More on Detroit's Decline.
The Detroit News provides another look at the sad state of Detroit.

Even as the city lost approximately 36,000 people since 2000, Detroit has "added new housing last year at its fastest pace in more than two decades."

That's not entirely encouraging news, because there is still little sign that people are choosing the city for the next generation. "Demographers say while families with children continue to abandon Detroit neighborhoods, many of the new lofts and condominiums downtown have been filled by single people or couples without kids."

This points out, again, the need to improve the range of school choice as a key to urban revitalization. People aren't going to stay in a city if the only schools can afford are the third-rate government schools.

(This is the latest of a series of posts in which I am cleaning out the archives. The information is dated and the link is now dead. But the trend line, I believe is the same.)

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

What is Enacted by Initiative, and Why?
File this under "I've got think about this some more."

Recently someone pointed out to me that initiative and referrenda are some of the most powerful tools for keeping government in check. Think, for example, of Proposition 13 (California) and the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (Colorado).

And yet when it comes to school choice, every advance that I know of, whether it's Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minnesota, Iowa, Florida, or Utah, has come through the legislative process. When put up to a public vote, the pro-choice cause doesn't have a great record.

Why is that? One could argue that the pro-school argument is outspent by teachers unions and other sympathizers of the status quo, and that's certainly true. One could also argue that school choice is not that popular. There's some validity to that point, though it's important to overstate it. (I could look up public opinion surveys, but won't).

Perhaps the difference between the fates of the two causes is that one is easy to understand, and the other is not. Tax cuts, easy to understand. Restraints on government that will mean a reduction in the rate of spending growth? A bit more abstract, but still, it's about money in the bank.

Attaching a metaphorical backpack of money to a child and letting government funding flow to whatever school the child's family chooses? A bit more abstract--and certainly nothing that we have yet to see on a wide scale.

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

Advancing Educational Choice: Job Openings.
The Alliance for School Choice is moving its offices from Arizona to Washington, DC. With that move comes the need for some staffers on the ground. What follows are some job announcements that may be of interest.

Professional Opening: Director of Research

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a Director of Research in its new DC headquarters. Responsibilities will include research support for the Alliance’s policy advocates, supervision of research support staff, coordination with and supervision of outside researchers, and writing for a lay audience. The successful candidate should have strong research and writing skills, experience with education policy issues, sufficient experience and gravitas to supervise the work of distinguished outside researchers, experience with legislative bill-tracking, supervisory experience, and a congenial personality. The Alliance offers a fast-paced, positive working environment and excellent benefits. Please send resume and writing sample to Elizabeth Moser, director of state outreach, at schoolchoicelady@cox.net. The Alliance is a nonpartisan, equal opportunity employer.

Professional Opening: Director of Communications and Marketing

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a Director of Communications and Marketing in its new DC headquarters. Responsibilities encompass supervision and execution of a media and marketing strategy to advance school choice across the nation. The successful candidate must possess experience and a demonstrated track record of success in both communications and marketing, strong writing skills, supervisory experience, high energy, and a congenial personality. The Alliance offers a fast-paced, positive working environment and excellent benefits. Please send resume and writing sample to Elizabeth Moser, director of state outreach, at schoolchoicelady@cox.net. The Alliance is a nonpartisan, equal opportunity employer.

Professional Opening: Print and Electronic Publications Director

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a Production Director with responsibility for all print and electronic publications. These publications include: the School Choice Activist and Navigator newsletters, annual reports, various other publications, and the Alliance website. Specific responsibilities include designing and executing production of these publications; coordinating and editing substantive content; and supervising support staff and outside contractors. The successful candidate must possess experience and a demonstrated track record of success in both print and electronic publications, including web design and HTML coding experience, strong writing and grammatical skills, supervisory experience, high energy, and a congenial personality. The Alliance offers a fast-paced, positive working environment and excellent benefits. Please send resume and writing sample to Elizabeth Moser, director of state outreach, at schoolchoicelady@cox.net. The Alliance is a nonpartisan, equal opportunity employer.

Professional Opening: Executive Assistant to the President

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a highly experienced Executive Assistant to the President in its new DC headquarters. Responsibilities encompass assistance to the President on correspondence, calendar, travel, and general organization; and principal liaison to the Board of Directors. The successful candidate must possess experience and a demonstrated track record of success as an executive assistant, experience in Board relations, experience with travel and meeting planning, careful attention to detail, an ability to multi-task, high energy, and a congenial personality. The Alliance offers a fast-paced, positive working environment and excellent benefits. Please send resume and writing sample to Elizabeth Moser, director of state outreach, at schoolchoicelady@cox.net. The Alliance is a nonpartisan, equal opportunity employer.

Professional Opening: Development Director (production and communications)

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a Development Director for production & communications in its new DC headquarters. Position responsibilities include:

• proposal and letter writing,
• writing grant reports, Alliance Insider (development’s quarterly newsletter) and other fundraising marketing/communications materials and publications,
• working with communications team to produce an annual report,
• implementation and management of the direct mail program,
• establishment and implementation of an annualized mail schedule (requests, non-requests, annual giving) for each giving level,
• prospect identification and cultivation for Alliance, and
• stewardship of all current donors to ensure maximize retention and increased gifts.

Qualifications

Excellent oral, written and organizational skills required. Highly accomplished and versatile writer with thorough knowledge of strategic communications concepts, methods and techniques. Proficient in proofreading and fact-checking. Ability to manage and organize projects. Ability to handle sensitive and confidential information, prioritize competing work and deadlines, and produce highly accurate work. Experience with a direct mail program a plus.

Bachelor’s degree in English, communications, or a related field. Minimum of five years experience creating written communications in support of fundraising efforts.

Salary and benefits are commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Interested candidates please submit a cover letter and resume to Cheryl Hillen, director of development, at cehillen@aol.com. For questions/inquires, please call (860) 872-4004. For more information on the Alliance for School Choice, please visit our web site at www.allianceforschoolchoice.org.

Professional Opening: Development Director (c-4, state-based fundraising, external relations)

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a Development Director for c-4 and state-based fundraising in its new DC headquarters.

Position responsibilities include:

• cultivation of a diverse base of donors for Advocates,
• management and implementation of events throughout the country to build support for Advocates,
• utilization of mail, meetings, events and proposals as appropriate to raise Advocates support,
• prospect research for political major donor prospects,
• working with the Advocates board to identify prospects;
• assisting with marketing and communications materials and mailings,
• stewardship of all current donors ($1,000 - $5,000 range) to ensure maximize retention and increased gifts, and working with state team to identify and cultivate support for state-specific fundraising needs/projects (both Alliance and Advocates).
  

Qualifications

Excellent oral, written and organizational skills required. Highly accomplished and versatile writer with thorough knowledge of strategic communications concepts, methods and techniques. Proficient in proofreading and fact-checking. Ability to manage and organize projects. Ability to handle sensitive and confidential information, prioritize competing work and deadlines, and produce highly accurate work. Experience with political fundraising a must!

Bachelor’s degree in English, communications, or a related field. Minimum of five years experience in a political fundraising position.

Salary and benefits are commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Interested candidates please submit a cover letter and resume to Cheryl Hillen, director of development, at cehillen@aol.com. For questions/inquires, please call (860) 872-4004. For more information on the Alliance for School Choice, please visit our web site at www.allianceforschoolchoice.org.

Professional Opening: Development Assistant

The Alliance for School Choice (www.allianceforschoolchoice.org), the nation’s leading public policy organization supporting private educational options for disadvantaged schoolchildren, seeks a Development Assistant in its new DC headquarters. Position responsibilities include:

• management of the Raiser’s Edge 7.0 database,
• serving as the gift administrator, reconciling contributions periodically with the accounting team and organizing/providing financial information for the monthly executive committee reports,
• facilitation of development mailings and serve as manager of the donor files, editing all development print materials including donor proposals and grant reports, supporting the development team in donor cultivation (assist the development manager with the facilitation of regional donor events, edit promotional and giving club materials), assisting with the management of the direct mail program, most importantly managing deadlines, and provide special assistance as needed (aid with organizational strategy and development progress).

