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)

Education: A Q&A With Jay Greene.
ABC News has a handy chat with Jay Greene about competition and school performance.

Among the topics covered:

- Will school choice make public schools worse off?
- Will school choice bring disparities to schools?
- Do "Church and State" concerns rule out school choice?
- Why don't we go for smaller class sizes instead?
- Shouldn't we be paying teachers more?

If you've been around the block a few times on the question of competition and choice in education, there's nothing new here. But it's a good reminder of what's in the popular debate.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice Bill Introduced in South Carolina.
The idea of making it easier for parents to pay for K-12 education in schools of choice is getting another hearing in South Carolina this year.

What's good is that the idea is back. What's not so good is that the size and scope of the proposal has been scaled back. Says the Charleston Post and Courier:

"Supporters pared down the original legislation, decreasing the size of the tax break for parents who send their children to private schools and directing the private-school vouchers to the most needy students: those from low-income families and those in poor-performing public schools."

Why the change? Rep. Dan Cooper, chairman of the Ways and Means committee, wants any effort to change the status quo to be limited to low-income families and students in the worst schools. Why this should be so, I don't know--e-mail from readers would be welcomed.

The greatest benefits (up to $4,500 in vouchers) would be available only to students in low-income families attending the poorest-performing schools; everyone else would have to make due with tax credits of no more than $1,000.

The Port and Courier article points out the value of media reports in propelling reform:

What changed some lawmakers' minds was the recent school documentary on ABC's "20/20" called "Stupid in America." The report featured an 18-year-old South Carolina public school student who was struggling to read.

"That opened my eyes and helped push me across the line," said Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, a co-sponsor. "American students are not stupid. We have problems in our system.

Also on the plate for lawmakers: a proposal to make it easier to open charter schools (good as far as it goes) and another one to create open enrollment in public schools (again, good as far as it goes.)

Opponents of the significant reform come through with the same old mistake of identifying confusing the desired policy outcome (an educated public) with one means (the public school as we know it) with that outcome.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Can I Get Some Credit?
School choice--the ability to direct money taxpayer money already devoted to educated to the school of the parent's choice--exists on a small scale. The Minnesota House Research Department offers a quick outline of tax credits and deductions in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

The Minnesota law was one of the first (if not the first) in the nation, but it's rather limited. For a family with two children, the tax credit is adjusted for income; it is completely phased out at $37,500 for a family with two children. Median family income, way back in 1999, by contrast, exceeds $47,000. The tax credit, unlike the tax deduction, cannot be applied to tuition at privately run schools.

The average value of the tax credit is $259; the average value of the tax deduction: $78. Better than a poke in the eye, but more valuable as setting a precedent than being a large financial boost, even for private schools with minimal tuition rates.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Who Gets the Union Dues Your Child's Teacher Pays Out to the NEA?
Teacher unions are just another special interest. Nothing wrong about that, but it's a fact often overlooked in education debates.

The National Education Association (NEA) is one of the largest unions in the country. It's an active force in the Democratic Party, and donor to left-of-center causes. The Wall Street Journal has noted before some findings from a web site run by the U.S. Department of Labor. Today, they've got some more interesting findings (available to subscribers).

In many states, membership in the NEA is a requirement of employment. Some of the money goes for contract-related work, while some of it goes to political causes. (Members must take an extra step to stop the withdrawal of the portion used for politics.)

Some of the political spending of the NEA goes more or less directly to education, to combat any form of school choice. In such a way the union contributes to the conflation of the goal of education--an educated population--with one (dysfunctional) method of achieving that goal, the residential-based method of school assignment. Thus, the Journal tells us after reviewing the DOL web site, the NEA gave $500,000 to an anti-charter school group in Washington state, "never mind that charters are 'public schools,' albeit ones allowed to operate outside the teachers' union education monopoly."

Other donations from the NEA show the union to be simply another element of the "progressive left" -- $250,000 to a group lobbying for an increase in the minimum wage; $400,000 to another group fighting the idea of personal investment accounts in Social Security, and $40,000 to the Congressional Black Caucus, a dependable element of the congressional left wing.

Again, there's nothing wrong about employees in the same occupation banding together for political activity, even when it is far afield from the daily concerns of their workplace. But the NEA has for too long been given a pass as a disinterested source of information, an honest broker, when in fact, the interests of union officials and the interests of parents and students are not necessarily aligned.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Innovation From the Feds?
Can an office within the world’s largest government lead to more competition in education?

The federal government is everyone's favorite whipping boy when it comes to K-12 education. The No Child Left Behind Act is a special focus of criticism. Some people don't like it because, they say, it is an "unfunded mandate," or at the least, because they like the federal money that does come with the program, but would prefer to get the money without complying with the requirements. Others object to the national government getting its nose in the way of state and local matters. Still others are concerned that one of the stated goals of the act--100 percent student proficiency a few years from now--is both unrealistic and by the way, hideously expensive.

Yet NCLB has had a few positive effects. It has focused some needed attention on education in general, and on the achievement gap (whites versus non-whites) in particular. It also represented the tiniest movement towards school choice.

The administration that brought us NCLB also (I may be wrong on this) gave us yet another federal office, yet one that may (or not, you know how bureaucracy works) have some positive effects that linger beyond the history of its political patrons. The Office of Innovation and Improvement within the U.S. Department of Education describes itself this way:

The Office of Innovation and Improvement is a nimble, entrepreneurial arm of the U.S. Department of Education. It makes strategic investments in innovative educational practices through two dozen discretionary grant programs and coordinates the public school choice and supplemental educational services provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by No Child Left Behind. It also serves as the Department's liaison and resource to the nonpublic education community and oversees the Family Policy Compliance Office. The Office helps to develop guidance on provisions and programs related to its work under No Child Left Behind.


Put aside the question of how long a government office can be "nimble" and "entrepreneurial." There's something to be said for what might be called the institutional approach to de-institutionalization. In this case, creating a government office may be a useful element in promoting less dependence on other government institutions. The office has promoted choice within and even outside of the traditional model of "you live here, your child will attend THIS school" model of school governance: anti-trust, on a small scale, applied to K-12 education.

I write this because I noticed, in a recent letter from the office, that its leader, Nina Rees, has (or will soon) leave for the private sector. I've met Nina once or twice, though I'm not sure she would remember the occasion.

One legacy that she will leave is the web site BuildingChoice.org. It's got best practices in public school choice. Fourteen districts (as of this writing) out of thousands is a drop in the bucket, but large ideas sometimes start small. For source for school administrators who are willing to practice some school choice, there's a lot of "rubber meets the road" information--sometimes literally, as in "how do you manage transportation when students are going to schools all over the city, and not simply the school they used to be assigned to?"

Advocates of school choice who envision a world that includes government-run schools, for-profit schools, and non-profit schools are on the right path when they observe that competition should be applied to the provision of taxpayer funded education. After all, the policy goal is to have an educated population, not run specific school systems. But the path to full choice may take a long time. If a federal office helps advance us to that way of delivering education, then something useful may come out of the Department of Education after all.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Better than Average? Yes, and Your Point Is?
A state can be "better than average" in its education system and still fall short.

Kansans like to think that their schools do better than the national average. They do. But its graduation rate is still only slightly better than 75 percent (that is, only 3 out of 4 high school freshmen graduate in 4 years).

Better than average?

Oh, did we mention that the graduation rate for African-Americans and Latinos is not much better than one in two, or 50 percent?

On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only a third of students are "proficient" or better (that is, have mastery over the subject matter suitable for their grade level) when tested for reading at grades 4 and 8, and math at grade 8. The picture is slightly better for grade 4 math, where the proficient-or-better percentage clocks in at just under half--47 percent.

Better than average?

Not too comforting.

That's the national test. What about test assessments? There we find something more interesting.

The tests look at students in four subjects: reading, math, science, and social studies. The students are tested at each school level: elementary, middle, and high schools.

When we look at how well students do at each school level, here's what we find: elementary school students do better than middle school students who do better than high school students.

If you want to want a careless take on it, you might say that students lose ground the more time they spend in school. (Since these are not longitudinal exams that track the same cohort over time we can't say that, but it is tempting.)

Kansans, like people anywhere in the U.S., are reluctant to bring competition and choice to the delivery of schooling. One reason: "we don't need to, our schools are doing just fine."

Really?

Read the report (PDF, 7 pages) at the web site of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Symposium on Education Reform
When it's not busy endorsing pot use, Reason magazine can provide some insightful material.

For example, last month it rounded up the leading lights of the market-based school reform movement. No surprise: there are some significant disagreements to be found. Here's a sampling:

Lisa Snell thinks that advocates of market-based reform are selling charter schools short:

"With close to 1 million students enrolled nationwide and more than 3,400 contracts between charter schools and their government authorizers, charter schools may be the most common example of school choice. . . . in order to have substantial growth, school choice programs need students with substantial purchasing power, and they need to be open to a larger student population."

Andrew Coulson argues that the greatest challenge for reform is the conflation of ends (an educated public) with one method of trying to get there ("public schools" as we know them):

"The greatest barrier to reform is that, when it comes to education, Americans have lost sight of the distinction between means and ends. Our state-run school system is no longer recognized as just one possible tool for pursuing universal education; it has come to be misperceived as an ultimate goal in and of itself. The term '?public education' has come to refer to both the institution of public schooling and the ideals that the institution is meant to advance."

Coulson seems to come out against all refundable tax credits, which could pose political problems for tax credits--a problem that might be ameliorated by generous caps (or none at all) for donations to scholarship funds.

Marshall Fritz wants to do away with government involvement, period, including any taxation. He opposes vouchers, calling them the biggest obstacle to his goal:

"Vouchers replace today'?s monopoly with a 'monopsony' (single buyer). Schools will have only one customer to serve--and it's not you. Follow the money." Actually, he's got harsh words for vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Just pull your kids out of the schools, he says: "You'?ll not be paying twice for education: You'll pay taxes for the state to harm other people'?s children, but you'?ll pay only once for education--?your children's."

Williamson Evers favors decentralization and pluralism--in content, (presumably) pedagogy, and in what is the appropriate age for a child to leave school:

"We would advise a student to stay in school. Indeed, we know that finishing school and delaying marriage and babies is excellent advice for avoiding poverty. But in a framework of liberty, dropping out is allowed, even if it isn'?t advisable.

Clint Bolick says take whatever you can get:

"Given the tenacity and power of those who have a powerful stake in the status quo, freedom advocates cannot afford to oppose anything that meaningfully expands parental choice."

A market-driven approach to education will produce some losers: unions, local politicians, and schools of education.

Howard Fuller says that only the poor should receive vouchers:

"I'm not a supporter of universal vouchers. I support targeted vouchers for low-income and working-class people. People with money have always had choice."

On the other hand, thexercisedis excercised only at a significant cost in real estate commissions, moving expenses, and emotional turmoil--costs that must be borne only because we have a residential-based system of assigning students to schools.

Fuller also points out that "The people who support the status quo are much more politically powerful at this point than people who are supporting reforms such as parental choice."

True enough--but it would then be unwise to make the coalition in favor of reform smaller by denying meaningful vouchers or tax credits to the middle class.

Terry M. Moe lays out the biggest obstacle to market-based reforms, grounded in public choice theory:

"Political power is the obstacle. There are reformers who are concerned about what's best for kids, but the vested interests that arise are more concerned with protecting the status quo; thatÂ?s their livelihood. The unions in particular are extremely powerful and want to prevent any kind of threatening changes. And I don'?t know that there'?s an answer to that other than to amass power on the choice side."

Jacob G. Hornberger echoes Marshall Fritz: "No compulsory attendance laws, and no school taxes. No government involvement at all."

