Parents of disadvantaged
children in persistently failing or unsafe schools could carry
their federal dollars to another public or private school of
choice.
Congress can help the President to advance
this initiative. To increase understanding of the benefits of
choice, Congress could foster large-scale demonstration projects
from which to build a reliable research database on the effects of
choice on achievement. Such a provision was in the original draft
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1), which is
currently before the House, but was eliminated during committee
markup.
Congress also should support the states in their efforts by giving
them flexibility in spending federal program dollars while also
requiring accountability for results.
PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOL CHOICE
Efforts to improve the public school
system and to improve results in many states increased in 2000,
following the lead of states like Florida and Illinois.
Governor Jeb Bush (R) and T. Willard Fair
of the Urban League of Greater Miami helped Florida to become the
first state to offer parents a "money back guarantee" if their
children are trapped in failing schools. This statewide plan allows
students in schools that fail state assessments in two out of four
years to carry their per-pupil public dollars to another school of
choice in the form of "Opportunity Scholarships." In the program's
first year (1999-2000), 134 families in two Pensacola elementary
schools qualified for the scholarships, including 78 for
transferring to another public school. Last year, no new vouchers
were offered because these schools had reformed sufficiently to
avoid a failing grade. Florida also offers students with
disabilities scholarships to attend a private school; more than
1,000 students now use them to attend over 100 private schools.
Illinois has instituted a tax credit of up
to 25 percent of education-related expenses (tuition, book fees,
and lab fees) that exceed $250 per child or $500 per family. This
initiative has been challenged in court. On April 21, 2000, a
circuit court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Illinois
Education Association and other organizations.
Meanwhile, policymakers in Washington,
D.C., have been considering measures to expand parental choice, as
well as ways to evaluate the effects of choice. For example,
Making Money Matter: Financing America's Schools, a report
prepared by the National Research Council and commissioned by the
Clinton Administration, recommends that the government conduct a
"large and ambitious" research experiment to determine whether
school choice programs improve student performance. As the report
points out, while housing, welfare, and medical policies frequently
are subjected to such research to test their effectiveness, school
choice is not. The panel recommends conducting projects for up to
10 years to determine whether school choice results in "broad-based
improvement in educational outcomes, especially for children in
concentrated areas of disadvantage."
Efforts were made to include several
choice provisions in H.R. 1 that would have enabled disadvantaged
children in failing Title I schools to take their Title I dollars
to a higher-achieving public or private school. Students in
dangerous schools would have had the opportunity to transfer to a
safe school. The initial draft of the bill also provided funds for
school choice demonstration programs. These provisions echoed
elements of the President's No Child Left Behind education
plan, but nevertheless were cut from the bill before it was
approved by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Congress also has been considering
educational savings accounts. On March 13, 2001, the Senate Finance
Committee approved an amendment to the Affordable Education Act of
2001 that would authorize tax-free savings accounts for K-12
expenditures. The Senate will consider this bill later this year. A
similar bill was introduced in the House.
CHARTER SCHOOL DEVELOPMENTS
The
first charter school opened its doors in 1992. As of February 2001,
more than 2,000 charter schools were open in 34 states and the
District of Columbia, serving over 500,000 students. Just
recently, the governor of Indiana signed a bill into law
authorizing the establishment of charter schools. This step was the
culmination of a long effort by leading businesses, foundations,
policymakers, and citizens to offer children in poor performing
schools a choice. Several states have responded to the growing
popularity of charter schools by also rushing to lift the cap on
the number of schools they allow.
Commonly, these schools emphasize parental
involvement and the hiring of staff members who embrace the mission
of the charter. Charter schools introduce flexibility,
accountability, and choice into a public school system. Moreover,
they are having beneficial effects on their public school systems,
as the research of Scott Milliman of James Madison University,
Fredrick Hess and Robert Maranto of the University of Virginia, and
social psychologist April Gresham of Charlottesville,
Virginia, shows. Based on a March 1998
survey of Arizona public school teachers, these researchers found
that the opening of charter schools led to the following changes
between the 1994-1995 and 1997-1998 school years:
The
establishment of charter schools pushes district schools to compete
in offering students a high-quality education. Another study found
that charter schools are more consumer-friendly, treat parents
better than do traditional public schools, and are evolving as
substitutes for private schools.