Qualifications

Proficient with Raiser’s Edge 7.0. Knowledge in gift administration. Excellent oral, written and organizational skills required. Proficient in proofreading and fact-checking. Ability to manage and organize projects. Ability to handle sensitive and confidential information, prioritize competing work and deadlines, and produce highly accurate work. Experience in a fundraising environment preferred.

Bachelor’s degree in communications, business or a related field. Minimum of two years experience in a fundraising position.

Salary and benefits are commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Interested candidates please submit a cover letter and resume to Crystal Corriveau, development manager, at ccorriveau@allianceforschoolchoice.org. For questions/inquires, please call (480) 262-7708. For more information on the Alliance for School Choice, please visit our web site at www.allianceforschoolchoice.org.

Labels: Education, jobs in public policy, School choice

(permalink)

Job Announcement
The following job announcement may be of interested to someone interested in public policy:

Director, Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Government
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/jobs.aspx

The Goldwater Institute, one of the nation’s premiere market-oriented policy organizations, seeks an experienced senior-level researcher and writer to direct its Center for Constitutional Government. A full description of the Center is online. The director will report to Clint Bolick, Director of the Goldwater Institute Center for Constitutional Litigation, and will be responsible for the strategic vision, research, and operations of the Center for Constitutional Government. Specific tasks include researching and writing studies and articles on Arizona and federal constitutional issues; organizing forums and conferences; initiating and supervising research projects with outside scholars; editing papers; public speaking; and supervising interns. Competitive candidates will possess a graduate degree, preferably Juris Doctor or a related field with an emphasis on law; at least two years of related experience; keen and demonstrated analytical and writing skills; good interpersonal skills and a sense of humor. Address cover letter, resume, and two relevant writing samples to Clint Bolick c/o Kathi Bobbe, Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Road, Phoenix AZ 85004, or by e-mail to kbobbe@goldwaterinstitute.org. No phone calls please. The Goldwater Institute is an equal opportunity employer.

Director, Goldwater Institute Center for Economic Prosperity
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/jobs.aspx

The Goldwater Institute seeks an experienced, senior-level fiscal policy analyst to direct its Center for Economic Prosperity. A full description of the Center is online. The director will be responsible for the strategic vision, research and operations of the center. Specific tasks include researching and writing studies and articles, planning and hosting forums and conferences, initiating research projects with outside scholars, editing papers, public speaking, and supervising new analysts. Competitive candidates will have a strong background in economics and at least 3 years of related experience; demonstrated analytical and writing skills; good interpersonal skills and a sense of humor. Address cover letter, resume, and two relevant writing samples to attn: Dr. Matt Ladner c/o Kathi Bobbe, and mail to: The Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, or send materials via e-mail kbobbe@goldwaterinstitute.org. No phone calls please. The Goldwater Institute is an equal opportunity employer.

Communications and Marketing Associate
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/jobs.aspx

The Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute seeks an aggressive and enthusiastic Communications and Marketing Assistant. The position will promote Goldwater Institute research and staff in the news media and with other target audiences by implementing media plans for releasing Goldwater research, publicizing events, and through other outreach initiatives. This position will coordinate day-to-day communications and marketing; track media coverage and actively pitch story ideas to beat reporters and guest columns to editors around the state and country; and track and fulfill speaking engagement requests, as well as accompany policy staff to those events.

Qualified candidates will have at least two years of work experience and be extremely organized and detail oriented. Strong preference will be given to candidates who can speak, read, and write Spanish. Candidates must have excellent writing skills and be comfortable “cold-calling” and aggressively pursuing outreach opportunities. Candidates should be familiar with the Microsoft Office software suite. Knowledge of marketing trends like podcasting and You Tube and basic website editing skills a plus. An aggressive team player will find training and advancement opportunities abound. Competitive salary and excellent benefits.

Address cover letter and resume to Starlee Rhoades, Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Road, Phoenix AZ 85004, or by e-mail to srhoades@goldwaterinstitute.org. No phone calls please. The Goldwater Institute is an equal opportunity employer.

Development Associate
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/jobs.aspx

The Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute seeks a motivated and enthusiastic Development Associate to manage multiple fundraising and sponsor relations projects. This position will be responsible for coordinating fundraising and policy events, managing year-round direct mail projects, developing an internet fundraising program, expanding prospect research activities, managing a donor database, and processing donor contributions.

Qualified candidates will possess excellent persuasive writing and communication skills, be extremely organized and detail oriented, and be able to work well under pressure. Candidates must be able to juggle multiple demanding projects, maintain a consistently positive attitude, and be able to thrive in a dynamic and fast-paced fundraising environment. Preference will be given to candidates with fundraising experience and familiarity with public policy arguments relating to free markets, school choice and constitutional government.

This position offers excellent training and advancement opportunities as well as a competitive salary and benefit package.

Address cover letter, resume and two writing samples to Jess Yescalis, Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Road, Phoenix AZ 85004, or by e-mail to jyescalis@goldwaterinstitute.org. No phone calls please. The Goldwater Institute is an equal opportunity employer.

Summer Law Clerk
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/aboutus/jobs.aspx

The Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, one of the nation's preeminent free-market policy organizations, seeks a full-time rising 1L or 2L clerk for Summer 2007, to work for its newly established Center for Constitutional Litigation under its director, Clint Bolick. The clerkship will be an intensive hands-on legal research position. The successful candidate must be able to commit the entire summer, must demonstrate exceptional research and writing skills, and should be personable and possess a strong work ethic and good sense of humor. Salary is $13.00/hr. Address cover letter, resume, and two relevant writing samples to Clint Bolick c/o Kathi Bobbe, Goldwater Institute, 500 E. Coronado Road, Phoenix AZ 85004, or by e-mail to kbobbe@goldwaterinstitute.org. No phone calls please. The Goldwater Institute is an equal opportunity employer.

Labels: jobs in public policy, School choice

(permalink)

Public Pension Mess: News Accounts and Editorials
Public employee pensions are a mess. How so? What follows are some clippings from recent newspaper articles, coast to coast.

First we start with the publication sometimes derided as the "McPaper." USA Today comes in with mes a lengthy, and depressing, look at the state of public pensions. It's the best of the bunch.

Pension gap divides public and private workers
USA Today, February 21, 2007

Key quotes:
As the first wave of 79 million baby boomers heads to retirement, the nation is dividing into two classes of workers: those who have government benefits and those who don't. The gap is accelerating in every way — pensions, medical benefits, retirement ages. ...

Retired government workers are twice as likely to get a pension as their counterparts in the private sector, and the typical benefit is far more generous. ...

Governments' generosity could have serious consequences for taxpayers and pensioners. Some states — including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia — have troubled retirement systems that may require huge tax increases, spending cuts or even defaulting on promised benefits. The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion). ...

Only 18% of private workers now have traditional defined benefit pension plans, compared with more than 80% of government employees.

Contrary to a widely held notion, the extra government benefits aren't compensation for lower pay. Most government workers are paid more than private employees in similar jobs, and the wage gap is growing.

Out to pasture: Don't mess with state employee pensions
Salt Lake Tribune, February 20.

In an editorial, the paper responds to a proposal to bring 401k/defined contribution plans to the Utah civil service. It dismisses the idea by appealing to tradition, and a red herring as well:

"If a 401(k) plan becomes an option, it will attract short-timers and transients, people who are looking to take the money and run instead of paying their dues and acquiring the institutional knowledge necessary to make public agencies work, and work efficiently. Do you want a revolving door at the police department, and the fire department, and the teacher's lounge? We don't."

Oh yes, we need that "institutional knowledge" at the counter of the DMV.

The SL Tribune argues that the plan is merely an act of war on public employees by conservatives.

What then to make of the Los Angeles Times, no member of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

Vote Yes on M.
Los Angeles Times
February 26, 2006

Excerpt:
There's a looming financial crisis as retired school, city, county and state employees claim larger chunks of public funds each year for their pensions, in part because people are living longer, in part because elected officials have been catering to the demands of employee unions. The state has a huge and growing unfunded pension liability — meaning government could be on the hook to pay retirees money it doesn't have and isn't likely to get. Money needed for public safety and other services will go instead to support retired government workers.