While I and most reforms accept the argument that government financing of at least some level of education (if not a monopoly on the delivery of it) is justified on the grounds of public goods, Hornberger will have none of it:

"If they truly believe that a free market in education would succeed, why would they feel the need to advocate welfare, which is what vouchers are, as a way to get there?"

John Merrifield says that if knowledge about economics was more widespread, there would be more pressure to change:

"The differences between political and market accountability are poorly understood, and the present system'?s failure to teach basic economic principles helps it survive withering criticism."

Chester E. Finn Jr. sees two major problems: interested adults (the education establishment) have lobbies, but children (who would benefit from change) do not, and most suburban parents (a key political force) believe, mistakenly, that all is well with their own school.

Uniting these themes, he adds is "the idea that the system's employees are experts who ought to be in charge of establishing the ground rules by which the system operates."

What's wrong with that? Nothing--except that their natural self-interest is not checked by competition, as happens elsewhere in life.

Jay P. Greene thinks what counts are better incentives, brought forth by expanded school choice, accountability testing, and merit pay for teachers.

His description of the obstacles to reform is so good it's worth reprinting in whole:

"When purchasing a service most people tend to think that they ought to be able "to choose among providers. Most people tend to think that those service providers are likely to do a higher quality job at lower cost if they have to earn business from customers. Most people believe that it is both fair and efficient for compensation in those service industries to be linked to performance. Most people believe in the desirability of choice and competition and the power of incentives--?except in education.

When it comes to education most people somehow believe that the rules should be different. We shouldn't allow choice, they argue, because people might make bad choices. Schools donÂ't need competition to perform better, they argue, they just need better resources. And assessing performance to compensate educators is fraught with error, they fear. Besides, teachers don'?t do it for the money; they do it because they love children.

These arguments for education being exceptional do not stand up to scrutiny. The government does not assign people to doctors, even though it is possible that people may choose poorly--?and health care is an area where the cost of failure can be catastrophic. And while we understand that almost everyone who works with kids, from doctors to babysitters, loves children, we also recognize that financial rewards for excellent performance inspire better service."

John Taylor Gatto, finally, calls for an end to compulsory attendance laws ("prison regulations," he says). He also fears the effects of vouchers: They will result in "a much deeper and broader reach of official pedagogy into every home and every small secular or religious group that puts together schools." He seems to endorse a model of anarcho-capitalism, where teenagers are free to be entrepreneurs rather than students.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Does the Florida Ruling Imperil School Vouchers?
Adam B. Schaeffer, of the American Enterprise Institute, thinks so, and says that efforts to reform may turn to tax credits: "Education tax credits are quickly becoming, out of necessity, the last best hope for school choice in most of the country."

He points out that there has been no legal challenge to education tax credits since 2001.

Advocates of tax credits and vouchers can sometimes get into heated debates (something that Schaeffer, to my knowledge, has never done). Picking a particular method to enhanced competition and choice in the delivery of k-12 schooling is less important than the fact that it gets started.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Stupid Is ... as a Stupid System Does.
Cue up the TiVO for John Stossel, who hosts a TV special "Stupid In America: How We Cheat Our Kids."

Fromthe announcement at ABC News:

"We're not stupid. But we could do better," one high school student tells Stossel. Another says, "I think it has to be something with the school, 'cause I don't think we're stupider."

That's the question Stossel examines in his special report: What is it that's going wrong in public schools?

There are many factors that contribute to failure in school. A major factor, Stossel finds, is the government's monopoly over the school system. Parents don't get to choose where to send their children. In other countries, choice brings competition, and competition improves performance.

--------
Friday, January 13, 10pm EST.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice Setback: Florida Court Rules Against Program.
One of the most innovative programs in school reform has been dealt a body blow by the Florida Supreme Court.

Under the Opportunity Scholarship Program, each public school is rated for its performance. If a school gets an "F" two years our of four, the students in the school can transfer to any public or privately run school that abides by specified rules.

Teacher unions, among others, objected, and found a sympathetic ear in the Florida Supreme Court, which has struck down the program. The court says that it violates legal requirements for a uniform system of free public schools.

(Uniform? It's hard to find a state that has "uniform" public schools. Perhaps Hawaii, which is one big school district.)

The Alliance for School Choice vows to fight on. Says director Clint Bolick, "Given that parental choice is triggered only when kids are in a failing public school, this ruling turns the guarantee of high-quality schools on its head."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Does Lake Superior College Favor High School Administrators Over Students?
For whose benefit are educational institutions run: students, or teachers and administrators?

One education program run by the state of Minnesota is the Post-Secondary Enrollment Option, or PSEO, under which the state pays college tuition for high school juniors and seniors, who also earn high school credit.

The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, at the University of Minnesota, released a report in December on the PSEO. It finds that the program is underutilized, in part because high schools and universities don't do enough to promote it.

And why wouldn't that be? Follow the money, and the social connections.

Says a press release from HHH, some high school counselors are unhelpful to students using the tuition funds. One possible reason: "The school district, which receives a portion of its state money based on each student, receives substantially less from the state for full-time PSEO students, who do not count toward enrollment."

But the blame doesn't extend only to high schools. Post-secondary institutions can undercut the program, too. Again, quoting the HHH: "Harry Cottrell, director of extended campus programs at Lake Superior College, said the institution does not recruit PSEO students largely because of the cost to K-12 schools.

'That wouldn't make for a good relationship,' he said. 'It would be counterproductive.'"

Counterproductive for the employees of the district and the college/university. But for the student?

Yet another case in which a government program meant to help people is captured by those who run it. How many students who could have benefited from the PSEO not done so because of the reluctance of school or university officials to put the interests of the students first?

While the PSEO is not the most important innovation that could or even has been implemented, it should get some credit for introducing a tiny bit of school choice into the K-12 scene. It says to the student "Hey, we'll pick up the tuition. You choose where to take these classes; we won't dictate that simply on your place of residence."

In addition, of course, the PSEO is useful to students who would otherwise not be stretched by their high schools. I could have used such a program in high school. Heck, even before that. I took some history and psychology classes before the walk in funny clothes to Pomp and Circumstance. I had to get the permission of my high school to take the classes, none of which, by law, could be applied toward high school credit. The result: I picked up some interesting classes (on my parent's dime) in college, but could not substitute them for some dull classes that repeated what I had already learned from college--or even, in one case, junior high school.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Is 65 Percent the Right Solution?
Standard and Poor's calls into question an education fad that requires 65 percent of education spending to go to the classroom.

The group First Class Education has been pushing states to impose the requirement on school districts. But there are a number of problems with that approach. Among the problems: it doesn't seem to work.

Standard and Poor's has evaluated the relationship between classroom dollars and student performance. In a move that should not be surprising, it concluded that "the specific ways that schools use their instructional dollars may have as much, if not more, to do with student achievement as the percentage of dollars spent on the classroom."

The 65-percent proposal looks smart, on the surface, especially for people who hold to traditional views of pedagogy. But it's also the same kind of one-size-fits-all approach to education that has gotten us into trouble.

A better route is to maximize competition and choice. There is no single environment in which all students excel. Focus on achievement, and the rest will take care of itself.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice for New Orleans.


"Until recently, Louisiana's state school board had steadfastly opposed the idea of using public funds in the form of vouchers to pay for private-school tuitions. But with New Orleans school officials yet to reopen a single building, and some Catholic schools already welcoming students, the board and the Archdiocese of New Orleans are discussing a plan to pay parochial schools to educate as many as 3,000 displaced public-school students."

The Rev. William Maestri, school superintendent for the New Orleans archdiocese, has said to his schools "Let the kids come in, we'll sort out the finances later."

This move gets children into school. It's also a smart political move: imagine children having to leave school mid-year, when a political showdown makes it clear that taxpayer dollars won't go to those schools, and the archdiocese can't afford to give away tuition any longer.

The offer is also a pragmatic one; it points out an important fact often unstated in the school choice debate: what should be the goal of public education? Is it sending children to specific schools, run through a particular arrangement (what we call "public schools")? Or should it be that children receive an education?

Another step forward: federal money being sent to the area may prompt an increase in the number of charter schools. In addition, the governor may be on board: "if Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, has her way, New Orleans will become an even bigger laboratory for school choice. Since Katrina, the former public-school teacher has issued two executive orders easing the regulatory requirements for opening new charter schools."

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Newest Supreme and School Choice.
How does "Justice Samuel Alito" sound? Pretty good, if you're concerned about letting low-income people have the same thing that wealthier Americans have--school choice.

At least that's the word from the Alliance for School Choice:

"Although history makes abundantly clear that it is impossible to predict a Supreme Court justice’s positions, based on the evidence available, we believe that Justice Alito has a firm grasp on relevant legal issues and would provide a fair hearing to advocates of school choice," says president Clint Bolick. "In that regard, the nomination does not change the Court’s course at all, but would keep it solidly on track in support of educational opportunities for children who need them desperately."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

SPN: The Trouble with Labor Unions.
During the recent conference of the State Policy Network, Grover Norquist (of Americans for Tax Reform) lead a panel on public sector unions and government reform. Norquist is no fan of government employee unions, having called them cornered rats.

Due in large measure to the secular decline of manufacturing, the percentage of the workforce in unions is on the decline. That is especially true in the private sector.

There's one area where union membership keeps growing, however: government workers. Anyone who has ever been a government worker can appreciate the fact that government managers can be as difficult to work for as private sector managers, so some sympathy for case of unions as a countervailing force is natural. But there's a world of difference between the value and importance of unions in the private versus the public sectors.

In the private sector, owners (and to a lesser extent, their managers) must keep the competitive environment in mind. They must offer value for service, innovation, and reasonable prices lest other companies attract their customers. Further, there's often a financial clash between owners / management and workers, giving management another incentive to operate efficiently.

But in the public sector, there is no conflict between staff and management. Both live out of the public purse. Their employer, government, cannot, by definition, go out of business. So both staff and management have an incentive to increase market share, which in this case means lobbying legislators for ever-larger budgets, an ever-large amount of personal income of state residents. Government worker unions, then, are forces for ever-larger government budgets. This is something that warms the heart of those who advocate limited government.

That's only one challenge that is posed by public sector unions. Another is that they can be obstacles to reforms that are necessary to serve taxpayers at large, as well as the recipients of government programs. Few people enjoy change, and government unions often stand in the way of necessary change. Whether the question is welfare reform, Social Security reform, school choice, contracting out for greater efficiency, or focusing government on core functions, government unions stand in the way. Big time.

Those considerations aside, the internal politics and structure of unions (private as well as government) are troubling for those who believe in individual freedom, good government, and fiscal responsibility. In an age of calls for increased government and corporate accountability, unions (which often enjoy the monopoly of a "closed shop" environment) are too often closed-book outfits.

There is a place for unions. Today's Wall Street Journal, for example, has a story about how unions in Texas have a financial incentive to provide job training that building contractors don't. So some contractors are actively seeking out unions for their skilled workers--and yes, Texas is a right-to-work state. Workers join unions voluntarily, and contractors seek out union workers, voluntarily. Win-win and all that.

But government unions? There's something wrong when unions of government employees can take money from their members, and spend it on lobbying and donations to political campaigns to push for ... more government employees.

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

Has The Private Sector Really Been Tried?
When the public sector fails time and time again to deliver quality education at an acceptable (or even very high) price, it gets ... more money. When a botched contracting out operation goes bad, the criticism falls ... on the idea of private enterprise.

The following item from Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Foundation explains how contracting out the operation of a school system can go wrong.
------------------------------


Give Choice and Competition a Chance

David W. Kirkpatrick

07.06.05

No Pennsylvania school district has been more troubled for a longer period of time than the Chester-Upland District in Delaware County. And although privatization appears to be the latest disappointment, there still are ways for the district to rebound.