Most
charter schools are small, with an average enrollment of 137
students--roughly one-fourth the average public school enrollment
of 475 students. In 1998, white students
made up about 48 percent of charter school enrollment, compared
with about 59 percent of the public school enrollment in
1997-1998. In Texas, charter schools
actually have higher percentages of African-American (33 percent
vs. 14 percent), Hispanic (43 percent vs. 39 percent), and
economically disadvantaged (52.6 percent vs. 48.5 percent) students
than do the public schools. Such findings counter the
claims that charter schools attract disproportionately large
numbers of white students from public schools.
Among charter school developments last
year:
-
Arkansas approved its first charter
school application five years after passing a charter school law.
The Grace Hill Elementary School converted to charter status to
gain more flexibility in restructuring staffing and instruction.
-
In Oklahoma, a group called Parents
for a New Middle School received the state's first
school-board-approved charter.
-
The New Jersey and Utah Supreme
Courts ruled that their states' charter school laws were
constitutional.
-
Opponents of charter schools in
Oregon obtained fewer than half of the 66,786 signatures
required to place on the November 2000 ballot an initiative to
overturn the state's charter school law. To date, no state has
repealed a charter school law.
-
The Alexandria, Virginia, school
board voted unanimously in favor of opening charter schools. As of
January 2001, 76 school systems in Virginia have agreed to accept
charters. Applications are being accepted for the state's first two
charter schools.
- Wyoming's legislature gave initial
approval to a sweeping rewrite of a bill to make it easier to
charter a school.
PRIVATE SCHOLARSHIPS
Thanks to such prominent private
foundations as the Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF) and Children
First CEO America, the number of privately funded scholarship
programs for low-income public school students to attend a private
school of choice is growing.
Children First America sponsors private
voucher programs in 70 cities nationwide. In 2000, Maine, New Mexico,
and Virginia joined the list of 36 CEO states and the District of
Columbia
that offer at least one private scholarship program. In January
2001, the 80th program was initiated. Children First Utah launched
a $2 million statewide privately funded voucher program for up to
200 low-income children to attend a school of choice in 2001-2002.
The group plans to increase that number each year by 200 until
1,000 scholarships are awarded annually.
The
Children's Scholarship Fund, which awarded its first scholarships
in Washington, D.C., in 1997, sponsors 36 programs around the
country. Nearly 40,000 children at over 7,000 private schools
benefit from its partial four-year scholarships. Over 1.25 million
low-income parents in over 20,000 communities had applied for these
scholarships. The CSF's founders have concluded that "philanthropy
alone could not solve the problem" and that, even if they could
raise more money, "there simply are not enough seats under the
current system to provide a real alternative to government-run
schools." Consequently, the CSF is working with investors,
entrepreneurs, educators, and policy experts to "rethink the way we
fund and deliver education, and consider the merits of moving to a
more market-driven system characterized by diversity, competition,
and excellence."
Among the scholarship programs established
in 2000:
In Colorado, the
Alliance for Choice in Education was established to provide up to
500 low-income children in failing schools in the Denver
metropolitan area with tuition scholarships of up to $2,000 to
attend a private or religious school.
In Indiana, Gary
school superintendent Kim Pryzbylski founded the Northwest Indiana
Children's Scholarship Fund, which serves 100 elementary school
students at 34 parochial schools.
The Maine
Children's Scholarship Fund was established, after citizens raised
$100,000, with a $50,000 matching grant from Children First
America. The program provides 1,581 students with tuition
scholarships; an additional 28 scholarships are planned for
2001-2002.
The Educate New
Mexico program, launched in spring 2000, offers 400 privately
funded tuition scholarships to families and children across the
state. The scholarships provide $1,000 in tuition assistance for
children in grades K-6 and $1,500 for grades 7-10. The first round
of applications resulted in 189 awards.
