Phoenix Rising…

Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune has an op-ed this week that makes a lot of sense. In Missouri, we should watch Arizona’s school choice case go to state supreme court. We have a stringent so-called Blaine amendment that severely hampers the state from providing any support at all to a religiously-affiliated school.

Many anti-school choice camps have argued that Blaine Amendments (a stricter interpretation of the Establishment Clause found in many state Constitutions) prohibit a state from offering any sort of voucher or tax credit as a means of school choice because public money may come in contact with a religiously affiliated school.

For a long time I’ve believed that line of thinking constitutes a restriction on a family’s freedom of religion: making a family’s wish to raise their child in a school that reflects their beliefs contingent on their ability to pay for it. Pell Grant, the G.I. Bill and student loans are also state money, and yet do not restrict religious schools from receiving those dollars. I can think of plenty of government grants that go to private and religious organizations who are serving an important public interest. We’ve been led to believe that k-12 schooling is somehow different when in fact there are plenty of similar areas where religion and the state may touch shoulders—no excessive entanglement, just cross-purposes driven by concerned citizens. Agostini v. Felton in 1997 sets an interesting precedent about private and secular schools, if like me you geek out on case law.

The op-ed makes the case that because the aid goes to the parent and not to the school, it is not in violation of the Blaine Amendment.

The court has held that in deciding Blaine issues, judges must determine who the “true beneficiary” of a state program is, and in the case of school choice, the court said, the beneficiaries are families, not private schools. The groups who sued to halt the voucher programs — the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, People for the American Way, and the Arizona Education Association — don’t want the public to know who the true beneficiaries are.
What these opponents have accomplished is to rob a small number of disabled students (117 were enrolled this year) and foster children (140 students) and their parents of their civil rights in order to make a political point, and push a false interpretation of the state’s constitution.
Nor have they been intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the state of Arizona has for years run a school choice program for disabled children very much like the voucher program in question, under the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. The only difference is that the state assigns special-needs children to the IDEA programs that bureaucrats feel will best serve them. Under the voucher program, parents choose.
That suggests what lies at the heart of this issue: a struggle for power and control. Those who run the government school monopoly want to keep their power instead of sharing it with taxpayers and parents who might not choose their services. The idea of competition can be a scary thing, especially for groups that already enjoy captive audiences. Arizona, which operates four distinct school choice programs, has shown choice really works — and that’s why these groups are targeting it.

The decision is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court on appeal. Since the lower court contradicted itself regarding the state constitution’s Blaine Amendments — saying the programs “aid” religious schools but do not “support” them — it’s reasonable to expect the high court to abide by its own precedents and recognize this case for what it is: a grab for additional power by a fat and callous educational establishment.

Accountability + Options = Charter Schools

A crucial element to restoring the quality of education in St. Louis is charter schools. Many of the problems—specifically in the St. Louis Public School district—stem from administrative malfunctions. Because these teachers unions and self-interested bureaucrats struggle to maintain unjustified control, proper changes have not been made even in the face of continually failing schools. Charter schools provide the administrative flexibility to provide proper management on fundamental issues such as funding allocation and standards setting.

Accountability is a key concept of charter schools. Failure to meet academic performance standards or any unacceptable fiscal management will lead to charter termination by the state. The state department is required to study and report a charter school’s performance every two years. Furthermore, theses schools undergo annual audits and submit report cards reviewing the year.

The school choice aspect of charter schools will not only hold the charter schools accountable (why would a parent choose to attend a poor school?), it will also provide the motivation for public schools to final begin to implement positive changes. Charter schools provide parents with options concerning the important and emotional issue of their child’s education and future. Parents now have a choice outside failing public schools and expensive—possibly religious—private schools. The concepts of schools choice and accountability will work together to improve the education of our children—therefore making charter schools an essential method.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/CC2A93EF3538C8678625744400822710?OpenDocument

http://stlcin.missouri.org/education/K12.cfm

What Do Americans Really Know About Education Spending?

Government spending on education has, without a doubt, increased over the past several decades. Unfortunately, the student achievement levels and graduation rates are not following the same upward slope. I have often wondered the reasoning behind the constant financial increases when there is yet to be evidence of the benefits. Education Next published an article, Is the Price Right? Probing American's knowledge of school spending

By William G. Howell and Martin R. West

This study examines the way people view America’s public education spending. The results are astonishing. 59 percent of those surveyed truly believe more spending on public schools in their districts will increase student achievement. However, while they may feel more spending is needed, most people highly under-estimate how much is already spent. The study asked the respondents to estimate per-pupil expenditures in their districts as well as teacher salaries in their states. The study used actual spending and salaries which were matched geographically to each district and state to compare their estimates with actual spending. The results showed that Americans vastly underestimate the amount spent in their district and on teacher salaries.