In June 1994, the state took control of the district’s fiscal affairs, and set up a three-member Board of Control. Two years later a special court-appointed master, looking at special education in the district, issued a 100-page report charging the district with being “unwilling and unable to provide a free appropriate public education.” He proposed using tax dollars to allow district parents to send their children to other schools in the county.

From 1990 to 1996, the district had five superintendents and five high school principals—and the parade continues today. Even two chairmen and two members of the three-member Board of Control had left. One said of the district, “the only solution may be to dissolve it and disperse its students to other districts.”

By 2000, the state assumed complete control of the district. The Board of Control signed contracts with three private companies to run district schools. One withdrew, and a second was purchased by the third, Edison Schools, Inc. Thomas E. Persing, then-chairman of the Board of Control and a public school administrator for more than 30 years, called the district was a “failure” and said, “We cannot continue to pour the same old wine out of the same bottle.”

Recently, Edison announced that, after losing more than $30 million, and still owed more than $2 million by the district, it was withdrawing from the district’s operations at the end of last month. But although decades of failure should bring into question the future of government-owned and operated schools, the events in Chester-Upland are instead raising questions about the role of private companies in the running of public schools.

Edison suffered losses because it relied on the good faith of district management and staff and accepted responsibility without commensurate authority. The district—not Edison—retained control of such key areas as personnel, security, maintenance, and technology. Edison was unable to prevent many teachers from failing to attend professional development sessions or correct maintenance workers who wouldn’t move supplies.

The problem, to paraphrase what someone once said about Christianity, was not that privatization was tried and found wanting. It is that it wasn’t truly tried in the first place.

For an honest evaluation of privatization’s merits, one should compare Edison’s record since its 1992 founding with the sorry record of the Chester-Upland public schools during the same period. In the school year that just ended, Edison was managing 157 schools, with 250,000 students, in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of students were up 118,000 from just 132,000 the year before. If all of those students were in one school district, it would be one of the largest districts in the nation.

In Philadelphia, Edison runs 20 schools, and has been so successful that it has acquired two more. Edison’s Philadelphia schools outnumber the 11 in Chester-Upland, so problems there were not one of size. Philadelphia is also comparable to Chester-Upland in that students in each are predominantly urban, low-income and minority.

Teachers in Edison schools around the nation have indicated their support for the company. Letters from National Education Association members in Mount Clemens, Mich., stated that the school leaders became “visionaries,” classrooms became “rich learning environments,” and the “Edison Project has been a positive learning experience for all of us and our community.”

When asked what would work in Chester, Charles Zogby, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Education at the time Edison was brought in, said “That’s a good question. I truly don’t know.”

Here are four possible solutions:

Give privatization a real test by giving the company or companies equal parts responsibility and authority.

Try the recommendation of the court’s master in 1994 and give parents funds to send their children elsewhere.

Dissolve the district.

Build on the examples set by the successful charter schools in the district. Convert all schools in Chester to publicly-run charter schools, or convert the entire district to a charter district, as has been done in some other states.

Worthy and tested ideas are not lacking. What is needed is political courage, a rare commodity.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Give Me Some (More) Educational Choice.
Arizona has done more to promote competition among schools, and educational choice, than perhaps any other state. But the Goldwater Institute argues that there's still more to do.

-----------------------------------------
State Still Needs More Variety in Educational Choices

by Mathew Ladner, Ph.D.
August 22, 2005

Arizona students are returning to school or enrolling for the first time, providing an opportunity to take note of the expanding revolution in American education: the ability of parents to choose the best school for their children.

Parents have a growing opportunity to pick the education setting most closely aligned with the individual needs of their child, and public schools face a growing level of competition for students. Nearly a fourth of K-12 students nationwide are not attending their neighborhood public schools, opting instead for an array of public and private options. [Emphasis added.]

State legislatures have established seven school-voucher programs and six education tax-credit programs since 1990. State governments created two of these programs this year and expanded five existing programs.

These programs increase the access for parents to choose private schooling for their children.

In addition, unknown numbers of children attend public schools of choice through interdistrict and intradistrict choice and/or magnet schools.

By the mid-1990s, 1.2 million children were attending these schools. Today, approximately 1 million children now attend charter schools, and as many as 2 million students are home-schooled. [Emphasis added]

Florida has been a leading state in expanding school-choice options. Through the creation of three statewide choice programs - A+ Scholarships for children in failing schools (800 students); McKay Scholarships for children with disabilities (18,000 students); and tax-credit scholarships for low-income children (15,000 students) - Florida has led the way in the creation of school choice.

The Miami-Dade public school system recently announced its intention to create new magnet-school options as a response to the competition.

"We cannot be ostriches anymore with our heads in the sand," a district official told the Miami Herald.

"They either get on board with the changing landscape of public education, or they're going to be left behind, with no students and no teachers," a Miami teacher union official stated.

Harvard, Stanford and University of Wisconsin scholars have established that children using choice programs score higher on achievement tests. The evidence concerning children remaining in their public schools is even more compelling.

Harvard economist Caroline Minter Hoxby studied Arizona public elementary school test scores and found that those schools facing high levels of competition from charter schools made gains in fourth-grade reading four times as large as the other schools.

While choice reform continues to advance, the issue has unfortunately become embroiled in a political controversy in Arizona.

Last session, the Arizona Legislature passed and Gov. Janet Napolitano agreed to sign - and then vetoed - a significant expansion in school choice for low-income parents in the form of a tax credit for corporations providing scholarships to students to attend independent schools.

While the veto has become a heated dispute, it is important to recognize that the ultimate winners from the resolution will be thousands of Arizona children who will have the opportunity to attend a school best matching their needs as chosen by the parents.

Arizona badly needs this legislation and more like it, especially in areas where the need for options is most urgent.

High-performing public and charter schools often have years-long waiting lists, while nearby independent schools have empty seats. Despite the progress made toward choice in Arizona, desperate parents often face terrible difficulty in finding a seat for the child when a change is needed. Upper-income people fled poorly performing public schools decades ago by exercising the most common form of school choice: buying a home in the suburbs.

Giving the children of low-income families a similar chance to have their parents choose a school that serves their needs spurs public school reform and equality of opportunity, one of the few things upon which all Arizonans genuinely agree.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Has the National Governors Association gone pro-school choice? The Alliance for School Choice says yes, with this announcement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Aug. 29, 2005

Contact: Laura Devany
602-468-0900/ 602-615-8897 (cell)


NATIONAL GOVERNOR'S ASSOCIATION REPORT RECOMMENDS GREATER SCHOOL CHOICE
New Report Encourages Tuition Assistance for Private Schools


PHOENIX - A bipartisan task force of the nation's governors, has issued a best practices guide for their colleagues recommending states expand the range of educational choices available for families by embracing charter schools, virtual schools and tuition assistance for private schools.

"Increasingly, policy leaders are concluding that providing quality education options can raise student achievement and improve existing schools," states the report released this month. "Given the slow pace of achievement and graduation rate improvements, many policy makers have concluded that assisting public schools and assessing the results are not enough. These policymakers have begun giving families and students greater choices in education options."

These recommendations, which, according to the report's authors, should be considered as part of a coherent and comprehensive public education system, include offering tuition assistance for choice participation. The report states, "By providing state tax or financial assistance for students to attend private or parochial K-12 schools.... more students can access these options."

The report states that greater school choice can help meet the goals of:
* higher graduation rates,
* meet No Child Left Behind Act requirements to offer choice options,
* encourage innovation and improvement across the education system,
* satisfy parental demands for options, and
* reduce segregation by race and income.

"School choice is moving into the mainstream of American politics, as reflected by growing bipartisan support. Serious policymakers recognize that a conversation that doesn't include school choice is not a conversation about meaningful education reform," declared Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice, the Phoenix-based organization that leads the national effort to support school choice programs to expand opportunities for disadvantaged schoolchildren.

The governors who issued the report are: Janet Napolitano (Ariz.), Tim Pawlenty (Minn.), Haley Barbour (Miss.), Bill Richardson (N.M.), Mark Sanford (S.C.) and Jon Huntsman (Utah). Five of the six governors have advocated or signed bills providing private school choice options. Read the full report at: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/EDUCATIONCHOICE.PDF.

The sixth, presumably, is Gov. Napolitano, who vetoed school choice measures earlier this year.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Detroit School Election: Reminder of the Need for Choice.
There was an election for the Detroit Public School board. There were 51 candidates in the primary election.

Who can possibly keep track of that number of candidates?

There's got to be a better way for parents to have a say in what kind of education their children receive.

The current approach says "Scrutinize, if you can, the records of a bunch of people you have never heard of, and try to determine if they would make good members of the school board. Then hope that they follow through." The other option of the current approach: move to another school district, if you're willing and able to pay the price and put up with the hassles of moving.

A better approach is to give parents tax credits or (for those without enough income to pay taxes, a voucher) and say "Here, you take a look at the schools, and pick one for your child, based on what you see in their record."

In an age when people complain about not having the ability to pay their cable TV company only for the networks they watch, it's amazing that we make it so difficult for parents to pick a suitable school for their children.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School employees retire, get rehired, save taxpayers money.
A man retires from a school district Then he goes back to the same desk, doing the same tasks, drawing both a pension AND a paycheck from his new employer, a staffing firm.

Outrageous? Not exactly. The Detroit News reports on the practice. I have already written a story that explains how this works, to the benefit of employees, employers, and taxpayers. But it's not yet in published form, so I am not able to reproduce it here. But here's the short of it:

(a) the employees who draw retirement money while "re-employed" would have been drawing the money anyway, so there is no net increase in taxpayer pension costs.

(b) since they work as contractors to a staffing firm, not as school district employees, they typically receive less in compensation than someone else who would have filled the job.

Someone retires. Assuming the job will be filled, re-hiring a retiree as a contract employee is often the smartest choice.

Labels: Public employee pensions, School choice

(permalink)

Assorted Items in Education Policy.
It's time to clean house, and mention some short commentaries as well as longer reports that I've come across on education policy.

CHILD ADVOCATE LEAVES A LEGACY
The death of John Walton has brought a number of tributes, specifically his work to offer scholarships for students wanting to escape poorly performing schools.

TEST SCORES UP, BUT DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING?
Test scores are up in Arizona. But does that mean improved student performance, or that excellence has been defined down?

IS UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL AS GOOD AS ADVERTISED?
If education is good, then more education must be better. Right? Lance T. Izumi points out that studies touting the benefits of taxpayer-financed early childhood education may not stand up to scrutiny.

SCHOOL FINANCE 101
Rising property taxes mean less in state aid to schools--freeing up that money for other purposes in the state budget, good or bad. Byron Schlomach offers these and 10 other observations. They're specific to Texas, but the lessons have wider applicability.

HIGHER EDUCATION CURMUDGEON
If you're interested in finding some commentary and research that goes against the grain in higher education, check out the Pope Center, of North Carolina. One item that caught my attention was this report [PDF] which says that claims of the benefits of public financing of higher education confuse correlation with causality.

WHAT DO FLOATING EXCHANGE RATES, THE VOLUNTEER ARMY, AND SCHOOL VOUCHERS HAVE IN COMMON?
All three were advocated by Milton Friedman in his seminal book Capitalism and Freedom.

The first two ideas have come into existence. With a few exceptions, the third has not.

Patrick Byrne tells CNBC why: In education, "there's an entrenched monopoly that you'd be dislodging by introducing competition. It's not really the case with currency rates. I'll remind you, Milton Friedman also proposed the all-volunteer Army, which was seen as cooky 30 years ago."

GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMS: BARRIERS LOWERED TO MEET RACIAL GOALS?
Xiaochin Claire Yan writes that that Davis, Calif. school board is weakening its gifted student program by lowering the bar, to meet informal racial quotas.

Don't worry; we're all above average.