State owes public employee pension system $7.2 billion
Asbury (NJ) Park Press
February 22, 2007

Excerpt:
New Jersey's deficit for its largest public employee pension system grew to $7.2 billion last fiscal year, a $2.7 billion increase from the previous year.

To begin closing the growing gap between the state's pension assets and what it is expected to owe retired public workers, state and local governments would have to pay $950 million to the Public Employee Retirement System this year, according to Janet Cranna, an actuary hired by the state.

‘Contribution-based’ benefit would ease inequities
Worcester Telegram
February 23, 2007

Excerpt:
Public employees, including elected officials, may count part of a year — even one day — as a full year of service. Married public employees retiring early may pool years of service to maximize benefits. ...

The system is particularly lucrative for people who land full-time public-sector jobs after serving in part-time elected positions such as city councilor, selectman, school board member and, sometimes, town meeting moderator. Thus Raymond V. Mariano, who heads the Worcester Housing Authority, is projected to retire with a $111,000 annual pension, although 16 of the 28 years for which he will be credited were in part-time, elective school board and council positions with a maximum stipend of $18,000.

Council weighs pension raises
Philadelphia Daily News
February 28, 2007

(Setup: A committee of the city council faces a choice. It can approve a measure to increase pension obligations, or not.)

Excerpt:
So what happened? Hint: Voters will go to the polls in mid-May to choose City Council candidates. With mere lip service to the city's fiscal condition, the committee gave unanimous support yesterday to Councilman Jim Kenney's bill. [To increase obligations-ed.] ...

The move comes when the pension fund is eating up more and more taxpayer dollars. In 2005, the city spent $315 million on pensions. In the upcoming year, the city projects to spend $457 million in a city budget that will be almost $90 million in the red.

But even with the increases, the fund covers only about 53 percent of its projected payouts; well-funded public pension plans cover between 80 percent and 90 percent.

Get a handle on retiree costs
Beloit (Wisconsin) Daily News
February 5, 2007

Excerpt:

THE QUESTION is often asked: How did benefit costs for public employees get so out of hand?It's really not that complicated. Back when items like health insurance and pensions were cheap, government negotiators gave away the farm. It was relatively cost-effective, it bought labor peace and, besides, it's always easy to spend other people's money. ...

Governmental jurisdictions have a $17.4 billion fiscal hole, over and above what already has been set aside for public employee pensions and post-retirement benefits.

Pension fix draws mixed reviews
Helena Independent Record
February 2, 2007

(Thinly populated states have this problem, too. Here's an except:)

HELENA — Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s plan to patch up three public-employee pension funds had more than its share of naysayers Thursday, as some groups representing workers objected to scaling back future retirement payments for new workers.

Yet, despite the objections, some still appeared in support of the bill, saying the 2007 Legislature must do something to fix public-employee pension funds facing long-term shortfalls of $570 million.“

You cannot afford to leave this session without solving this problem,’’ said Tom Schneider of the Montana Public Employees Association, a union representing about 7,000 government workers. “The entire system has to be funded. We just can’t allow this to go on and on.’’

Pittsburgh's pensions: Sans reform, disaster
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
February 16, 2007

(Problems are not limited to state governments.)

Excerpt:
One of Pittsburgh's several elephants in the room is the dangerous underfunding of its pension plans.

Thus far, entreaties for a state bailout have not gotten anywhere; one can speculate why. Lawmakers are not eager to saddle state taxpayers with the mistake. Meanwhile, increases in pension costs for state and public education employees loom.

Sinkhole!
BusinessWeek, June 13, 2005

Labels: Public employee pensions, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice Advances in Arizona.
Two new school choice measures in Arizona have survived a legal challenge, for now, says the Alliance for School Choice.

Even more interesting than the decision of the state Supreme Court to not hear a case challenging the "Arizona Displaced Pupil Choice Grants" (for children in foster care) and "Arizona Scholarships for Pupils with Disabilities" are the results of a recent public opinion survey.

---

The Court's decision comes on the heels of a recent poll showing a significant amount of support among Arizonans for the challenged programs. The poll found that 76 percent of Arizonans surveyed like the idea of ArizonaÂ?s disabled students being allowed to attend the school of their choice, and 64 percent support the concept of foster children getting the education of their choosing, whether that is at a public or private school.

The survey also found considerable voter support for the concept of school choice beyond the targeted programs for foster and disabled children.

When asked if they liked the idea of Â?Parents having the ability to take their tax dollars and put their child in the school of their choosing,? respondents favored the idea by a 2:1 margin.

A full copy of the poll is available at www.azschoolchoice.com. The survey was conducted by The Polling Company, Inc. in December of more than 500 Arizona residents and has a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percent.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

No Child Left Behind on a Big Scale.
In theory, under No Child Left Behind, a student who attends a school with persistently lousy performance will eventually get the chance to attend another school, even a private one. I don't know if that's actually happened, however.

On the other hand, Ohio has taken steps to allow students, now, to take advantage of school choice. Under the Educational Choice Scholarship Program, students who attend failing schools have an out. They must attend a school building that has been in "academic emergency" or "academic watch" for three years.

Of course, the program has been opposed by the teachers union, which is all for protecting jobs, even if it means denying opportunities to students. You might not know, however, that the state's association of school boards also opposes EdChoice.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Public Education, Yes. Government-run schools? Not for all.
In the wake of Milton Friedman's death, I decided to look at his 1956 essay, which started him down the path of advocating for school choice.

The essay is The Role of Government in Education. There are two major components, K-12 education, followed by higher education.

For higher education, Friedman proposed a contract by which college students would get funding in exchange for a portion of their post-college income. He admits that it has a funny smell to it: "There seems no legal obstacle to private contracts of this kind, even though they are economically equivalent to the purchase of a share in an individual's earning capacity and thus to partial slavery."

On K-12 education, he says that we have three questions to ask.

Should government compel minor children to be educated? Yes, he concludes, as an educated citizenry is vital to a stable democracy.

Should the cost of that education be borne only by parents and the child, or by society at large? Friedman comes down on the side of compulsory payment of others (taxation), on the grounds that primary and secondary education carries substantial "neighborhood effects," or what your Econ 101 class may have called "externalities."

Who should administer that education? Through a series of events, we have ended up with giving a monopoly, based on geographic scope, to government bodies known as local school districts, the directors of which (school board members) are selected by political means (that is, school board elections).

Yet as Friedman points out, government financing need not mean government operation of schools, let alone government schools being the only place at which taxpayer funds would be spent. (Think of food stamps; they are not bought at "public grocery stores.")

Governments could require a minimum level of education which they could finance by giving parents vouchers redeemable for a specified maximum sum per child per year if spent on "approved" educational services. Parents would then be free to spend this sum and any additional sum on purchasing educational services from an "approved" institution of their own choice. The educational services could be rendered by private enterprises operated for profit, or by non-profit institutions of various kinds. The role of the government would be limited to assuring that the schools met certain minimum standards such as the inclusion of a minimum common content in their programs, much as it now inspects restaurants to assure that they maintain minimum sanitary standards. An excellent example of a program of this sort is the United States educational program for veterans after World War II.

Fifty years after Friedman's initial essay, school choice has but a toehold in American education. It works more or less at the university level, with privately and publicly owned colleges.

At the K-12 level, school choice is expanding, with tax credits, tax deductions, voucher programs, and other means operating in about a dozen states. Here's hoping that it doesn't take another 50 years for the idea to get to fruition.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Fifty Years of School Voucher Progress.
The recent death of Milton Friedman reminds us all of the value of competition in education, and the promise--largely untried--of school vouchers.

The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation offers a timeline of the idea of school vouchers in a poster they recently sent my way. Here are some of the items on the list:

1955: Friedman articulates the idea of school vouchers--government financing of education coupled with consumer choice of school, in "The Role of Government Education," a chapter of the book Economics and the Public Interest

1955: Minnesota enacts an education tax deduction.

1962: Friedman writes Capitalism and Freedom, which further discusses vouchers.