In Ohio, three
choice programs began with challenge grants from Children First
America. Children First Columbus, launched in July, provides 100
students with at least $750 to attend an archdiocesan Catholic
school or other independent or non-public school in the area.
- In Virginia, former Circuit City
Stores CEO Rick Sharp created Children First Virginia, the state's
first privately funded voucher program. It awarded 162 scholarships
for the 2000-2001 school year. The vouchers of up to $2,000 per
year can be used to pay tuition at any public, private, or
parochial school.
PROGRESS IN THE COURTS
Supporters of school choice found much to
applaud in how the courts handled suits against choice initiatives.
For example:
-
A Florida appellate court ruled in
October 2000 that the state's eight-month-old school voucher
program is constitutional and can remain in effect. Opponents
challenged this program before the state Supreme Court, which
recently refused to consider the challenge.
-
In 1999, Illinois had enacted a tax
credit for up to 25 percent of education-related expenses (such as
tuition, book fees, and lab fees) exceeding $250 per child or $500
per family. This law was challenged in two separate cases. On April
21, 2000, an Illinois Circuit Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed
by the Illinois Education Association and other organizations
challenging the credit's constitutionality. On April 4, 2001, the
Appellate Court for the Fifth Judicial District unanimously upheld
the constitutionality of the tax credit law.
-
New Jersey charter schools were
ruled constitutional by the state's high court on June 28, 2000.
The court acknowledged that the Commissioner of Education had been
(and should be) mindful of the potential racial and financial
impact of charter schools on school districts.
-
In Ohio, on March 13, 2001, the
U.S. Court of Appeals decided to allow the Cleveland choice program
to continue operating while supporters seek a U.S. Supreme Court
review of a December 2000 ruling that the program is
unconstitutional. Cleveland's five-year-old
Scholarship and Tutoring Program provides some 4,000 low-income
students with publicly financed grants of up to $2,250 to help pay
tuition at a private school.
- The Utah Supreme Court ruled in
January 2000 that the state's 1998 charter school law is
constitutional. The Utah School Boards Association had challenged
the constitutionality of the law authorizing as many as eight
charter schools in a three-year experiment with rigorous controls.
The court, in rejecting the board's argument, called the challenge
"unreasonable." This was the 12th choice law to be upheld by a
state high court in suits filed by public school boards.
WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS
Several studies of school choice programs
released during the past year demonstrate the significant benefits
of choice. For example, they find that choice:
- Improves academic performance. A March
2001 report commissioned by New York University found that City
Catholic school students achieve higher scores than do public
school students on New York's 4th and 8th grade standardized tests.
Moreover, students in Catholic schools pass their exams at a higher
rate. "The study demonstrates that Catholic Schools are more
effective in severing the connection between race or income and
academic performance," said Professor Joseph Viteritti, co-chair of
the University's Program on Education and Civil Society.
In August 2000, Harvard University's Paul
Peterson and his colleagues released the results of a study of
privately funded voucher programs in New York; Dayton, Ohio; and
the District of Columbia. They found that African-American children
who used vouchers to attend private schools made significant
academic improvements. Black students in their second year at a
private school had improved their test scores by 6.3 percentile
points, a striking advance at a time when schools around the
country are showing an inability to close the achievement gap
between white and black students.
A Western Michigan University study of
students in Pennsylvania's charter public schools, released in
October 2000, showed gains on state assessments of more than 100
points after just two years. The students outscored the other
schools in their districts by 86 points. The study found that the
charter schools were smaller but served more at-risk students and
more minority students than did the traditional public schools. Its
findings destroy the claims that charter schools "cream" the best
students from public schools and will not increase academic
achievement.
Finally, Jay P. Green, a senior fellow at
the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, conducted a nationwide
study on the correlation between academic excellence and the
availability of choice. Based on his research, he
has created an Education Freedom Index to rank the states.