IS SCHOOL CHOICE THE NEXT CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES?
Clint Bolick (yes) and Laura Underkuffle (no) argue the question for the magazine Legal Affairs.

My favorite line comes when Bolick responds to Underkuffle's suggestion that competition and choice are all fine and good, but only if it is limited to public schools:

[The] inclusion of private schools is essential to true reform. Take the example of the post office. Remember when it was bloated, inefficient, unreliable, and unresponsive? I take it your suggestion would have been that if people didn't like their local post office, they should go to the one in the next town—where they would find an equally bloated, inefficient, unreliable, and unresponsive post office. When USPS was exposed to private sector competition, it was forced to improve.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Avoid Curriculum Fights Through School Choice?
David Boaz remindis us that controversies over school curriculum can be avoided through the use of school choice.

That's generally on the mark. Look at higher education, for example. Though there are accusations on the left and (usually) right about biased instructors, there are lots of choices for people to pick from.

"Education deals with topics that many people feel strongly about," Boaz writes, "and a monopoly requires them to fight over whose values will prevail in the single school system."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Another Government Showdown.
In the name of furthering education, the Kansas Supreme Court may order the de-funding of the state's public schools.

The court may go so far as to prohibit the state from making payments on bonds used to finance school buildings.

This controversy has several policy and political debates wrapped up into one. First of all, you've got legislative versus judicial power. How far does judicial power go? According to the Kansas Supreme Court, as far as telling a legislature what its overall level of spending is for a given government function.
A second debate is the proper level of school funding, and how that funding should be distributed. The case in Kansas is not so much about equity as it is total amount. The court wants the legislature to abide by the findings of a private sector consultant that cherry-picked some "ideal" schools and then said "These folks spend $x, the rest of you should, too."

But even "ideal" schools have their shortcomings, and basing a global budget on the operation of one or even a few schools is not a good idea. Under the current policy environment, a "choice" school may be spending $12,000 per student." But under a different one--one that, say, involves free and open competition among traditional public schools, charter schools, and privately run schools serving voucher-enabled students--the costs are likely to be not $12,000, but something less. And equally important, parents would be able to control directly through dollars, rather than indirectly through the political process, what is an optimal education for their own children.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Taxpayers, Feepayers, or Patrons?
It's a cliche that language is a tool of politics. But as debates over fees and taxes bears out, it's also true.

While there are legitimate uses of fees (college tuition quickly comes to mind), at other times the term "fee" is simply an attempted sleight-of-hand. Another mind trick is to refer to citizens as government "customers" or "patrons."

To some extent, this is beneficial, if it causes government employees to give the rest of us better "customer service," such as treating members of the public with respect, answering questions quickly and accurately, and so forth.

But the new language can also be used to obfuscate the truth that many payments to government are taxes, not fee payments freely given in exchange for services voluntarily chosen.

For example, I've been reading newspaper and school accounting publications that refer to residents of a school district as "patrons," not "taxpayers."

A distinction without a difference? Hardly. "Patron" suggests an exchange of money for services, voluntarily entered into by two parties. You can choose to shop at Wal-Mart, or Sears; Home Depot or the Ace Hardware; the high-priced attorneys at Duey, Cheatum & Howe, or the guy in solo practice, operating out of an old house.

In all these cases, you have at least two choices. One, you can choose whether or not to purchase the good or service in question. You don't have to spend the money. (Condo-dwellers have no need for lawn tractors, for example.) And two, you have a choice among providers: Burger King or McDonalds.

But the use of the word "customer" and "patron" is, at the least, misleading when it's applied in many situations involving government, such as the relationship between homeowners and a local school district.

Now it's true that you can choose to live in District A or District B, or you can pick up stakes and move to District C. But the transaction costs of doing so are substantial, both emotionally and financially. And within a given residence--123 Elm Street, for example--you really have no choice at all. You're not a patron. You're a taxpayer. District A will, by law, require that you pay a certain amount of money into its checkbook. You can't really choose not to pay it--if you do, the sheriff will come knocking on your door, and put the house up for auction. And you can't choose to send your money to district B.

None of this is to say that all taxes are bad. Some are necessary, and even desirable, such as those used to fund a national military.

But referring to taxpayers as patrons or customers can easily be a way to obscure the pain caused by--and critical analysis of--taxation.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Minnesota Governor: It's Not a Tax, It's a Fee.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota said "I won't raise taxes." Now he proposes a state-mandated increase in the price of cigarettes, but says "I'm not raising taxes."

From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "After months of saying he would not agree to any statewide tax increases, Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Friday said he would break the budget stalemate with a proposal to increase the cost of cigarettes by 75 cents a pack, with the money going to health care and schools."

Is this a tax increase? It looks like a tax, but the governor is calling it a "health impact fee."

Even after accepting the dubious logic implied in this term, it's hard to see how it is health related; $380 million from the expected new revenue is targeted for K-12 spending, giving it a 9 percent boost.

On the other hand, Pawlenty loads up the proposal with conditions that could make it unacceptable to the wanting-to-increase-taxes Senate. Two conditions are a ban on strikes by public school teachers, another is a measure to enhance school choice.

The Senate's majority leader showed that two can play the verbal game, remarking that a proposed increase in the gas tax--recently vetoed by Pawlenty--might get new life as a "gasoline wholesale fee."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Progressive Case for Vouchers.
Generally speaking, advocates of school vouchers are politically conservative, while those on the other side of the ideological divide want to put more money into the status quo.

A few years ago, Charles L. Glenn offered the Progressive Case for Vouchers. He points out that a number of countries firmly in the "social democratic" camp make heavy use of schools funded but not run by government: Canada, Australia, Britain, France, the Low Countries, Germany, Spain and Denmark.

"The question for Progressives," he says, "is whether they will join in the discussions through which these programs are shaped, or persist in a state of denial while others make all the running."

So why should progressives endorse school choice?

The first reason, Glenn says, is freedom: "Parents have a fundamental right, in a free society, to decide about the values that their children will be taught in school."

An additional motivation for school choice, Glenn argues, is justice: "Justice demands that we support and promote it, especially for low-income families and those otherwise condemned to send their children-under mandatory attendance laws-to schools which they are convinced are doing or will do them harm."

(Hat tip to SCSU Scholars)

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Let's Make a Deal: Gay Marriage for School Choice.
Education reform guru Andrew J. Coulson make a proposal: Gay Marriage for School Choice.

If you’'re conservative, would you relent on the gay marriage issue in return for a school choice program that lets parents get exactly the kind and quality of schooling they seek? If you'’re liberal, would you go along with a universal public and private school choice program in return for the right of gays to marry?

Such grand sweeps occur only in parlor games, as Coulson would tell you. Still, the proposal is a useful way for people of many persuasions to examine their own convictions, and what the current political situation is giving them.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: DC Choice Program Draws a Crowd.
The DC Choice Incentive Act of 2003 brought some measure of school choice to the District of Columbia. So what's happened since?

The Independence Institute offers these observations

• 1,366 scholarships were awarded, and by September 2004, 1,027 had matriculated into their preferred school. This "usage rate" of 75 percent is at the high end of the range for similar programs.
  
• 433 public school students who would otherwise have been attending schools "in need of improvement" under No Child Left Behind were awarded scholarships.
  
• Applicants to the program are substantially more economically disadvantaged than are DCPS students overall.

The U.S. Department of Education has preliminary report.

While only 4 percent of the schools in the Cleveland voucher program have no affiliation, that number is 28 percent for the district of Columbia program.

In its Education Notebook, the Heritage Foundation points out that the DC program has garnered a greater response than the Milwaukee program, the first public voucher program in the country. (For an analysis of the Milwaukee, see here.) Either the DC schools are worse, school choice is catching on, or some combination of the two factors is at work.

Looking forward, the Foundation notes that "This year, 2,702 families have applied for scholarships for the 2005-06 school year. Meanwhile, 13 additional private schools will open their doors to voucher students."

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: School Choice Has Wide Support.
Over 90 percent of voters surveyed in Arizona support at least one of the several school choice measures now being debated by that state's legislature.

Among the other findings:

• More than 70 percent support increasing the current educational tax credit for personal tax filers;
  
• Almost half (49.5 percent) favor universal vouchers, the most ambitious of school choice plans;
  
• Embracing school choice is a winning strategy for political candidates.

More information is available (PDF link) at the Friedman Foundation site.

The poll was created by Dr. Margaret Kenski of Arizona Opinion, and conducted by DataCall, Inc. of Phoenix during late March. Its sample size was 602, and the margin of error was +/- 4 percent.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: Schools for Students, or Students for Schools?
Over 5,400 students have left the decrepit Kansas City (MO) school district for charter schools. This article from the Jefferson City News Tribune gives a glance at parents of the students who left. Their response has been positive: [The old school had] too big of a crowd. "There are gangs and shooting and fighting all up there in that school all the time, and I don't care if they have the policemen and everything there. I'm still not happy with the school."

But most of the article focuses on the financial losses of the KC district--never mind that the district now has fewer students to be responsible for. More importantly, the tenor of the article focuses on the financial need of the district rather than the new opportunities for learning enjoyed by the charter school students.

Unfortunately, that's where discussions of school choice often lead.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: The Innovation-Based Case Argument Against Extending No Child Left Behind.
While the public school establishment laments No Child Left Behind as an unfunded mandate, the Heritage Foundation sees NCLB as a threat to the innovation necessary to improve schooling.

From their Education Notebook of March 21:

“America’s high schools are obsolete,” said Bill Gates at a recent Summit of the National Governors Association. “By obsolete, I mean that our high schools—even when they're working exactly as designed—cannot teach our kids what they need to know today. Training the workforce of tomorrow with the high schools of today is like trying to teach kids about today's computers on a 50-year-old mainframe. It's the wrong tool for the times.

He wasn’t kidding. Less than a quarter of 12th grade students are proficient in math, science, or history according the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In international comparisons, American high school students fare poorly. On the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, the U.S. ranked 18th out of 21 countries in 12th grade math and science literacy.2 Many don’t even finish high school. Roughly 70 percent of U.S. high school students graduate on time, and only a third of students graduate with the minimum skills and knowledge to enroll in college.3

Clearly there is a problem. What is the answer? Why not extend the No Child Left Behind Act to high schools? After all, NCLB is focusing the nation’s energy on bringing all students to proficiency in reading and math. It is generating a wealth of achievement information for educators, parents, and the public. It is providing some students, many for the first time, with tutoring or a chance to transfer to a better school. Given these benefits, why not give it a try in high schools?

Here is why not: Federal action to improve educational standards comes at a price. For high schools, that price will be too high.

All policies have costs and benefits. Setting standards is no exception. Standards set at the federal level compel uniformity among the states. Such standardization can quash innovation and experimentation, while at the same time requiring costly and sometimes arbitrary adjustments to existing programs that do work.

Given the history of state and local control over schooling, increased federal oversight of states’ standards, testing, and accountability systems under NCLB was a hard sell to those who believe education policy should be determined at levels closer to students. While some have argued it is plausible for the federal government to require the grade schools it funds to impart essential skills like elementary reading and math, federal monitoring of high schools is an inappropriate use of federal power that will interfere with the interstate dialogue on the purpose and improvement of high schools. The idea that American students should achieve basic literacy and competency in math is almost unquestioned. But there is less consensus about the skills that high schools ought to impart.

Moreover, standardization of high school reform will be even more costly because state reforms vary to an even larger degree. This lack of uniformity, however, is not a problem. States and districts are experimenting with a wide range of reforms, including exit exams, dual enrollment programs, smaller and discipline-specific schools, high-tech vocational programs, Advanced Placement, remediation and support programs, college preparatory curricula, industry certification, public and private school choice, technology enhancements, and other reforms.

But there is no simple or single solution. No one state has the answers. Nor would federal standardization of high school testing and standards policy provide the solution. New federal programs are not the answer.