1970: The U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity decides to create a pilot voucher plan. The NEA denounces vouchers.

1972: The U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity creates a pilot program in Alum Rock, California. It is very limited in scope, hindering its demonstration value.

1975: The president AFT--the other teachers union--reverses his opinion and comes out in favor of vouchers, in "Vouchers: A Critic Changes his Mind."

1980: The PBS series "Free to Choose" highlights economics, and school choice.

1983: Reagan administration proposes vouchers and tuition tax credits. In Muller v. Allen, SCOTUS gives OK to Minnesota tax deduction.

1985: Reagan administration proposes converting Title I money to vouchers.

1987: Iowa enacts the Iowa Tuition Tax Credit

1990: Wisconsin enacts the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

1995: Ohio creates a scholarship and tutoring program for Cleveland.

1997: Arizona creates the Arizona Tax Credit program. Minnesota establishes a tax credit program and expands the tax deduction.

1998: SCOTUS upholds the use of religious schools in the MPCP

1999: Florida starts the A+ program, which gives vouchers to students in failing public schools. Illinois creates an education tax credit.

2000: Florida expands the A+ program to include students with special needs.

2001: The Illinois Supreme Court rejects a Blaine Amendment challenge to the state's tax credit. Florida enacts a corporate tax credit program, as does Pennsylvania.

2002: In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, SCOTUS rules that the Cleveland program does not violate the U.S. Constitution

2003: Pennsylvania creates a tax credit for pre-K.

2004: The DC Schools Choice incentive Act implements vouchers in the nation's capital city.

2005: Utah enacts a Special Needs Scholarship program. Arizona and Ohio expand school choice programs.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The U.S. Becoming a Nation of the Less Educated?
Is the U.S. actually becoming a nation with less education? The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education says so.

"If current trends continue," it warns, "the proportion of workers with high school diplomas and college degrees will decrease and the personal income of Americans will decline over the next 15 years."

Granted, having a BA in English lit isn't a great qualification to serve up coffee, but the Center expects that high school graduation rates will decline as well. One way of measuring the economic effect: a 2 percent decline in inflation-adjusted per-capita income by the year 2020.

Changing demographics and the achievement gap are largely responsible.

Just another reason to introduce competition, choice, and a diversity of players into the delivery of K-12 education. Private schools and public charter schools have a record of helping close the achievement gap.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Choice School Students Say: He's Throwing Away My Dream.
Policy recommendations based on rational thought are good. Emotional appeals that have rational thought behind them are even better.

Milwaukee has had a limited version of parental choice in education for about a decade now. You have to live in Milwaukee and be under a certain income level, but if you qualify, you get a voucher to send your child to a participating school.

The number of students who could participate in the program has been capped by law, and in the last year there was a lot of political action over raising the cap.

The group called School Choice Wisconsin was instrumental in getting the cap increased. They did a great job of adding some grassroots advocacy to the policy arguments.

I highly recommend the following commercial. Make sure to watch it until the end. It's a Quicktime file, 5MB.

http://www.schoolchoicewi.org/library/comealong.cfm

See more commercials here: http://www.schoolchoicewi.org/library/commercial.cfm

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Bill in Congress Offers Funds for Trapped Students.
Federal funding for schooling isn't idea by any means. But if it is to be, initiatives such as the following would be useful. It comes from the offices of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) and a few other politicians.

-------------

House and Senate Education Leaders Introduce Legislation to Give Children Trapped in Under-Performing Schools More Opportunities to Achieve

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and John Ensign (R-NV) and U.S. Representatives Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and Sam Johnson (R-TX) today introduced bicameral legislation to implement the Bush administration’s America’s Opportunity Scholarships program to give children who are trapped in under-performing schools more choices and opportunities to improve their educational experience.

“America’s Opportunity Scholarships give meaning to the promise of No Child Left Behind,” said Sen. Alexander, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development. “This is about giving low-income families whose children are stuck in low-performing schools the same opportunities as other families. A recent poll found that 62 percent of public school parents have transferred a child out of one school into a better school or have decided where to live based on the schools in that district. This offers a way out for students whose families don't have the money for tuition or the luxury of moving.”

“Educating America’s youth must be a priority for the people of our nation, and our government,” said Sen. Ensign. “America’s Opportunity Scholarships program opens greater avenues to make certain that all children in our nation are given a chance to succeed. This legislation will help to ensure that our most disadvantaged children can receive a better education and will ensure that our nation’s next generations have the skills they need to succeed in the future.”

“Not only does the America’s Opportunity Scholarship for Kids Act expand upon the great success of No Child Left Behind by increasing parental choice, but it also shines a brighter light than ever on the need for more educational opportunities and – ultimately – higher achievement in our classrooms,” said Rep. McKeon, Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

“Children may be a fraction of today's society but they are 100% of our future. It's time we empower students - and their parents. I want to give these children a choice and a chance,” said Rep. Johnson.

The America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids Act would authorize the Department of Education to provide $100 million in fiscal year 2007 for competitive grants to states, school districts, and non-profit organizations to provide scholarships of up to $4,000 to low-income children in persistently under-performing schools to attend the private school of their choice.

States, school districts, and non-profit organizations would also be authorized to provide up to $3,000 to low-income students for intensive, sustained supplemental educational services if students don’t want to attend a different school. This would include high-quality tutoring, after-school or summer school programs designed to help improve the student’s academic achievement.

Under the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act, schools are identified for restructuring after failing to meet their Adequate Yearly Progress goals for six years. The U.S. Department of Education reports that in the 2004-05 school year, 1,065 schools were identified for restructuring. Preliminary estimates suggest that an additional 1,000 schools will be identified for restructuring in the 2005-06 school year.

“You shouldn't need to win the lottery to send your child to a high-performing school,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings who joined the bill sponsors at a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce the legislation. “President Bush believes we must give parents options, and the America’s Opportunity Scholarships program will empower parents to demand more from our schools and enable them to make choices for their kid’s education and future.”

The bill’s sponsors noted a pair of studies that illustrate the effectiveness of school choice:

- a Harvard-Georgetown-University of Wisconsin study published in 2000 found that African-American students receiving private scholarships in three regions – Ohio, New York, and Washington, D.C. – scored significantly better than their public school peers; and

- according to the 2002 book, “The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools” by William Howell and Paul Peterson, African-American students using vouchers in New York cut their achievement gap in half over three years

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

More school choice news.
In case you missed it, Iowa takes a step towards school choice. It looks similar to a program already established in Arizona. The approach is an indirect approach to giving vouchers for education to families.

From the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation:

-------------------------------


For Immediate Release
June 2, 2006


Iowa enacts new scholarship tax credit program
Unprecedented bipartisan support marks a growing trend among the states

INDIANAPOLIS-Today, Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) signed the Educational Opportunities Act (EOA), a law that will allow thousands of Iowa students the chance to receive scholarships to attend a school of their parents choice. The bill, which reached the governor's desk after getting overwhelming support from both sides of the political aisle, is the second time this year that a democrat governor has signed a school choice law.

"This is a great day for all Iowa families," said Sara Eide, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference. "While the Catholic Conference has been working on this issue for nearly twenty years, it took the combined efforts of parents, educators, community leaders, organizations such as the Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education, and our national allies to make policymakers understand that expanded school options is a critical need in the state."

The program establishes a 65 percent tax credit for individuals who make contributions to approved school tuition organizations (STOs), which then distribute scholarships to families to be used at a school of their choice. To qualify, families must have an income that is at 300 percent or below of the federal poverty level. STOs must spend 90% of funds raised on scholarships, and scholarships may not exceed tuition at the child's private school. In addition, while the program will be capped at $2.5 million for 2006, the cap will rise to $5 million for subsequent years.

Following a growing trend occurring around the country, the EOA received overwhelming bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats alike. In the Senate, which is evenly split between the two parties, the bill passed 49-1: and in the House, where Republicans hold only a one vote majority, the bill passed by a vote of 75-19.

"We are so thankful for the strong bi-partisan support for expanded educational options in Iowa, including the leadership in both houses and educational opportunity champions like Representative Carmine Boal and Senator Joe Seng," said Eide.