The first state rankings were released in October 2000. The top 10
states are Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Oregon,
Texas, Delaware, Colorado, Maine, and Connecticut. The worst 10 are
Georgia, Alaska, South Carolina, Virginia, Rhode Island, Maryland,
Kentucky, Nevada, West Virginia, and Hawaii.
- Helps low-income families. In August
2000, Dr. Greene released the results of a study on the Charlotte,
North Carolina, scholarship program. Among the study's findings:
School choice improves scores, pleases parents, provides a safer
environment, reduces racial conflict, operates with less money,
offers smaller class size, and helps low-income parents.
In early 2000, John Witte, a professor at
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the official evaluator of
Milwaukee's school choice program, released the results of his
latest study of that program. His prior reports have often been
used to show that school choice does not work. Based on his most
recent study, however, Witte concludes in The Market Approach to
Education: An Analysis of America's First Voucher Program that
choice is a "useful tool to aid low-income families."
As a report released in early 2000 by
Wisconsin's Legislative Audit Bureau found, despite fears of
"creaming" and segregation, the Milwaukee school choice program
served a student population that was demographically identical to
Milwaukee's public school student population. It also concluded
that most of the schools participating in the program were
providing high-quality academic programs and tests.
- Improves public schools. According to
"School Choice and School Productivity," a February 2001 study by
Harvard University economist Caroline Hoxby, Milwaukee's public
elementary schools have improved as a result of the private school
choice program. Jay P. Green of the
Manhattan Institute, in another study released in February, found
similar results in Florida. He also found that academic
performance at the public schools improved when choice was
available.
This is similar to the findings of an
October 2000 study of Florida's school choice initiative, which
concluded that competition from choice sparks widespread public
school reform. "Competing to Win: How Florida's A+ Plan Has
Triggered Public School Reform" describes the steps public schools
took to improve instruction and teacher training after the nation's
first statewide choice program was instituted. Schools that had
received a grade of "F" for the 1998-1999 school year showed an
increase in test scores for 1999-2000 that was over twice as large
as that of schools that had not received a failing grade. The study
finds that meaningful public school reform is unlikely without the
consequences and market forces that accompany school choice.
-
Promotes effective school spending. A
December 2000 report on the benefits of school choice conducted by
Hoxby notes that school choice improves educational performance
while reducing spending. In "Does Competition Among Public Schools
Benefit Students and Taxpayers?" Hoxby reports that improvements in
performance also decrease the overall demand for private schools.
Policies that reduce choice, by comparison, are likely to increase
the share of students in private schools while reducing the share
of voters who are interested in improving public education.
- Promotes parental involvement. In fall
2000, Children First America released a myth-busting report. Based
on survey data on parents whose children use vouchers to attend
private schools, school choice drains neither money nor talented
students away from public schools, but it does improve parental
involvement as well as academic performance. The report was based on
responses from questionnaires given to a random sample of families
receiving vouchers in the Horizon Scholarship program and on
student test scores during the 1999-2000 school year. Demographic
data such as family income were also considered.
The evidence continues to mount. In a
report released in March 2001, students attending Advantage Schools
showed a 9.1 point gain on two national standardized tests: the
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests Revised and the ninth edition of the
Stanford Achievement Test. Advantage Schools is a private
Boston-based firm that manages 15 inner-city charter schools in
seven states and the District of Columbia.
WINNING THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
President Bush has focused public
attention on the need to give parents more control of their
children's education. A 2000 nationwide poll conducted by the
Center on Policy Attitudes found that approximately half of the
individuals surveyed favored the use of vouchers for tuition at
private and religious schools.
Remarkably, a recent survey conducted for
the National Education Association (NEA) and released in March 2001
reports that a clear majority of Americans support the President's
proposal to allow parents of children in chronically failing
schools to use public dollars to send their children to a public,
private, or charter school of choice. According to the U.S. House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the study also shows
overwhelming public support for annual student testing to ensure
accountability for results, "the centerpiece of President Bush's
`No Child Left Behind' plan." According to Committee Chairman John
Boehner (R-OH),
Americans support giving parents the power
to do what they think is best for their children's education. The
President's plan gives this power as a last resort to the parents
of children trapped in chronically failing schools after those
schools have been given every opportunity to change. A solid
majority of Americans support this approach.