There is broad agreement that this issue belongs to the states. And it was a welcome sight to see, at the recent NGA summit, that governors are committed to the task

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

Education: Does "No Child Left Behind" Require District Consolidation?
A state official in PA now argues that in light of No Child Left Behind, school consolidation is the next step in school reform.

Over a week ago, the Commonwealth Foundation of Pennsylvania argued that school consolidation actually costs money.

That didn't sit too well with the author of a legislative proposal to further consoidate the state's school districts. What follows is a give and take between Rep. Lescovitz and the Foundation on the question of consolidation. It's quite a charged exchange.

Rep. Lescovitz Responds to the Commonwealth Foundation Commentary on School District Consolidation Proposal

03.15.05

It has become clear to me that reading comprehension skills are lacking among select organizations in Pennsylvania. On March 11, the Commonwealth Foundation released a statement that leads me to believe they are not for quality, accessible, fair and equal education for the students of Pennsylvania. Additionally, it would seem they are for continued separation of the economic classes.

This foundation should realize that testing is here to stay, especially considering the federal No Child Left Behind mandate. Schools and teachers are now being pressured into teaching for the test rather than teaching students. The important point the foundation missed was that I am trying to create a level playing field to make sure these mandated test results are valid.

The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment test, now used due to President Bush’s No Child Left Behind, was never meant to be a standard test for evaluating and comparing schools and students statewide, but rather used for in-house evaluations of curriculum meeting state education standards. Since standardized tests are here to stay for comparing schools, a system with uniform curriculum, books and materials lends well to more equitable and measurable testing validity.

For those who missed it, the foundation’s letter voiced support for deconsolidation; which would only further dilute the validity of standardized testing. My plan would consolidate the administration, curriculum and materials of the state’s 501 school districts to 67 or less based on a county or regional structure. Although costs may be reduced with this plan, the foundation’s comments reflect they missed the true purpose. Costs per pupil, union negotiations and increasing costs for education were never a part of my proposal.

If the foundation had contacted me and read my news releases instead of fabricating the intent of my legislation, they would have learned my true intent was creating a more equitable means of evaluating education and providing more opportunities including magnet schools and greater coordination between educators.

Additionally, the foundation seems happy with unequal treatment and an endorsement of keeping a class-based system of providing education for all students. It would seem the foundation supports President Bush’s No Child Left Behind but adopts a more conservative view of the “old South’s” education system before the 1960s civil rights act – that a separate and unequal education system is good enough for all students of Pennsylvania.

No Child Left Behind has forced the need for consolidation. We can’t fit our current system of evaluating student progress into a broad federal mandate. We need a more valid means of evaluating progress and targeting where improvement is needed.

When every student has success, we all succeed.

So, yes as they said in their letter, “I’m back.” But to be honest, I never left. I never stopped working to improve education and the quality and equality of life for all Pennsylvanians. Again, if we are going to have standardized evaluations, we must have a level playing field.

####

And here's the response from the Commonwealth Foundation:
Commonwealth Foundation Responds to Rep. Lescovitz

03.22.05

Dear Rep. Lescovitz:

I welcome your response to my proposal to de-consolidate Pennsylvania’s public school districts. However, your defense of your proposal to further consolidate school districts is not based in either fact or experience.

In addition, I find it astonishing that you admit that “Costs per pupil, union negotiations and increasing costs for education were never a part of [your consolidation] proposal.” That you ignore these critical issues of importance will be very disturbing to all taxpayers, particularly given the already high cost of public education in Pennsylvania. By ignoring that which will not go away, your proposal opens the door to all kinds of unintended, but real, consequences—all of them bad.

By consolidating the “administration, curriculum and materials of the state’s 501 schools districts to 67 or less (sic)” you will, for example, produce broader district-wide collective bargaining. That will give the unions more monopoly clout. It also means public school employee wages, salaries, benefits, work rules, etc., would be homogenized across Beaver County’s 14 school districts alone, to say nothing about the 38 districts in Allegheny and 14 in Washington Counties, portions of which you also represent.

Likewise, as you admit, your proposal will serve to further homogenize the curriculum across disparate school districts. Not only are districts not all the same, but even the schools within present individual districts already have children with differing needs and abilities. My essay emphasizes that different conditions exist now, and your expanded one-size-fits-all approach will only make it more difficult to serve the needs of individual students.

Even Albert Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, recognized that effective change doesn’t come from the top down when he said:

“It’s time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve: It more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy.”

So let me make clear the broad outline of the public school de-consolidation I recommend. It is based on the factual observation that private (and public charter) schools almost never have any administrative structure above the school level, and they deliver at least comparable education results. They are about one-third to one-half the size of public schools and operate at about 60-65 percent of the per pupil cost. In these schools, all the important decisions are made at the school level where the best information about student needs and teacher performance exists, and these differ widely from school to school.

Sensible de-consolidation would reduce school districts to central office management functions only, such as accounting. Monies would be distributed to individual schools on a per pupil basis. Budgets and collective bargaining would be administered at the school, not the district, level. Open enrollment would give parents a choice among public schools, with all tax money following the student. Principals would really be in charge of their schools.

You are correct when you state that “standardized tests are here to stay for comparing schools.” I would add that value-added tests are also coming for comparing teachers, which is why the PSEA continues to fight all testing.

With each school operating independently, as I propose, and parents having a choice among them, value-added test results that show how teachers and schools compare will give parents the information to make sensible choices for their children. If one school were performing poorly, as measured by the PSSA tests, parents could move their children elsewhere and take their local tax and state aid dollars with them.

Believe me, Mr. Lescovitz, parents and children voting with their feet will get school administrators’ corrective attention far quicker and more effectively than another curriculum mandate from one of your distant school district offices.

Finally, I take umbrage with your desperate attempt to defend your consolidation proposal by playing the race card and characterizing my proposal as “class-based,” like the “‘old South’s’ education system before the 1960s (sic) civil rights act,” and one that provides “unequal treatment.”

Indeed, the reality is that you and your union allies are the intellectual heirs of Gov. George Wallace, who blocked access for African-Americans into the University of Alabama, and Gov. Orval Faubus, who tried to prevent the integration of Little Rock High School in the 1950s. By blocking children from attending schools of their choice, you and other school choice opponents continue to prevent students from escaping schools that fail them.

It is my proposal that would bestow the power of public school choice on every parent and child in Pennsylvania. It is your paternalistic, top-down, homogenizing consolidation proposal that would continue to trap students in monopoly, one-size-fits-all schools, many of which are awful. The result has been a costly jobs program that produces mediocre education, at best.

Sincerely,

John T. Wenders, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Commonwealth Foundation
Professor of Economics, Emeritus, University of Idaho

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: School District Consolidation Saves Costs Money.
Buy the jumbo size of potato chips and you save some money. Buy schooling in bulk (bigger school districts), and you pay ... more.

The Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives offers the case against school district consolidation. In brief, consolidation is inflationary, not cost-cutting measure because it weakens competition among schools.

Because of some technical difficulties, I'm not linking to the piece itself. Here it is, in full:

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

De-Consolidate Pennsylvania’s School Districts
John T. Wenders, Ph.D.
March 11, 2006

He’s ba...ack!

Two years ago, State Rep. Victor Lescovitz (D-Beaver County) introduced legislation to consolidate Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts into 67, one for each county. Fortunately, his proposal never made it out of committee.

But now he’s back, touting the same plan for consolidation, the very definition of a bad idea whose time never was.

If Mr. Lescovitz were interested in improving education for both students and taxpayers, instead of pushing a demonstrably failed idea, he should instead design a plan to go in exactly the opposite direction—deconsolidation.

The simplistic idea behind consolidation is that it will allow school districts to reap economies of scale, reduce costs, boost efficiency, while leaving everything else unchanged. The reality is that when districts consolidate, enough things change so as to bring about just the opposite the intended result.

Over the long haul, consolidation sucks power upward and away from parents and students into top-down, centralized, and inflexible political arrangements, where unions and other special interests have more political clout. Accountability declines, and the character and role of the schools move from bottom up to top down management. The result has been higher—not lower—per pupil costs and worse education for students.

Consolidation is nothing new in Pennsylvania. In the mid-1900s, the Commonwealth had 2,530 school districts. During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of school districts in Pennsylvania fell to 505 districts. Today there are 501. Over the same period, school size increased greatly, resulting in schools that are often too large.

If Mr. Lescovitz’s theory were correct, all this consolidation should have produced lower per-pupil costs. Instead, these consolidations were accompanied by rising per-pupil costs—costs which came to be borne increasingly by non-local sources.

Nationally, from 1960 to 1980, per-pupil expenditures, in constant dollars, increased a whopping 138 percent. And as real per-pupil spending sextupled from the end of World War II to today, the local share of public school funding dwindled from 80 percent (early 1900s) to 45.4 percent in 2000.

This nationwide shift in funding away from the local level has not gone as far in Pennsylvania, where 56percent of school funding still comes from local taxes, but power has still moved upward to Harrisburg. There, special interest groups are better able both to secure larger hikes in school funding and to divert much of the incremental increases toward themselves and their members—away from the children who are supposed to be served.

What did we get for this massive increase in education spending and centralization of funding and decision making? Not much. The data show gradually improving pupil performance until the early 1960s. From then until the early 1980s, during which Pennsylvania underwent massive district and school consolidation, scores plummeted so much that, by the end of this period, high school graduates were about one and one-half years behind their predecessors of the early 1960s. There has since been some recovery in scores, but all test scores are well below what they would have been had the pre-1960s trend continued.

It all happened because consolidation discouraged competition and education diversity. Economist Sam Peltzman has found that over the years the deterioration in pupil performance was greatest where the shift in funding from local to state sources was greatest. He also found that the upward movement of power added to union influence, a conclusion reinforced by the research of Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby.

Consolidation simply extends the power of the monopoly public schools, reduces diversity and competition, and increases the clout of the unions in district-wide bargaining.

Consider teacher pay and work rules. Teacher unions bargain at the district level. As districts become larger, negotiators on both sides are farther removed from direct knowledge of individual teachers and schools. District-wide, inflexible pay schedules and work rules become more homogenized and detached from the performance of real teachers and schools.

Based on the evidence, Mr. Lescovitz’s consolidation proposal will further raise education costs and reduce student performance. Conversely, de-consolidation would stop escalating costs and improve student performance.

Sensible de-consolidation would reduce the school districts’ role to central office management functions only. Monies would be distributed to individual schools on a per-pupil basis. Budgets and collective bargaining would be administered at the school, not the district, level. Open enrollment would give parents a choice among schools, with money following the student. Principals would be in charge of their schools.

If Mr. Lescovitz is really interested in controlling costs and improving student performance he would sponsor legislation to enable this kind of de-consolidation. His present proposal for more consolidation goes in exactly the wrong direction.

# # #

Dr. John T. Wenders is a senior fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org), a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research and educational institute located at the foot of the Capitol in Harrisburg, and Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at the University of Idaho.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Could School Choice Programs Save Taxpayer Dollars?
Contrary to claims that school choice will "drain money from public schools," choice programs just might save money.

Why? Private schools often (stereotypes aside) have lower operating costs than public schools.

In the case of one state, the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy (no relation to that fake president on the TV show!) estimates that New Hampshire taxpayers could save $32 million over eight years by using a means-tested program that provides voucher money on a sliding scale.

The Center's report, in PDF, can be found here.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: "The rally was about the system, not about education."
Government lobbying government is a big business. The other day, school bus after school bus pulled up to the Minnesota state capitol and let off students and teachers from government-run schools, all there to create a theater. The goal? Pressure state government to spend more money on local government schools.

Craig Westover observed the scene, and noted that The rally was about the system, not about education.