In 2006, school choice has seen growth in the number of Democrats who back educational freedom. Earlier this year, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona became the first Democrat governor to sign a new school choice bill into law. Gov. Vilsack becomes the second governor to do so. Democrat Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin signed a bill expanding the cap of the Milwaukee school choice program by nearly 7,000 students. Also, the Democrat leaders of the Missouri Black Caucus were among the top proponents of a school choice bill before its legislature.

"We're seeing an important shift in the support for school choice," said Robert C. Enlow, executive director of the Friedman Foundation. "More and more legislators, parents and opinion makers from all sides of the political spectrum are realizing that the ability to choose a school is a fundamental freedom and that there are immense moral implications that come from denying families educational choice."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Discussion of School Choice Gets Nasty.
I know that headlines are meant to be provocative. But the LA Times went wild when it titled its discussion of school choice "A Satanic Idea?"

Bob Sipchen relates a recent visit with Milton Friedman. Says the Nobel-prize winning economist: "It'?s very clear that the people who suffer most in our present system are people in the slums -? blacks, Hispanics, the poor, the underclass."

On funding, "In the last 10 years, the amount spent per child on schooling has more than doubled after allowing for inflation. There'?s been absolutely no improvement as far as I can see in the quality of education. . . . The system you have is like a sponge. It will absorb the extra money. Because the incentives are wrong."

If you read the comments--which are remarkably civil for a newspaper-sponsored blog--remember to read from the bottom of the page up.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Arizona may have been the last of the continental states to be admitted to the union, but it's leading the country in school choice.

Here's a press release (a couple weeks old by now) from the Alliance for School Choice:

----------------------------------------------------

We are poised for a miracle for school choice in AZ.

As you know, earlier this year, after a pitched battle, Gov. Napolitano finally allowed a $5 million corporate scholarship tax credit for economically disadvantaged students to become law without her signature, after two vetoes. We assumed this would be the high-water mark for school choice given that it was the first time a new school choice program was enacted in a state with a Democratic governor. (Later, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack signed a corporate scholarship tax credit bill.) But because we have a very pro-school choice legislature, we kept pushing for more.

Last week, in return for increased teacher salaries and full-day pre-K, Napolitano agtreed to three more bills as part of a budget deal:

1. a doubling of the corporate tax credit to $10 million, plus automatic 20 percent annual increases until 2010 when it will total nearly $21 million and over 6,000 students;

2. a voucher program for children with disabilities; and

3. a first of its kind voucher program for foster care children.

All three passed the Legislature yesterday. Napolitano has agreed to transmit the bills to the Secretary of State without her signature. If so, these will be the first voucher programs to be enacted in a state with a Democratic governor.

Our hero is Senate President Ken Bennett (who received an award at our Board dinner last November), who twisted arms until the very end to squeak out the necessary votes, even on his LAST DAY as a legislator. He deserves our thanks.

I am enormously proud of our state coordinators, Matt Ladner and Robert Teegarden; our lobbyists, Sydney Hay (Republican) and Barry Dill (Democrat); and our partners, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options and the Friedman Foundation.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Limits of Charity Vouchers
Milton Friedman (PDF article, 4 pages) reflects on the prospects for school choice 50 years after his influential essay.

He notes that competitive industries produce economic growth through "bottom up" innovations, while schooling, by nature of it being government-directed, is top-down. It's also seen "little, no, or even negative improvement in the product." We spend more and get less.

He faults current voucher programs (which he calls "charity vouchers") as being limited in scope (generally they are available only to the poorest of families in the worst performing of school districts).

Even worse for the cause of educational excellence is the fact that in current voucher programs parents are prohibited from adding onto voucher amounts. What drives innovation in other industries, Friedman notes, are consumers who are willing to shell out big bucks. It sounds like a typical parody of economic conservatism, but it's true: the early adapters who pay $2,000 for a VCR lead the way for the development of $99 DVD players.

One major obstacle to real vouchers--though not the only one--is the wealth ($1.5 billion) of teacher unions, who benefit from the current system.

Given the strength of the opposition to school choice, Friedman predicts that when true competition and choice are ushered in, they will do so through a swift collapse of political support for the status quo.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Schools Slow to Publicize Family Options in NCLB.
The federal law No Child Left Behind offers families a tiny element of school choice, provided that they put in enough time in an abysmally performing school district. But school districts have strong financial incentives to neglect their obligations to inform families of their options.

This comes out in a several-month old announcement from the Alliance for School Choice (cleaning up the old in box today!). Here's a press release that gives some details:

-------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 23, 2006

Contact: Laura Devany, Alliance For School Choice 602-468-0900/ 602-615-8897


NATIONAL TEST CASES FILED AGAINST LOS ANGELES AND COMPTON SCHOOL DISTRICTS DEMANDING PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSFER OPTIONS UNDER NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

PHOENIX-- In a major legal development that could test the vitality of the No Child Left Behind Act and impact educational opportunities for children in large urban districts across the nation, the Alliance for School Choice today joined the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) in a legal filing. The action demands that the Los Angeles and Compton Unified School Districts immediately provide and publicize public school transfer options for children in failing schools as required by the law.

The Alliance also called upon U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to cut off applicable federal funds to the districts until they comply with the law or make other suitable educational opportunities available to children in failing schools.

"The No Child Left Behind Act isn’t worth the paper it’s written on so long as children are forced to remain in failing schools," declared Clint Bolick, president of the Phoenix-based Alliance for School Choice, the nation’s leading advocacy group for school choice programs for disadvantaged schoolchildren.

"NCLB shined a spotlight on what we already knew exists in our community; now it's time for our children to know that their parents aren't leaving them behind," said Star Parker, president of CURE. "If anyone needs the opportunity to improve the educational options for their kids, it's the most vulnerable members of our society."

NCLBA requires that school districts offer to children in schools that have failed to make "adequate yearly progress" for two years under state standards the option to transfer to better-performing public schools within the district. Lack of capacity is not a basis to fail to provide transfer opportunities under the law.

A 2004 report by the General Accounting Office found that more than 3 million schoolchildren -- overwhelmingly low-income and minority children -- were entitled to transfer, but only 1 percent of those eligible actually transferred.

The complaints filed against the school districts charge that of at least 250,000 schoolchildren eligible for transfer in Los Angeles, only 527 (.2 percent) received transfers to better-performing schools; while in Compton, zero students have received transfers despite appalling educational conditions. The complaints charge that the districts have failed adequately to make information available to parents or to provide sufficient options.

Los Angeles has by far the nation’s highest number of students in failing schools who are eligible to transfer. Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa has called for mayoral takeover of the school district, declaring that to serve the students it is necessary to "take on the powerful and entrenched interests" and "shake up the system." Compton, meanwhile, was already under state control, which did not significantly improve educational conditions.

"I don’t think it’s fair that the school is failing the parent and the child," said Linda Braxton, speaking of her 13-year-old son Jamal, who she would like to transfer out of a Compton high school. "The Compton system failed him, period."

"The conditions in Los Angeles and Compton are the tip of a national iceberg," Bolick stated. "The problem is that the number of children in failing schools vastly exceeds the number of available slots in better-performing public schools. Public schools alone cannot solve the crisis of inner-city education."

Because NCLBA does not provide a private right of action, the parents and their organizational partners must file complaints in the first instance with the school districts, demanding compliance. That is what they did today, in a pair of complaints prepared by Robert Boldt, partner in the Los Angeles office of Kirkland & Ellis, but Secretary Spellings has authority to take action to cut off certain federal funds to the districts until they comply.

In January, the Bush Administration proposed a $100 million demonstration project to add private school options to NCLBA for children in "restructuring" schools Â? that is, schools that have been failing for at least six consecutive years. More than 1,000 schools across the nation are in that category.

Bolick said that similar actions could be filed in almost every large district in the United States. "Millions of children are being left behind in failing schools," Bolick declared. "They deserve immediate access to better educational opportunities, to which federal law clearly entitles them."