Parents
Polls show strong support for vouchers among parents. In April
2001, a group known as Parents in Charge released the results of a
survey indicating that 82 percent of parents want to be in charge
of their children's education and 72 percent believe that
competition would improve education. The recent NEA survey found
similar results; 63 percent of those polled favored legislation
that would provide parents with tuition vouchers of $1,500 a year
to send their children to any public, private, or charter school.
Finally, the overwhelming response to the
scholarships offered by the Children's Scholarship Fund--over 1.25
million low-income parents in over 20,000 communities applied for
the 40,000 scholarships--confirms the popularity of choice among
the families that need it most. As these findings show, parents are
increasingly frustrated with the current system, which is leaving
too many children behind.
African-Americans
Potentially powerful and growing support for school choice is
found among African-American parents. A national poll conducted in
November 2000 by the Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies found that blacks are more likely than whites to think that
public schools are getting worse. Of the 57 percent of blacks
overall who support vouchers, 75 percent are under the age of 35
and 74 percent have children at home.
Some
of the nation's most prominent African-American leaders also
support choice: for example, former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young;
Martin Luther King III, the President of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference; and former Colorado NAACP President Willie
Breazell, who was asked to leave his post after publicly voicing
his support for school choice.
In
September 2000, former Superintendent of Milwaukee Schools Howard
Fuller, now professor of education and director of the Institute
for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University,
announced the formation of the Black Alliance for Educational
Options (BAEO) to bring public attention to the importance of
choice for children in inner-city poor communities. The theme of
the alliance's compelling television advertisement, "school choice
is widespread unless you're poor," is resonating with the poor and
minority families who are most likely to be shortchanged by public
education. Fuller believes that vouchers giving minority parents
the ability to take their children out of failing schools will help
to close the achievement gap. The BAEO has spent over $1 million to
place ads in the Washington, D.C., market and plans to expand the
campaign to other cities.
Educators
Support is growing among educators as well. According to a 1999
poll by Phi Delta Kappa, a professional educators' association,
support for vouchers among educators rose from 45 percent in 1994
to 51 percent in 1999. The survey also found that
support among parents of public school students had increased from
51 percent in 1994 to 60 percent in 1999.
New Allies
Choice is also gaining ground among leaders of minority groups
and traditionally Democratic constituencies. For example, certain
key Democrats who represent areas with large numbers of
underachieving schools now support school choice: AFL-CIO member
Kenneth L. Johnson, vice-president of the Milwaukee School Board;
State Representative Dwight Evans, chairman of the Pennsylvania
House Appropriations Committee; Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist; and
the Reverend Floyd Flake, former U.S. Representative from New
York.
PRIVATE-SECTOR CHOICE
In
addition to private schools and private voucher programs,
for-profit alternatives to traditional public school education are
blossoming. Approximately 100,000 children currently attend
elementary and secondary schools that are run by for-profit
companies nationwide.
Increasing Alternatives in For-Profit
Education
Edison Schools, based in New York, is the country's largest
for-profit manager of public schools. It serves 57,000 students in
113 schools in 47 cities and 21 states and the District of
Columbia. Edison schools, like Advantage Schools, either operate as
charter schools or are managed under contract with the local school
district.
The
private group primarily takes over troubled schools in poor
neighborhoods, and many of these schools are now achieving better
results than the government-run schools in their districts. In
California, for example, students at the Edison schools showed
gains on standardized tests that were twice the state's average on
the California Academic Performance Index. As a group, Edison
schools averaged a 74-point gain compared with the state public
schools' average of 33 points. Moreover, each Edison school ranked
close to the top of its district on this measure.