For if education was paramount, there wouldn't be so much fear and loathing of school choice and competition in schooling.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Is No Child Left Behind Unconstitutional, But Still Good?
Those who hold that the federal government has no constitutional role in K-12 education have good reason to oppose the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) law.

But Craig Westover notes a school choice advocate who favors NCLB anyway. It's unclear whether Jerry Ewing (one of Westover's readers) thinks NCLB is unconstitutional or not.

Sooner or later (perhaps it has already happened), someone is going to make the analogy between school reform, NCLB, the federal government, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In other words: yes, it may be that a series of laws and legal doctrines were enacted that on the face of it violate some principles of federalism. But still, the law is justified because the states themselves were violating the civil rights of a class of people--and if federalism includes a commitment to civil rights, who will stand up for them but the federal government if states are the very parties violating those rights?

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

All-Day Kindergarten May Lead to Enhanced School Choice in Arizona.
Arizona's governor wants to expand all-day kindergarten. Some legislators see this as a way to enhance school choice through vouchers or tax credits.

Kids attend enough school as it is (with what results?), but this may be a fair trade to make.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Zero Tolerance, or Zero Intelligence?
The Texas Legislature is reconsidering the wisdom of zero-tolerance policies in K-12 government-run schools.

It's about time, though expanded school choice would address many of these issues as well. Let parents choose what sort of disciplinary system they want used in the children's school. The "zero-tolerance" approach stems, in part, from the difficulties of maintaining discipline when parents with widely disparate approaches to discipline are shoved into one school system by virtue of where their house is located.

A good resource for "horror stories," by the way, is Zero Intelligence, though a hat tip on this particular story goes to Shot in the Dark.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Private Schools Competing for Tutoring Money: Why Not?
No Child Left Behind is presenting private schools with an opportunity to get some income and help children learn at the same time.

Today's Wall Street Journal presents a story of ways that some private schools (pricey ones, in this case) are attempting to hold tuition increases at bay through finding alternative revenue streams.

They include real estate development, renting out chapels for weddings, and most interestingly and fruitful, going into the tutoring business.

One school in New York, the Journal says, has "launched Achieve, a nonprofit that will open a tutoring center in a suburban Buffalo strip mall in April -- the first outlet in what it expects to be a chain. With an eye on the tutoring requirements of the No Child Left Behind law, the school is planning its second center in inner-city Buffalo, where five schools don't meet federal achievement levels." The school expects to turn a profit of $100,000 on the efforts within a few years.

Says the principal of Buffalo-based Elmwood Franklin school, "Why shouldn't the [private sector] experts get involved in the education marketplace?"

Why indeed.

The article does go on to describe a phenomenon that critics of choice might see as ammunition in their cause: a facilities arms race that is pushing tuition out of sight at some private schools.

But that is in itself no argument against school choice. First of all, extravagant facilities are not unknown in public schools. (See Sports-crazed public schools.)

Second tax credits or vouchers could easily be kept at a reasonable level by capping their amounts at the average of all schools (government, non-government or both) in an area. In fact, the few existing choice programs that do exist typically set the funds available at a portion of funding levels of government-run schools.

Even without "virtual frog dissections," Chinese classes, and a new field house, parents of students in these programs -- the people whose opinions ought to count the most -- report a great deal of satisfaction with their current means of escaping the lack of competition that rules in most cities.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice Expanding in Minnesota?
Minnesota was one of the early adopters of school choice, albeit on a meager scale. There is, for example, either a tax credit tax deduction (depending on one's income) for certain private expenses spent on education. Choice advocates are pushing for more.

Elizabeth Mische executive director of the Partnership for Choice in Education, brings to us, courtesy of Craig Westover, her thoughts on where school choice is headed during the current legislative session. The possibilities include expanding the income limits currently in place. Even more interesting: attacking the problem of taxpayer funds being used for lobbying against reform efforts.

(Note to non-Minnesota readers: the DFL, mentioned by Mische, is the "Democratic-Farm-Labor party." Just a little regional variety for you.)

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Pursuing Educational Options on MLK Day
Today I write two commentaries on the Detroit News weblog about school choice, civil rights, and educational achievement.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education: Time to Put Money to New Uses.
The Kansas Supreme Court has said that the state is not spending enough money to meet its own standards of a "suitable" education. In an op-ed in today's Wichita Eagle, I argue that the problem is bigger than "not enough money." It's a lack of competition, and a decision to impose a top-down definition of education.

================
Add Choice, Not Just Money, to Education

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled last week that the Legislature has not fulfilled its constitutional requirement to finance what it had previously defined as a "suitable" education.

"It is clear increased funding will be required," said the court, but it did not specify how much.

One approach to the dilemma is to change the definition of a "suitable" education so that the state commits itself to purchasing a less expensive mix of services. Advocates of increased funding argue that this would "dumb down" schools. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, in her State of the State address, opposed this approach and called it an "end run."

The ongoing controversy points out the trouble of relying on a government-driven system of defining education and delivering it through the political process.

Generally, Americans like to choose from a variety of providers when they buy important goods and services. But aside from paying full tuition at a private or parochial school, when one is available, there is only one provider in any given school district -- the tax-supported public school.

Our current system for delivering education depends on this one provider and a great deal of centralization. That was the approach used by planners in the old Soviet Union for all goods and services. They tried to decide the "right" mix of services, products and prices. It did not work very well -- producing shortages here, surpluses there and shoddy goods almost everywhere.

The American approach to funding education suffers its own flaws from centralization. The greatest flaw is that most of the benefits of competition are lost. The benefits of competition are captured best when the norm is voluntary interaction among buyers and sellers, not court rulings or legislative compromises.

The decision to determine the budget by using the current costs of a noncompetitive system relies on an imperfect set of calculations. Without competition in place, we are unlikely to get the cost-effective services that we all want.

If the Legislature decides to increase funding in response to the court, it has two choices. One is to simply add more money to the current, top-down system that tries to satisfy everyone through the political process.

More promising approaches direct money to students, not schools; increase competition; and let families personalize the education their children receive.

A voucher or refundable tax credit given to low-income families, for example, could be spent on tutoring, supplemental materials or even tuition at a private school. Not only would this approach direct spending to the desired students, it would also introduce a greater role for competition.

What is suitable for one child or family is not necessarily suitable for all.

Some students will benefit from direct instruction, while others will flourish in a more open-ended approach. Some will succeed with a business and career-oriented education, while others would do well to pursue the liberal arts. The needs of people in a rural community may differ from the needs of those in an urban one. A top-down system will not accommodate these differences very well.

The purpose of raising taxes for education is to make sure that children learn. It is not primarily to create one kind of school system.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Structure of City Government: Minneapolis as a Case Study.
A while ago the Minneapolis Star-Tribune ran a review of the multi-headed government of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Blogger Speed Gibson offers a long running commentary on the Star-Tribune's coverage.

Part one tells us that the city is largely dominated by ward politics (strong council, weak mayor system). In addition, there are many other forms of government (park board, etc.) that have some jurisdiction in the city, but which are not part of city government. Reform is required; spending, not including spending on schools, is roughly $4,000 per person. That's a lot for a city.

Part two contains the following language from a Star-Tribune editorial: City government is a bunch of fiefdoms from which it is difficult to wring savings, consolidate services, set proper priorities or communicate Minneapolis' needs and desires to other levels of government. Compounding the problem are the independent, frequently dysfunctional park and library boards.

Sounds like we have a good example of public choice theory going on.

Part three tells us that the city has a large problem with debt, due in large measure to generous pensions.

Part four reviews the city's standing with the state legislature. In two words: not good. The legislature believes (rightly so, I expect) that the city is a bloated mess, and that increased funding without reform will only delay the day when necessary changes are implemented. Speed Gibson calls for a strong mayor, which may be a good thing. How about some contracting out of government services? Load shedding? But that may take us back to the form of government (a ward system, for example), as well as the attitudes of the leadership. And of course don't forget the political culture: if people think it's a good thing for government to do all sorts of things for them, an expansive government is likely, regardless of form of government.

Part five mentions that council members perform constituent work. This brings to mind the classic of American political science, Congress: the electoral connection, by David R. Mayhew. Mayhew says that re-election is the primary goal of congressmen is to get re-elected. (I can hear someone asking: You needed a Ph.D. to tell you that?).

But what's most interesting, from my years-ago reading of the book, is that the key to re-election is not taking stands that represent your constituents, or serving as a careful, thoughtful overseer of the executive, or being the most thoughtful person, carefully examining public issues.(This model is given great rhetorical weight in Minnesota.) No, the key is to shower your constituents with favors from the executive branch, whether that mean pork-barrel politics ("bringing home the bacon") or simply helping people navigate the bureaucracy (having an aide call someone so that grandma gets her Social Security check on time.)

Political changes in the last decade (e.g., the change in Congress from Democratic to Republican control) may at first blush make this analysis obsolete, but they don't. Republicans came to power in large part through gerrymandering, driven by demographic changes favorable to them. And they have been quite capable and willing to practice the same politics of careerism as the Democratic congresses studied by Mayhew.

Part five of Speed Gibson's series, by the way, is notable for its review of two objections raised to proposals for reform. Naturally, they are raised by two politicians (library board and parks board, respectively) argue that folding their organizations into city government is a bad idea.

Part six blames some of the city's problems on what someone else celebrates as "unprecedented participation" of citizens in government.

Part seven finishes off with a condemnation of the current system by the Star-Tribune:
The problem with Minneapolis' current structure -- and political culture -- is that it values inefficiency and insularity; residents tend to think in terms of neighborhoods only, instead of a single, living, breathing, more broadly competitive city. The focus tends to become my park, my school, my council member, my ward, my intersection.

The original series of Star-Tribune articles and editorials can be found here. While Speed Gibson has given an overview of the articles that makes a case for the strong mayor system, I have not studied local government enough to make a definitive endorsement of one approach over the other. Still, from an intuitive point of view, structure does make a difference.

There's also a publication from the International Monetary Fund that bears further examination. In a working paper called "District and Government Overspending," Reza Baquir concludes (from the abstract):

Models predict that, other things being equal, greater political districting of a jurisdiction raises the scale of government. This paper presents new evidence on this and related predictions from a cross-section of city governments in the United States. The main finding is that one additional legislator is associated, on average, with 3 percent larger expenditures per capita. Evidence also suggests that forms of government with strong executives, particularly those with veto powers, break the link between districting and government size.

Minneapolis, with a population of roughly 380,000, has 13 wards, by the way. It's also very high on the list of cities in the state when it comes to per-capita spending. The Auditor's Big Book of Cities has a lot of data.

Labels: Public employee pensions, School choice

(permalink)

School Choice is the Answer to Curriculum Disputes.
As mentioned previously in this space, deciding a school curriculum at the state level is going to give unsatisfactory results.

Today, Andrew J. Coulson says that school choice is the best way to defuse conflicts over curriculum. Though the ongoing conflict of what to each about human origins is back in the news again in Michigan, the re is an even more serious problem at hand:

Every aspect of the public school curriculum, not just science education, is inherently political. Decisions over what and how to teach are made by elected and appointed government officials. Because there is only one official state organ of education, everyone wants it to conform to their own views.

That is impossible.

In a pluralistic society, there are countless different and incompatible worldviews. Our effort to serve that diverse audience through a monolithic school system has not only failed to forge common ground; it has bred animosity and discord.

The way around this discord: school choice. And if social tolerance and civic-mindedness are your concern, Coulson closes with some interesting research that shows private school students may actually possess more of these characteristics than their public-school counterparts.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

How Much Money is Adequate for Education? Do We Know?
Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature was violating the state constitution by not providing enough funding for a suitable education.