---------------

And here's a more recent announcement, which suggests that little has changed:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 9, 2006

SPELLINGS ASKS CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS TO TAKE ACTION ON SCHOOL TRANSFER COMPLAINTS


PHOENIX— Responding to complaints against the Los Angeles and Compton school districts’ failure to provide public school transfer options to children in failing schools, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings last week asked top California school officials to take action.

While “it is usually best to allow matters such as these to be resolved at the local and state level,” the U.S. Department of Education is “mindful of our own compliance responsibilities and remedies,” Spellings said in a May 1 letter to California State Board of Education President Glee Johnson and Superintendent of Public instruction Jack O’Connell.

The Alliance for School Choice and the Los Angeles-based Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education filed the complaints in March, charging that the two districts failed to provide meaningful notice or transfer options for thousands of eligible students. Federal law requires the school districts to make findings within 60 days, and authorizes the Secretary of Education to cut off federal Title I funds for failure to provide transfer options.

In her letter, Spellings also notes concerns about compliance by the Oakland and Stockton school districts. She noted that department officials will “gather further information on the implementation of public school choice and SES (supplemental education services) in your state.”

“We are encouraged that the secretary is taking seriously the rampant noncompliance of school districts with their public school transfer obligations,” declared Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice. “Millions of children are languishing in failing schools around the nation. That is neither morally nor legally tolerable.”

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

One of out two?
One out of two is a great batting average--but a horrible statistic if it describes the number of students who enter high school and graduate four years later.

The group Clergy for Educational Options reminds us why a state's poor record (in this case, South Carolina) matters:

----------------------------
For Immediate Release

June 29, 2006

GRADUATION RATE HANDICAPS STATE PROGRESS
The NBA Finals just concluded and for those of you who care, the Miami Heat beat the Dallas Mavericks in six games. I’m a major fan of the NBA, but didn’t follow the season like I have in years past. But I did watch the finals. And as much as I think I know about basketball, I was somewhat amazed that one of the most dominant players of our time, Shaquille O’Neal, was not in during the final stretches of most games. Shaq, being such a dominant force on the court, would often cause me to forget that Shaq’s free throw percentage was 47% during the regular season and only 37% during the playoffs, knowing this, it’s easy to understand why their coach made that decision – Shaq would have been a handicap to their winning the title.
While I’ve heard numerous excuses as to why Shaq cannot make free throws. However, the fact remains that he cannot get the job done from the free throw line. Consequently, the coach made needed changes to help ensure they accomplished their goal of winning the title.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the “coach” of South Carolina’s education system. Despite another dire report that shows South Carolina graduating only 52.5% of its students, Coach Tenenbaum and her “assistants” refuse to make needed changes to a system that clearly is not producing as it should. Instead, they continue to make excuses, saying it’s not fair to compare states because we have different graduation requirements.

What they refuse to acknowledge is that comparisons are not what matter most – it’s production. In this case, having a system that is producing only one graduate for every two that enter high school is the problem – not the comparison with other states. It’s time for the education establishment to wake up and realize that their excuse making only exacerbates the real problems associated with our low- graduation rate.

Regardless of where we rank nationally, the simple fact is that only 52.5% of our children are graduating. That is a horrendous statistic that cannot be discounted or excused simply because we make our high school students take a 10th grade level exit exam or require that they pass with 24 credits rather than the 20 many other states mandate.

Education and elected officials across South Carolina are doing a disservice to the state by not implementing real reform that will help increase graduation rates.

South Carolina needs to decide how we can better prepare more of our students for college and life beyond high school. That’s the only way South Carolina will better its economy and the quality of life of its citizens. The cost of not graduating more students has a tremendously adverse affect on our state. According to the Education Week report:

FYI: Subcommittee members voted 4-1 to adjourn debate on this bill - which was a procedural move to kill the legislation for this year. Rep. Lewis Vaughn voted against the adjournment motion while Reps. Adam Taylor, Lanny Littlejohn, Jim Battle and Herb Kirsh voted against children, parents and their colleagues by supporting the motion.


Over a lifetime, an 18-year-old who does not complete high school earns about $260,000 less than an individual with a high school diploma, and contributes about $60,000 less in federal and state income taxes. The combined income and tax losses aggregated over one cohort of 18-year-olds who do not complete high school is about $192 billion, or 1.6 percent of the gross domestic product. (Cecilia Elena Rouse, economist, Princeton University)
Individuals with a high school diploma live longer, have better indicators of general health, and are less likely to use publicly financed health-insurance programs than high school dropouts. If the 600,000 18-year-olds who failed to graduate in 2004 had advanced one grade, it would save about $2.3 billion in publicly financed medical care, aggregated over a lifetime. (Peter Muennig, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University)
Adults who lack a high school diploma are at greater risk of being on public assistance. If all dropouts receiving assistance had a high school diploma instead, the result would be a total cost savings for federal welfare spending, food stamps, and public housing of $7.9 billion to $10.8 billion a year. (Jane Waldfogel et al., Columbia University School of Social Work)
High school dropouts are far more likely to commit crimes and be incarcerated than those with more education. A 1% increase in the high school completion rate of men ages 20 to 60 would save the United States as much as $1.4 billion a year in reduced costs from crime incurred by victims and society at large. (Enrico Moretti, economist, University of California, Berkeley)

Additionally, the United States Census Bureau estimates that on average, workers with a high school degree earn 30% more than those who drop out of high school and that a worker with a bachelor’s degree earns 72% more than one with only a high school degree. And, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, college graduate can expect to earn on average $2.1 million in his lifetime, nearly twice as much as a worker with only a high-school diploma.

With only 1 in 2 students graduating in South Carolina, the resulting costs associated with these statistics are staggering. We are clearly doing the state great harm by not implementing programs that can help graduate more students.

School choice is a proven method for accomplishing that goal. It is time to acknowledge that the public school system is not the answer for every child. We must offer children educational alternatives so that their individual needs can be met, leading to a better chance of graduation and a more prosperous life.

Labels: Health care, School choice

(permalink)

No Child Left Behind ... Left Behind?
Alexander Russo says that No Child Left Behind is being gutted by administrative measures.

While the law is troublesome for several reasons, especially the federalization of education policy, it has had a few good results, including putting a spotlight on poor academic performance of schools.

The law is provides a long path towards some increased use of school choice--weak forms, perhaps, but options nonetheless. But the administration that pushed for NCLB is now taking away what little pressure it has put on schools.

One rule of politics is "follow the money." The threat of losing money--or even seeing more money go to outside agents--was supposed to be the stick to prod districts into reform.

No more?

Last summer, when the law was on the verge of shifting tens of millions of federal education dollars from urban school districts to outside tutoring companies, Spellings created a "pilot" program that allowed several big-city districts to keep on doing their own tutoringÂ?and to keep the money.

If this pilot program is expanded, much of the value of NCLB will have been wiped out. It will have turned into just another story in the story of putting more money into the sane old system.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Can school choice work in rural areas?
One objection to school choice is "it can't work in rural areas." According to this line of thought, the economics won't support more than one school system.

But the Alliance for School Choice says that it is possible--and looks to Iowa as an example.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Doing School Choice Right.
charter schools are as different from each as regular public schools are--and by design, even more so.

They are still a relatively small element of the nation's school landscape, which means that we are still learning what works and what doesn't. One resource I've come across lately is the Center for Reinventing Public Education.

At the end of the month, CRPE will come out with a new white paper that analyzes previous studies on whether charter schools help students learn. Should be interesting.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

New Education Blog Launched.
The Alliance for School Choice has launched a new blog, Edspresso. The debates feature of the site have featured the desirability of universal pre-school, the 65 percent solution, and national standards.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

No Child Left Behind not being implemented.
One provision of No Child Left Behind is that local school districts notify families when they are entitled to remedial measures, including the right to transfer to other schools.

Not surprisingly, some schools that are shirking their obligations.

Here's a short note from the Alliance for School Choice:

--------
SPELLINGS ASKS CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS TO TAKE ACTION ON SCHOOL TRANSFER COMPLAINTS


PHOENIX— Responding to complaints against the Los Angeles and Compton school districts’ failure to provide public school transfer options to children in failing schools, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings last week asked top California school officials to take action.