"Overall, the academic climate of the
Edison schools is positive and the classroom culture promotes
learning," reports a recent study funded by the NEA and conducted
by the Columbia University Teachers College. Moreover, "[m]ost
Edison schools are safe, orderly and energized." Peter Cooksen of the
Columbia University Teachers College observes that the Edison
schools are well-thought-out and functional, with a cohesive
curriculum and a positive learning environment.
On-line Back-to-Basics Education
Other private entities are attempting to fill niches left open
by failing public schools. For example, in December 2000, former
U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett opened K12, a Virginia
company that is specializing in on-line education. Bennett
describes K12 as "a back to basics approach...combining traditional
learning and powerful technology." K12 will offer a curriculum teaching
and testing system, based on tough standards, for students in
kindergarten through 12th grade. Students will have access to
courses on-line, with some use of ink-on-paper workbooks. The K12
on-line curriculum will include frequent testing to ensure that
students are keeping up with their coursework. Potential users
include home-schooled children and charter school students in need
of supplemental coursework.
THE OUTLOOK FOR CHOICE
The
outlook for Choice in 2001 is promising. Amendments to strengthen
charter school laws are pending in Minnesota, Missouri,
Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, Illinois, and Alaska; and in Iowa,
for the first time, charter school legislation is moving through
the legislature. In addition:
-
In Alaska, a bill has been
introduced to strengthen charter schools. Among other improvements,
H.B. 101 would change the state's charter school law to eliminate
its 2005 sunset clause, double the cap to 60 charter schools,
double each charter's length to 10 years, eliminate the requirement
for geographic distribution of charters, clarify that charter
schools are not exempt from competency testing, and provide a
one-time start-up grant of $500 per student.
-
Governor John Rowland (R) of
Connecticut, whose support for school vouchers in the past
has churned controversy, is proposing that $15 million of the
state's surplus be used to create a five-year pilot scholarship
program. Parents in the state's poorest districts could receive
grants of up to $1,500 a year to send their children to private or
parochial schools. However, since Democrats
have stalled public hearings on this initiative, House Republicans may
reintroduce the bill as an amendment. Two bills to provide
vouchers to students attending the state's 100 lowest-performing
schools also have been proposed.
-
In Florida, a corporate income tax
credit for private school tuition approved by the House recently
was passed by the Senate and sent to Governor Jeb Bush. A bill to
give parents who are concerned about overcrowding in their schools
the option of transferring their child to another school was
approved by the House but has not been considered in the Senate.
This bill would give each student in schools where enrollment
exceeds 120 percent of capacity a $3,000 grant toward tuition at a
private school. Legislation also heading to the governor would
dramatically expand the state's voucher program to allow up to
340,000 children with disabilities who are unable to obtain the
services they need at their traditional public school to attend
another school of choice. The Senate passed S.B. 1180 by a vote of
33-2 on May 4, 2001, a short time after the House voted 76-39 in
favor of the bill. If the governor signs this bill, any parents of
a disabled student who are dissatisfied with their child's public
schools will be able to obtain a voucher to allow their child to
attend a private school.
-
On May 2, 2001, Indiana Governor
Frank O'Bannon (D) signed the nation's 38th charter school law.
According to the Center for Education Reform, the law is strong
because it permits an unlimited number of charter schools to open
in the state; allows state universities to sponsor them statewide
and the mayor of Indianapolis to charter them; and gives new
charters legal autonomy in hiring, district rules, and union
contracts.
-
Some children in failing Prince George's
County, Maryland, public schools may be able to transfer to
other county public schools that are performing better under a
proposal approved by the Prince George's school board and awaiting
state review. Under a new but limited initiative, Maryland has
begun to notify parents of children in its 141 worst-performing
public schools that they may soon be able to transfer to a better
public school or charter school of choice.
-
New York City Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani (R) is promoting a serious voucher program to give poor
students access to quality education. The proposed $12 million
pilot program, modeled after the Milwaukee choice program, would be
offered in one or two school districts for a three-year period.
Students in the targeted districts would be eligible for tuition
assistance at a parochial or private school of choice. The state
legislature is also considering an education investment tax credit
for private-sector donations to public and private schools or
scholarship funding organizations.