In brief, the Legislature created a committee to draw up a list of specified classes and other features that would define a "suitable" education. ("Suitable" is used in the constitution, but is otherwise undefined in that document.) Then a consulting firm was brought in and said "If you want to deliver this kind of education, you've got to spend a lot more money." The Legislature didn't do it, some school districts sued, and now everyone is talking about whether, or how much taxes will be raised.

Today's Wichita Eagle reports that support for a tax increase is weak. Instead, the Legislature may change its definition of a "suitable" education. While this will might let the state off the hook (though what the Court will say about the matter is anyone's guess), it retains one fundamental flaw of the current system: it's a top-down, "we-define-what-you-need" approach carried out by politicians in the state capitol. It's time to expand parental choice (refundable tax credits, vouchers, even charter schools, which are in a weak position in Kansas), so that families can select their own educational programs in a competitive market.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Universal Preschool is a Bad Idea.
Lisa Snell, of the Reason Public Policy Institute, hears an increasing call for universal preschool.

She explains here why it's not a good idea, at least if it's run like Head Start:

Head Start continues to receive funding for low-income students even after repeated violations of state preschool regulations. The parents of children in Head Start have little incentive to find a better performing child-care provider because Head Start funds will not follow a child unless the child enrolls in a Head Start program.

Monopolies are often vilified, sometimes appropriately so. Government monopolies are even worse, since dislodging them requires not technological or business innovation, but political combat.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for School Choice applauds, in a mass e-mail, the creation of a parent-centered preschool program in Florida. Since the announcement does not appear to be on their web site, here is the bulk of the message. Would that this be a model for future reforms.

PHOENIX—The Alliance for School Choice, the nation’s leading organization committed to providing school choice for economically disadvantaged schoolchildren, applauds the new universal pre-K program that will allow Florida's 4-year-olds to attend a pre-kindergarten program of their parents' choice.

"This program will be the largest private school choice program in the nation," said Clint Bolick, president and general counsel of the Phoenix-based Alliance for School Choice. "It provides a cutting-edge model for expanding pre-K educational opportunities without huge capital investments."

Gov. Jeb Bush signed the bill Sunday. An estimated 130,000 new students could enroll when the program begins in August, mostly at existing preschools and private day-care centers. The voluntary program would provide 540 hours of instruction during the school year with no more than 18 students in a classroom and a more intense 300-hour summer option with a maximum of 10 students per classroom.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Should Teachers Be Paid More?
In Texas, a proposal is floating to give all government-school teachers a raise of $3,000.

Teachers are the key to education, which is important for the health of the economy and the republic.

So the proposal is a good idea?

Not quite, says Byron Schlomach.

For starters, the across-the-board proposal would do nothing to deal with the problem that some teachers are, relative to others, underpaid. They would still be underpaid.

The best way of making sure that teachers who deserve to get paid more do get paid more: enact merit pay and educational choice, so that parents can search out the best-performing teachers, who will be rewarded accordingly.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Academic Fraud is a Serious Problem--and Not Just Among Students.
There are two major approaches to improving education. One is to use the same approach we apply to most areas of life: choice and competition. Let parents sort out what's important to them, and competition among service providers will keep costs under control and improve the process and final product.

Another approach is to feed money into the same old system, and try to use carrots and sticks through testing of schools. This particular approach is threatened by academic fraud, especially if that fraud is committed by schools.

School-perpetrated fraud appears to be the case in some schools in Texas, according to this Associated Press story published in Michigan.

Here's a good snapshot paragraph of an analysis of test results conducted by the Dallas Morning News:

It found, for example, that the fourth-graders at Sanderson Elementary School in the Houston Independent School District scored extremely poorly on the math TAKS test this year, rating the school in the bottom 2 percent of the state.

However, the school's fifth-graders ended up with the highest scale scores on the math TAKS of any school in Texas, with more than 90 percent of the students getting perfect or near-perfect scores.

Without the strong discipline of parents being able to take their taxpayer-provided education funds to the school of their choice, school-perpetrated fraud is bound to continue under the current approach of "test and stuff more money" into the current way of funding K-12 education.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Talking About Talking About School Choice
How difficult can it be to engage in a conversation about the merits of competition and choice in K-12 schooling and financing? A controversy between two Twin Cities opinion writers serves as a good illustration. Nick Coleman (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) takes up some of the more outrageous defenses of the status quo. Craig Westover (St. Paul Pioneer-Press) goes on the offensive in arguing for change.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Recent Educational Achievement Gains Not That Impressive.
The Brookings Institution has looked at "the nation's report card," and is not impressed.

"Math items on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math assessment lack challenging arithmetic, often requiring skills that are several years below grade level," says a press release. "The findings cast a disturbing light on recent highly-publicized math gains as measured by the NAEP assessment."

Brookings also finds that middle school math teachers often "lack formal undergraduate training in mathematics."

It's past time to break the stranglehold of education-school teacher certification programs that emphasize banal courses in pedagogy and in at least one case has included course credit for political activism. For too long, enduring educational fads has taken priority over subject matter competency in deciding who is and who is not qualified to be a teacher.

As education scholar Andrew J. Coulson has observed, "we have built a public school system that could not hire Bill Gates to teach computer science, Sandra Day O’Connor to teach American government, or Lance Armstrong to teach physical education." What is needed is "combination of school autonomy and parental choice."

Recent Educational Achievement Gains Not That Impressive.
The Brookings Institution has looked at "the nation's report card," and is not impressed.

"Math items on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math assessment lack challenging arithmetic, often requiring skills that are several years below grade level," says a press release. "The findings cast a disturbing light on recent highly-publicized math gains as measured by the NAEP assessment."

Brookings also finds that middle school math teachers often "lack formal undergraduate training in mathematics."

It's past time to break the stranglehold of education-school teacher certification programs that emphasize banal courses in pedagogy and in at least one case has included course credit for political activism. For too long, enduring educational fads has taken priority over subject matter competency in deciding who is and who is not qualified to be a teacher.

As education scholar Andrew J. Coulson has observed, "we have built a public school system that could not hire Bill Gates to teach computer science, Sandra Day O’Connor to teach American government, or Lance Armstrong to teach physical education." What is needed is "combination of school autonomy and parental choice."

(Cross-posted to the Detroit News.)

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Public Supports Vouchers--and Opposes Them.
That's the conclusion of Andrew Coulson found by looking at two surveys.

Survey one: "Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense?" A slight majority were opposed.

Survey two: "Do you favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose any school, public or private, to attend using public funds?" Almost two in three said yes.

Obviously someone could point out methodological questions: was the wording slanted, did the other survey questions lead people in one direction, was the sample representative, and so forth.

But Coulson argues that "dramatic swings in public support for school choice can be traced largely to a single factor: fear of the unknown."

Fortunately, school choice is not an unknown; there's a long history of it in the Netherlands, and other countries.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Value of Charter Schools
The nation's second largest union has tried to debunk the success of charter schools, but at least one man isn't buying the critique.

John Hood, of the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation, offers some thoughts and links to other responses to the American Federatio of Teachers.

His fundamental point is a moral one:

"The issue of parental choice in education has attracted significant debate for decades. In an odd way, however, the parental part often gets lost. There are dueling philosophies of public education, dueling assertions about the value of competition and markets, hosts of articles and studies looking at spending and achievement. But if advocates of choice are correct, then the ultimate test of educational success or failure lies with the evaluations of parents – parents who don’t necessarily share the same goals, values, situations, or respect for standardized tests."

He also raises some methodological questions that I hope to get to eventually. In short, while the AFT study suggests that charter school students would be better off in their old districts, there are reasons to believe that the comparisons made are flawed ones.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Reading, 'Riting, and Group Psychology
One problem with K-12 public education is its obsession with fads. For example, building student "self-esteem" is considered a valuable pursuit of teachers and everyone else at school.

For example, the Boston Globe reports that there is a move for teachers to use purple pens rather than red ones for correcting papers. The reason? "if you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening," says one teacher.

While the tradition of red ink as a marking tool goes back to the 18th century, a teacher in Florida says ""Red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote self-confidence. I like purple. I use purple a lot."

One parent, though, expresses a contrary view as she reviews her childhood: "I hate red. But because I hate it, I want to work harder to make sure there isn't any red on my papers."

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee reports that concern for self-esteem (not to mention liability) is leading schools dramatically restructure recess, larding it with rules that ban "tag, dodgeball and any game involving bodily contact." Among the most ludicrous results: at one school, no student is allowed to help another out by giving her a push on the swing.

The article continues that "Experts say free play helps kids learn how to cooperate, socialize and work out conflicts." But by imposing various rules, and making sure that all play is intensely supervised, that learning process is short-circuted.

Of course, discipline problems become more acute when schools grow to the size of enormous, as is the case with one school noted in the story. It has 1,200 students!

Among the possible solutions to this odd state of affairs: give parents more flexibility over what kind of school environment they want, by increasing school choice.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Altering "No Child" To Include Parental Satisfaction.
John Kerry suggests altering the provisions of the No Child Left Behind act to include parental satisfaction as a measure of public school progress.

That's fine as far as it goes. Presumably parental satisfaction would be measured by surveys. But how about a more direct measurement? Give parents vouchers or refundable tax credits that could be used at the school of their choice (not just the school assigned by their local district). That would be an even more accurate measurement of parental satisfaction.

Of course, the whole notion of federal law governing what has historically been a matter of the states and local governments is itself unfortunate. I fear that it will be used for mischief down the road.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Could GED Push Inflate Record of Kentucky Schools?
With the No Child Left Behind act in place, the pressure is on for states to boost the academic achievement of public school students. This well-intentioned law may provide some unusual incentives that may lead to further regulation.

Currently, Kentucky residents who take the GED must get the permission of the district superintendent, or else be 17 or older and out of school for at least one year. (Kentucky law requires attendance through age 16).

The GED route is not encouraging. In 2002, 7,000 students dropped out of Kentucky schools. In 2003, only 54 percent of 16-18 year olds who took the GED test passed.

The 2004 session of the legislature created a "secondary GED" for those students still in school. As the Louisville Courier-Journal reports, however, "Critics said a school could use the new GED to dump low-performing students who otherwise would drag down its test scores."

There are two ways of promoting educational improvement. One, largely ignored, is to ramp up competition among schools through public school choice, charter schools, tax credits, vouchers, and loosening restrictions on home schooling. The No Child Left Behind Act makes a baby step in this direction in that certain students in the worst of schools may, after two years, be allowed to transfer to another school in the same public school district.

The other approach to improving education, the dominant approach to date, has been to spend more money on the same approaches, and tweak standards. As the controversy in Kentucky illustrates, one administrative reform often brings forth a need for another.

(The Bluegrass Institute has been a leading critique of the state's plan.)

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Lobbying: The Next Growth Industry
Why does the number of lobbyists in state capitols continue to increase? Because that's where the money is.

Writing for the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Jeff Mayers looks at the last decade of lobbying in Wisconsin. (His 6-page report, in PDF, is available here.)

The account offers some obvious truths (when there's money to be spent, people will take an interest) that sometimes descend to the level of "duh." (A good government outfit studied the numbers and found that groups give money to politicians who agree with them, not to those who oppose them).

Still, there are some items of note in Mayer's account. (The graphics are great, too: pull up the article and if your Internet connection is the right speed, you will see rabbits multiplying on the screen.)

From 1991 through 2003, the amount of money spent on lobbying increased 58 percent, hitting just over $26 million in 2003. The number of organizations employing lobbyists grew slowly, at a rate of 6 percent (from 648 groups to 684) while the number of lobbyists themselves rose 17 percent (an ominous 666 to a semipatriotic number of 776).

This has been accompanied by (allegedly) an increased professionalization of the business: fewer nights on the town and more face-to-face meetings in legislative offices.

Though business is often thought of as being, well, big business with loads of money to pass around, the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) association was only the second biggest spender in 2003. True enough, the third largest spender was also a business group--Wisconsin Independent businesses, Inc. It should be noted that small businesses and large businesses often do not share the same agenda, with large businesses more willing able to go along to get along when it comes to regulation.