While “it is usually best to allow matters such as these to be resolved at the local and state level,” the U.S. Department of Education is “mindful of our own compliance responsibilities and remedies,” Spellings said in a May 1 letter to California State Board of Education President Glee Johnson and Superintendent of Public instruction Jack O’Connell.

The Alliance for School Choice and the Los Angeles-based Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education filed the complaints in March, charging that the two districts failed to provide meaningful notice or transfer options for thousands of eligible students. Federal law requires the school districts to make findings within 60 days, and authorizes the Secretary of Education to cut off federal Title I funds for failure to provide transfer options.

In her letter, Spellings also notes concerns about compliance by the Oakland and Stockton school districts. She noted that department officials will “gather further information on the implementation of public school choice and SES (supplemental education services) in your state.”

“We are encouraged that the secretary is taking seriously the rampant noncompliance of school districts with their public school transfer obligations,” declared Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice. “Millions of children are languishing in failing schools around the nation. That is neither morally nor legally tolerable.”

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School choice key to urban vitality.
If you want to retain and attract highly-educated and mobile people to your city, enact school choice.

Cities and states across the country have worried about how to attract the "creative class," college graduates, and the like. Some cities do a better job than others, but cities, especially the "non-glamour" cities such many of those in the Midwest, could do worse than to promote a vigorous program of school choice. While recently minted college graduates can be a key part of a city's economic life, how many of them will stick around once junior comes on the scene?

From an AP story printed in the Arizona Republic:

cities need good schools to keep people from fleeing to the suburbs once they become parents, said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Frey pointed to Washington, a city with lagging public schools but impressive education levels among adults.

"D.C. is like a revolving door," Frey said. "These young people move in and then they move out when they want to have kids."

True enough, a few urban areas do have state-enacted school choice programs. Cleveland and Milwaukee come to mind, and neither one is a national standout in economic terms. Then again, the programs in both cities have severe income tests, limiting their participation, and usefulness as an economic development tool.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Union that Killed Opportunity for Children.

In an e-mail from Americans for Tax Reform, Ron Nehring writes:

------------

Will unions kill Florida's highly succcessful school choice program?

Lobbying campaign against choice successfully flipped four Republican state senators.

To the casual observer, last year’s decision by the Florida Supreme Court striking down the state’s school choice program might appear easily fixed: a Republican legislature, a conservative Republican governor, and a clear record of success for the “A+ School Accountability and Choice Program” should produce a political solution.

Not so fast.

Enter: the Florida Education Association union, the state affiliate of the National Education Association teachers union and ardent foe of anything threatening the public school monopoly in education.

Florida’s school choice program provides students attending consistently failing schools in the Sunshine State the option of attending another school, public or private, with the state picking up the tab. A total of 733 students, 90% of whom are minorities, are taking advantage of the program.

Last year in a bizarre ruling the Florida Supreme Court struck down the program, finding it violates the “uniformity” clause in the state constitution because, remarkably, students exercising their choice option are receiving a better quality education than those trapped in the underperforming public schools. As the Wall Street Journal opined this week, “As they used to say in the Soviet Union, everyone gets to share their poverty equally.”

The same ruling also jeopardizes Florida’s school choice program for 18,000 learning disabled students.

Looking for a solution, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Republican leaders in the legislature are working to place on November’s ballot a constitutional amendment that would exempt the voucher program from the constitution’s uniformity clause. All that’s needed is for 60% of the legislators in chamber to agree to place the measure on the ballot.

This is where the Florida Education Association (FEA) union, with its deep pockets and sophisticated lobbying campaign, comes in.

Over the last twenty years, Florida has reflected the trend in other southern states in a transformation from total Democrat to total Republican control of the executive and legislative branches of government – despite the best efforts of the FEA and other politically active labor unions to the contrary.

In adapting to the new environment in Tallahassee, the FEA recognized that simply because a legislature is majority Republican, the opportunity to block reforms such as charter schools and school choice still exists – if the union can successfully woo just enough members of the majority party to deny reformers a majority on any key vote.

To succeed, the strategy need not be successful in both houses – just one. In this case, it’s the Florida Senate, whose Republican majority has proven consistently less reliable in advancing education and other reforms than the more conservative House of Representatives.

With its headquarters filled with lobbyists and operatives just one block from the capitol, the FEA’s intensive pressure campaign directed at the Senate succeeded this week in blocking the proposed constitutional amendment to save the school choice program. The amendment fell one vote short of the 60% supermajority to proceed to the November ballot for voter approval. Needing 24 of 40 senators to vote in support, it garnered only 23.

What’s remarkable is the FEA’s success in turning four Republican Senators, including Republican Majority Leader Alex Villalobos, against the amendment, which was strongly supported by Senate President Tom Lee and Governor Jeb Bush.

(One encouraging sign: Lee immediately stripped Villalobos of his Majority Leader position, replacing him with the more supportive Sen. Dan Webster of Winter Garden).

The FEA’s successful lobbying campaign, and victory despite a significant Republican majority in the Senate, highlights the influence that comes as a result of the union’s power to funnel union dues directly into massive spending on behalf of anti-reform candidates in general elections.

A bill to end the practice by giving Florida teachers the right to choose for themselves whether to fund union political action died this year when Senate Republican leaders used a parliamentary maneuver to keep the bill bottled up in multiple committees while the session drew to a close.

Sen. Webster, along with up and coming Senators like Mike Haridopoulos of Osceola, show the Senate’s Republican majority continues to slowly drift away from union influence, but apparently not fast enough to save the choice program this year. Yet, Republican legislators not compromised by FEA pressure and Governor Jeb Bush continue to work on solutions to save the school choice program and prevent the 733 students in the program from being forced back into public schools which consistently fail to perform.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Uniform, Efficient, Safe, High Quality--and None of the Above.
Florida schools are none of the things that the state's constitution calls for. Yet the Supreme Court forbids legislators from considering serious alternatives.

Andrew J. Coulson reports:

- Uniform? Not when some districts spend nearly double what others spend--and achieve much less academically.

- Efficient? Not when public schools spend 50 percent more than the average tuition for private schools.

- Safe? Not when 1 in 12 students reports being assaulted or threatened with a weapon.

- High quality? Not when the state ranks near the bottom of the country in graduation rates and SAT scores.

It's time for Florida to introduce some school choice. But for now, the state's highest court has barred that move on "uniformity" grounds. It's time for the legislature to make changes, constitutional ones if required, to bring the promise of education into reality.
-

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Educational Choice Expands in Arizona.
Arizona has found a new way to promote competition and choice in schools. The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation reports:

------------

Arizona enacts corporate tuition tax credit, expands
educational freedom for second consecutive year

INDIANAPOLIS — Up to 5,000 children in Arizona will now have the freedom to attend a school of their parent’s choice after Gov. Janet Napolitano allowed a corporate tuition tax credit bill to become law without her signature. [Note: the governor had vetoed an earlier version of the bill.]

"After two years of struggle, Arizona parents finally can breathe a sigh of relief," said Gordon St. Angelo, president and CEO of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, one of the nation’s leading advocates of school vouchers. "Thousands of children will no longer be forced to attend a school simply because of where they live or how much their family earns. Parents will now be free to choose a school based on what’s best for their child."

Senate Bill 1499 will create a corporate tax credit for businesses that donate to non-profit organizations that distribute private-school scholarships. The total credits are capped at $5 million annually and will allow scholarship organizations to provide vouchers to Arizona children whose family income does not exceed 185% of the income limit to quality for a free and reduced price lunch. The program, which provides vouchers worth up to $4,200 for K-8 and $5,500 for high school, includes a five year sunset provision. [One hopes that this program will be so successful that pressure will rise to continue the program.]

"The dedication and leadership of Senate Majority Leader Ken Bennett and House Speaker Jim Weiers serves as an example not just in Arizona, but for the country," St. Angelo said. "School choice does not happen overnight. But the tenacity of parents, opinion makers and legislators makes it happen eventually."

The addition of this program complements the existing personal tax credit, which provides over 21,000 students with scholarships worth over $28 million. Other school choice programs, such as one similar to Florida’s voucher program for children with special needs, are still being discussed in Arizona this session.