-
In Pennsylvania, a $15 million
corporate income tax credit for businesses that support educational
scholarships was passed in the legislature and sent to the governor
on May 10, 2001.
- In Texas, two bills to create pilot
voucher programs for poor-performing students have been
introduced. No action is expected until
the next legislative session.
Several states also are considering
vouchers and tax credits. Specifically:
-
The legislatures of Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, and Vermont are considering voucher programs for
low-performing and low-income students.
- Tuition tax credit bills have also been
introduced in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.
HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HELP
The
school choice movement got a boost when Texas Governor George W.
Bush, a strong proponent of choice and accountability in education,
became President of the United States. In January 2001, President
Bush unveiled a comprehensive education reform program to ensure
that "no child is left behind." The central principles of this
initiative are flexibility, accountability, and parental
choice.
-
More flexibility in spending federal
dollars. Schools, local school districts, and states would gain
more freedom in deciding how to administer their federal education
dollars. The plan consolidates ESEA categorical federal programs
into a smaller number of core initiatives providing flexibility to
states and districts to meet achievement and school safety
goals.
-
Stronger accountability for results in
exchange for flexibility. States would be held accountable for
improving student achievement, based on annual state assessments in
reading and math for 3rd through 8th grade students. Such
assessments would enable schools to detect and correct problems in
a timely fashion.
-
Choice for students in failing or
dangerous schools. There should be real consequences for
schools that are dangerous or that do not improve after three
years. The parents of disadvantaged students in persistently
failing schools should have an option to move them to better public
or private schools.
-
Rewarding success and sanctioning
failure. States, districts, and schools that narrow the
achievement gap and improve overall student achievement would
receive monetary rewards. States that fail to make progress could
lose a portion of their administrative funds.
- Improving teacher quality. States and
districts would have access to flexible funding that they could
dedicate to recruiting and training high-quality teachers. In
return, they would be held accountable for ensuring that students
in public school are in fact learning.
President Bush also has appointed several
well-known and highly respected advocates of school choice to
prominent positions within his Administration: Rod Paige, the
former Houston schools chief, as Secretary of Education; Bill
Hansen, Executive Director of the Education Finance Council who
served in the Department of Education from 1981 to 1993, as Deputy
Secretary of Education; and Eugene Hickok, former Pennsylvania
education secretary, as an undersecretary in the Department of
Education.
Moreover, Members of Congress from both
political parties are now saying that public school choice is
needed to empower parents, promote accountability, and force
low-performing public schools to improve. For example, Senator
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Democratic Party candidate for Vice
President last year, has proposed a $200 million fund to help
school districts develop school choice initiatives. Clearly,
policymakers are recognizing how strongly Americans want Congress
to reform federal education spending. It is a matter of political
will.
CONCLUSION
Choice empowers parents to give their
children the very best educational opportunities they can. The
principles of parental empowerment and educational opportunity
resonate strongly in the battle of ideas. They are shaking the
entrenched and profoundly self-interested education establishment
into examining its own effectiveness. As the number of legislative
proposals now before Congress and the state legislatures clearly
indicates, support for school choice is not only growing, but
reaching all-time highs nationwide.
With
recent school choice victories in states like Indiana, Florida,
Illinois, and Ohio, and with the rising demand for private
scholarships offered by organizations like the Children's
Scholarship Fund and Children First America, opponents of choice
are losing ground in the court of public opinion, as well as their
grip on state legislatures, boards of education, parents, and
teachers. Numerous studies point out the positive effects of school
choice on academic performance and on instruction and teacher
training in public schools faced with competitive pressures from
charter schools.
Real
education reform means giving parents, teachers, and children more
options and empowering parents to make the decisions involving
their children's education. Bureaucrats may know line items in the
budget, but parents and teachers know students and their needs.
School choice maximizes the nation's sizeable investment in
education to ensure that all children, regardless of their
background or where they live, have an opportunity to succeed.
Jennifer Garrett is a Research Assistant
in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage
Foundation.
Endnotes