The WMC employed 11 lobbyists in 2003, making it the top group in terms of personnel. It was matched, though, by the teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), which outspent the WMC by a ration of 1.7 to 1. The WEAC, of course, was helped by the fact that its budget comes from mandatory dues, while the WMC must get voluntary contributions.

Writing to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, a teacher made this offer: "Teachers will get out of politics when the politicians get out of the schools."

Hey, that sounds like a good idea. Let parents decide how to spend the money. School choice for all!

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

Whither School Choice in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin has been home to one of the country's leading programs in school choice, the Milwaukee voucher program. But the future is murky.

Writes Charles J. Sykes, "At both the state and local level, key positions that had once been held by supporters of choice and charter schools are now controlled by opponents of education reform." (His essay is available in PDF).

The increased political challenge comes even as the case for choice is increasingly validated by research. Not only have test scores increased, but economic development has been spurred by the schools of choice program.

The choice model has been dealt a blow by the malfeasance of a handful of school operators--coupled by inaction by the state's education department.

Here was a case in which government regulation could have made a positive difference. The state education department, when notified of the egregious problems with one school in particular, refused to act, even to the point of making a public statement that parents should avoid the school: "Instead of taking action against Alex’s, the DPI threw up its hands, claiming it was powerless to act." Inasmuch as the school in question appears to have been engaging in fradulent activity, it would seem appropriate for the education department to step in.

Instead of using the power it already had, the department called for increased restrictions on schools of choice. The teachers union, meanwhile, is using the few wrong-doers as a way of tarring the entire idea of school choice.

Meanwhile, the choice program runs the risk of being too successful; it could soon reach its enrollment cap.

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

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.

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

What Kind of School Choice is Best?
Andrew Coulson explores the various questions confronting education reformers.

Among the questions:

• Should financial reforms (vouchers, tax credits, etc.) be targeted towards the poor, or open to all?
• Should parents be able to choose whatever school they want, or should the state step in and "guide" the choice?
• Are vouchers preferable to tax credits? What about other avenues?
• What has been the experience of school funding in other countries, some of which have made extensive use of mechanisms of choice?

It's a hefty compilation, but worth consideration by anyone interested in improving K-12 education performance.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Charter Schools Improve Student Performance.
One criticism of school choice programs is that they "skim" the best students, making any superior performance an artifact of the student body. A recent study refutes that claim.

The Goldwater Institute examined the test scores of more than 60,000 students in Arizona. The students, whose test scores for a three-year period were the basis of the study, attended 873 schools, both charter and traditional government schools.

The findings? No skimming. Charter "school students, on average, began with lower test scores than their traditional public school counterparts, and showed overall annual achievement growth roughly three points higher than their non-charter peers. Charter school students who completed the twelfth grade surpassed traditional public school students on SAT-9 reading tests."

Labels: Charter schools, Education, School choice

(permalink)

Bring Back BRAC.
The Base Realignment and Closure commission [BRAC] has a history of saving taxpayers millions of dollars a year and improving military readiness by closing obsolete military installations. Paul Gessing is worried that political support for the commission may be coming to an end.

The idea of a now retired congressman, Richard Armey, BRAC has been a simple way to reduce pork barrel spending by eliminating a fundamental element of public choice theory. Members of Congress may agree that in the abstract, the military has too many bases that are too costly to maintain and are unnecessary for the size and composition of the armed forces. But who wants to say "When I was in Congress, the Pentagon took away 15,000 jobs from my district?" Before BRAC, defense department attempts to close bases were routinely denied by re-election-minded members of Congress.

UPDATE: Here's the official site of the Base Realignment and Closure
Enter the BRAC, which decides what bases to close. It submits a list of proposed base closings to Congress, which can approve or disapprove the entire list, but can't cherry pick. That's actually good for Congress, since it gives members a political cover.

The problem, after a decade's worth of work and several rounds of base-closings, is that noises about moves to kill or delay the BRAC's ongoing work may have serious support. The Department of Defense estimates that if the next BRAC session--scheduled to start next year--goes forward, it could reduce costs by $6 billion a year. That's money that could be be put to more militarily-useful purposes, or returned to the taxpayer.

My first paper in graduate school was about the legislative history of BRAC. It didn't find any surprises. If I remember correctly, members who voted against creating BRAC--presumably on some high constitutional principal--endorsed the first set of recommendations once the committee was in place. This was especially true if someone else's district got hit.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the official BRAC site.

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

School Choice Constitutional? Of course
Despite a recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject, many people may still think that vouchers or tuition tax credits for private school enrollment are unconstitutional.

The Josiah Bartlett Center of New Hampshire has released a new report on the subject. School choice, it says, conforms to both the U.S. and to the New Hampshire constitution.

(A version of the report, in PDF, is here.)

The review of court opinions and rulings also includes a brief review of the Blaine Amendment. This amendment, found in most state's constitutions, was an attempt by Protestants to maintain their control of government schools in the face of an increasing population of Catholic immigrants.

One interesting fact I didn't know: the Blaine amendment became incorporated into federal law governing the admission of states into the union.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Trouble with Public Schools
One argument often made against increased school choice is that privately operated schools are not accountable, and are subject to all sorts of fraud, waste, and abuse. But there's plenty of evidence that government stewardship is no better--and is worse in many instances.

A few years ago, the Wisconsin Public Research Institute offered Horror Stories from Public Schools (here in PDF)

Among the findings: 3,000 school employees in Georgia with criminal records. A school bus driver in Pennsylvania with 21 driving-related citations. Teachers union officials in Illinois fend off a requirement that teachers undergo background checks.

And perhaps the most remarkable case of teachers gone bad is this math question posed in Texas: Johnny has an AK-47 with an 80-round clip. If he misses six out of ten shots and shoots 13 times at each drive-by shooting, how many drive-by shootings can he attempt before he has to reload?

Talk about a story problem.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

The Benefits of School Choice Keep Rolling In
In an editorial today, the WSJ says that "Florida has delivered real school choice to more American schoolchildren than anywhere else in the country."

As the editorial outlines, the state has three different options for families seeking the choice that is readily available for other services (even, with tax dollars, food stamps or college tuition). Opportunity Scholarships are available to students in failing schools. McKay Scholarships go to special-ed students, and corporations can get tax credits for contributing to scholarship funds. (Arizona has a similar program).

For his trouble, Governor Jeb Bush gets to see his policies labeled as "racist" by (who else) Jesse Jackson.

Meanwhile, a foundation established by the man who pioneered the simple yet revolutionary idea of school choice, Milton Friedman, recently issued a report card on the climate for school choice. (Here's a press release, in HTML.)

The report measures student eligibility (who can exercise choice); school eligibility (where can families spend the money) and the purchasing power of their school-of-choice option. The full report of the report, "Ranking Vouchers," is available in PDF from the
Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

School Vouchers are Constitutional
One of the strongest arguments against school vouchers for K-12 education (a policy choice not too different from state and federal financial aid for college students) is the "separation of church and state" argument.

That argument has been dismissed in several high-level cases. In 1998, Wisconsin's highest court used Jackson v. Benson, to uphold the Badger State's school voucher program. (The Supreme Court did not grant an appeal to the program's opponents.)

In 1999, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld that state's tuition scholarship program, in
Kotterman v. Killian.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Cleveland's program in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.

In all three cases, the legal objection was that taxpayer dollars were flowing inappropriately to religiously based schools.

But as lawyer and voucher advocate Clint Bolick argues for the Goldwater Institute, such programs are not designed to benefit religious schools. Rather, they are designed to benefit children's education, and as such, are permissible. Here's a link to the Goldwater document, which responds in large measure to a constitutional prohibition in Arizona and other states (a so-called Blaine Amendment) against vouchers.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Improving Student achievement
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, in a new report, offers the following themes for improving student achievement:

• focus on how funds are allocated rather than on the level of funding
• recognize there is no scientific way to identify adequate funding and no significant relationship between funding and student achievement
• strengthen the state's educational accountability system
• allow local communities to underwrite a greater share of education
• introduce competition through various means, including greater inter-school, inter-district choice and vouchers.

Though the report focuses on Texas, naturally, there are lessons for everyone.

The report, in PDF format, is here.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Vermont School Board Endorses Choice
The Vermont Board of Education has endorsed the policy of school choice. The legislature is conducting a three year study on the issue. Three years? It shouldn't take that long. Just peruse the web site of the Internet Education Exchange, for example.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Education Reform in Illinois Avoids the Obvious
Governor Rod Blagojevich is set to lay out a variety of initiatives in education policy. He gets one part of the diagnosis right: "Forty percent of the third-graders in Illinois today can't read at the third-grade level. Something ain't working." But what about his solutions? Taxpayers should give students one book a month (from what funds?). Mandatory volunteerism (ponder that for a moment) as a condition of obtaining a high school diploma. Put the governor in charge of the State Board of Education. The best idea he offers it to hire more reading specialists--though if they are locked into failed methods, that's just going to be more wasted money.

One interesting proposal: spend a few million dollars on a new initiative to stem the number of students dropping out of school. What's interesting is not the plan itself, but the fact that it would be carried out by the Department of Human Services rather than the Department of Education.

The governor also plans to call for centralization of school purchases, as a cost-savings move.

The biggest improvements in education will probably come from things that are not in the governor's agenda, however: making it easier for mid-career professionals to enter the teaching profession, overhauling the certification process, enacting merit pay, and increasing the meager scope of school choice in the state.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

Jesus Told Me to Raise Your Taxes
The story is nearly a week old now, and the sentiment behind it is even older, but Governor Jennifer Graham has suggested that it's an obligation of Christians to pay higher taxes.

Granholm cited the words of Jesus that "'Whatsoever you do to the least of these, so also you do unto me."

She defended her remarks, saying "I'm just saying that in order to have a more compassionate society, we have to keep that in mind."

Forget for a moment that Jesus was speaking to his followers, not secular governments. The governor is right in one thing. We--civil society as well as the political sector--ought to consider the most vulnerable among us.

As for public policy, well, giving heed to "the least of us" as well--at it often leads to less rather than more government involvement in civil society. (See, for example, the excellent work of the Institute for Justice in fighting against regulations that hamper businesses that serve the poor.) It can also, in today's context, include expanding opportunities for the poor in ways that do not increase the size of government. Increased school choice is one excellent example that quickly comes to mind. Right now, a system of government-monopoly schooling dooms millions of children to an inferior start to life in the work force.

Labels: School choice

(permalink)

Yet Another Reason for School Choice: Gifted Minority Students are Left Behind
Today's Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) says that the No Child Left Behind Act may be leaving behind some children after all: gifted students.

NCLB distributes federal money to schools based on how well they raise the academic performance of the lowest achievers, in all identified racial subgroups. A school of underachievers that raises performance gets a lot of money; one with already satisfactory performance gets none.

Responding to this incentive, states are shifting money meant to attract and develop gifted and talented students to efforts to raise the lowest performers.

From some point of justice, this is fine. But lost are children such as seven-year old Devion Ross. He was the only African-American child in his Springfield, Ill. Elementary school to qualify for the gifted program. But the school dropped the program after the state dropped its funding to focus on the incentives offered by NCLB. As a result, "Devion now daydreams in the back of his second-grade class." He's the typical smart kid who is doing poorly in school because he isn't challenged.

Devion's parents can't afford to send him to a better school, since their household income is $12,000. If, on the other hand, they were given a voucher or refundable tax credit, they could find another (private) school for him. Thanks to the publicity of the Journal article, Devion will be able to transfer to a magnet school (which is already overcrowded). Other kids won't be so lucky. At a time when minority children are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs, that's a shame.

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)