"Success happens when everyone works together," said Robert Enlow, executive director of the Friedman Foundation. "The local and national groups that have forged partnerships in Arizona have been a tremendous asset to the effort to provide greater educational freedom for children."

"This is the second year in a row that Arizona passed a school choice bill and the second year in a row that a Democrat governor allowed a school choice bill to become law. Arizona really is a state of choice; the only thing left for the state to do is pass a universal voucher program for all children," added Enlow.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

So How Much Do We Spend on Education?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. And schooling.

One theme of debates over education policy is that schools need more money. And, says one expert on the subject, if you don't like one set of numbers that serve the purpose, find another.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities laments that Colorado is 49th in the country in education spending.

Sounds horrible, doesn't it? It's amazing that anyone in that state knows how to read and write.

Except ... the ranking--as the CBPP page points out--calculates states the "percentage of personal income" spent on K-12 education.

The Independence Institute's Benjamin DeGrow provides some perspective with this 16-page report (PDF), Counting the Cash for K-12.

DeGrow starts out with a familiar topic: more money does not necessarily bring better results. "A comprehensive professional analysis by Dr. Eric Hanushek of Stanford University in the 1990s found that only 27 percent of 163 studies 'that conformed to basic social science methods' demonstrated 'a statistically significant relationship between increased per-pupil spending and student performance.' Two-thirds of the studies showed insignificant correlations, and the rest revealed a negative relationship."

Several regression line graphs reinforce the point. Four graphs compares per-pupil spending with NAEP scores. Two more compare increases in per-pupil spending with increases in NAEP scores. What do you see? Not the upward sloping line that would indicate a positive correlation. (If you remember econ 101, think of a supply curve.)

Where the paper really shines, though, is the discussion of the claim that "Colorado ranks 49th in education spending." It points out that the ranking includes not only education outlays, but personal income. If the state's personal income goes up but spending goes up not as much, the state will drop in the national rankings.

Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. After all, some of the highest ranking states (New Mexico, for example) got there because they are poor, not because they spend a lot on schools. Should Colorado follow the New Mexico model and hope for lower income? Hey, that would put them higher on the list of state rankings when personal income is considered.

Like any government service, taxpayer funding of schools doesn't necessarily to go up just because income does. Given the weak relationship between funding and performance, maybe something else ought to happen--something like increased school choice.

But back to DeGrow. He finds that in 2004 or 2005, at least 10 states were "49th" in education funding. The states are as different as heavily populated, urban Illinois and lightly populated, rural Idaho; and fast-growing Nevada, and slow-growth Pennsylvania.

Clearly, you've got to ask "49th in terms of what," and then ask whether the comparison makes any sense.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Left By the Side of the Road.
What does the parable of the Good Samaritan have to tell us about education? Plenty, says the group Clergy for Educational Options Options.

Here's a story from Richard L. Davis, the group's leader:

------------------------------------------------------------
When I first got involved with School choice, I was introduced to the concept of Social Justice in the arena of education by Dr. W. Raymond Bryant, Pastor of Greater AME Worship Center of Austin, Texas. He had us to look at the story found in Luke 10:25-37.

It is a very familiar story but Dr. Bryant had us to look at it in a new and very different way. Let’s look through his eyes, at the implication of this text as it relates to the household of faith, and more specifically Pastors leading congregations. First, we see the person who is beat up robbed and left on the side of the road. This paints a very vivid picture of what is happening to our children, who go to school day after day and are being beat up and robbed of a quality education. In fact, they are being beaten so bad that they are being left along life’s highway and if we are honest about it, the corrections departments are picking up more of them than our churches. We have a real disaster on our hands and it is time for us to step up to the plate and do something.

Many of our churches have realized this travesty and have started programs that tutor and help a few kids along the way. And some churches have gone even further and started schools, which is no small undertaking. CEO applauds all of you who are attempting to stand in the gap and walk in the spirit of the Good Samaritan. You are picking up the beat up and robbed and trying to nurse them back to health.

But during that discussion Dr. Bryant threw us a curve ball. He stated that “While we are doing so much with tutoring and with starting a few schools here and there, we have not addressed the issues of social justice for our children. I know you are saying “wait a minute... I’m doing all I can!” Well, maybe, and maybe not.”

As we investigated the text he showed us something the text did not address: “There is one major issue that Luke does not address in the parable, and it is that nothing was done about the robbers.” As you study the text you will notice the victimized man was taken to the inn and provided for, but nothing was done about the robbers out on the road. They are still out there beating up others and robbing them. "And they are left for dead as well." And if no one comes along to help them, they will die on the side of the road.

We were challenge by being confronted with issue of doing something about the robbers on the road. The question for us today is what do we do? We can either build a new road trying to avoid them, or place protection all along the current road. We have some decisions to make about how we are going to protect out children from the robbers. It is no longer enough to pick them up after they are beat up and left for dead. We definitely need to be proactive and do something before we get to that point, such as:

• Education and empower black parents about "Choice" in education.
  
• Empower them with new ways to communicate to Teachers.
  
• Show them how to help their children be successful in school and life.
  
• Educate your congregations so they can educate parents they touch.
  
• Help build coalitions with like-minded individuals.
  

The challenge we face is how to provide social justice in education. It may be different in different places, but we have a serious challenge and it is time for us to rise and meet it! The focus of our time together is to meet this challenge! God bless each of you, Parent, Pastor, Teacher, Community Leader, and Concerned Citizen, as we undertake this task.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the Good Samaritan parable has been used to justify any manner of bureaucratic, institutional-focused social welfare programs that have fallen short of the promise. But in this case, the emphasis is not on creating new institutions as much as it is helping families use existing, private and public institutions.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

If There are No Papers, Is it an Archive?
Keep your eyes out for a new source of papers on education reform: the Education Working Paper Archive. The archive has been announced, but as of today, there are no papers in it.

The EWPA is housed at the University of Arkansas, whose new Department of Education Reform is headed by Dr. Jay P. Greene, author of many papers on school choice and competition, as well as the recently published book Education Myths.

Here's a description of the archive:
All articles published by Education Working Paper Archive are subject to a double-blind peer review process to ensure quality. All submitted articles that meet editorial standards for quality and relevance to EWPA’s mission are sent to referees for review.

A paper must meet three criteria in order to be considered for publication by EWPA:

1. Empirical work. EWPA is a forum for empirical research on education policy. While qualitative research and general literature reviews are important to the field of education policy, they are not within the scope of EWPA’s mission.

2. Relevance. The paper must speak to an ongoing public education policy debate. EWPA seeks to be relevant to policymakers and the public by focusing on issues that are of immediate interest or by introducing new issues that should be considered in the policy discussion. Papers that discuss purely technical research problems in public policy are unlikely to be relevant to EWPA’s mission.

3. Professional standards. The paper must meet professional research standards. This standard is ensured by a) the Research Editor’s initial review of the paper and b) the peer review process.

Though papers appearing in EWPA go through a peer review process and are posted by EWPA, they are considered to be working papers in progress. Therefore, authors may feel free to submit their article to other journals while the paper is being considered by EWPA and also after it has appeared on the Archive website.


What's the new department about?
The Department of Education Reform (EDRE / DER) is the newest department in the College of Education and Health Professions at the University of Arkansas, established on July 1, 2005. The creation of the Department of Education Reform was made possible through a $10,000,000 private gift and an additional $10,000,000 from the University’s Matching Gift Program. This gift is one of the largest ever received by a college of education in the country. With these resources the department has six endowed professorships, ten doctoral fellowships, and funds for research and projects.

The mission of the Department of Education Reform is to advance education and economic development in Arkansas and nationwide by focusing on the improvement of K-12 schools. The Department of Education Reform is committed to producing and disseminating high-quality research that will inform policymakers, scholars, parents, teachers, administrators and the general public about policies and practices that could improve the performance of schools in Arkansas and nationwide. By gathering a critical mass of leading researchers focused on education reform, the Department of Education Reform will be uniquely positioned to have a meaningful impact on education policy research and the quality of schools.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)