The average estimate on per-pupil spending was $4,231 when given no prompt and $5,262 when given the prompt (the prompt “Individual student costs go toward teacher and administrator salaries, building construction and maintenance, extracurricular activities, transportation, etc). The average actual spending through the country is around $10,400. The average guess for teacher salary was $33,054 while the actual national average is $47,424.

While the study did show differences in opinions based on gender, whether they had school age children, and those who own homes and pay property taxes; the number were still well below the real numbers. There are also differences with political party affiliation.

This leads me to believe not only are people convinced we need to spend more to see more because they have not looked into the research on the lack of correlation, but also because they are basing their opinions on inaccurate information. The study noted that those who support increases in spending on public education in their district were guessing per-pupil spending $6,000 less than it is. The same holds true for teacher salary. However, while those who were in favor of decreasing spending were still guessing below the real spending level, they were estimating closer to the actual numbers.

So, now we see Americans underestimate actual spending levels, but does this necessarily prove why many people agree with more spending?

The authors ask one important question: “does the public's understanding of school finance shape their policy preferences, or do the public’s policy preferences shape their understanding of school finance?” This is something that needs answers to get to a solution.

Video: Today and Tomorrow Foundation scholarships offered in St. Louis

Education's Failings a National Catastrophe

There is really no surprise when people talk about the schools failing the children. There is however the problem of who will solve it and how it will be solved. All around the world wide web of blogging, people seem to know all the answers to everything. Sometimes, there are great ideas and sometimes there are not. It kills me to read blogs that only want to stick to the status quo...essentially keeping things the way they are. Obviously, the children will not benefit from this.

Education is a highly debated issue among parents, taxpayers, and politicians. I came across this article in the Wall Street Journal I really think people should read. It only reinforces my negative attitude about teachers unions:

OPINION

Main Street

McCain's School Choice Opportunity

By WILLIAM MCGURN

April 29, 2008;

If only Jeremiah Wright had got the right conspiracy.

When Barack Obama's pastor was caught on tape accusing the government of inventing HIV for "genocide against people of color," it was dismissed as another crazy conspiracy theory - which of course it was. But what if the Rev. Wright had used his pulpit to direct a little fire-and-brimstone against a very real outrage: a public-school system that's depriving millions of children of the education they need to compete in the 21st century economy?

Scarcely half of American children in our 50 largest cities will leave their public schools with a high-school diploma in hand, according to a study released by America's Promise Alliance. These children are disproportionately African-American. Their homes are disproportionately located in our largest public school districts. And the failure is a scar on this great land of opportunity.

Alma and Colin Powell, leaders in the alliance that produced this report, spoke about the human blight that can follow the lack of a basic education in an op-ed in the Washington Times. "Students who drop out," they wrote, "are more likely to be incarcerated, to rely on public programs and social services and to go without health insurance than their fellow students who graduate."

That isn't the intent of those who administer this system. But that is the result. And only a latter-day Bull Connor could be happy with the way our inner-city public schools are consigning millions of African Americans to the margins of American opportunity and prosperity.

And it gets worse. One of the few hopeful alternatives in these cities are the Catholic schools, which take the very same students and show that they can learn if given the chance. One University of Chicago researcher found that minority students at Catholic schools are 42% likelier to complete high school than their public school counterparts - and 2 1/2 times more likely to earn a college degree. In difficult circumstances, and for an increasingly non-Catholic student body, these schools are doing heroic work.

Unfortunately, another study released this month, by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, reports that Catholic schools are closing at an alarming rate:

More than 1,300 since 1990. Most are located in our cities.

These numbers were behind the special White House summit on Inner-City Schoolchildren and Faith-Based Schools convened last Thursday. The emphasis on faith-based schools is a reflection of practicality, because turning around a failing public school or starting up a new one is difficult, costly and takes time that these children can't afford.

"Many of the parents I know in D.C. are looking for a safe place for their children," says Virginia Walden-Ford, a summit participant and leader with the Black Alliance for Educational Options. "Their children can't afford to wait - they need a place now."

That's the education problem. The political problem has three parts.

First, though polls show that African Americans generally favor school choice, they tend not to vote for pro-school-choice candidates who are mainly Republican. Second, suburban voters of both parties are not enthusiastic about school choice. Many of these voters see increasing options for inner city kids as enabling blacks and Latinos to find their way into their children's schools. And of course, the teachers unions devote their considerable resources to fighting any measure that increases accountability or gives parents more options.

So when politicians have to choose between a teachers union and some African-American mom who would like to take her son out of a failing public school, guess who usually wins?

This system has had remarkable staying power; but the cracks are appearing.

In cities like Washington, D.C., and Newark, N.J., African-American mayors like Anthony Williams and Cory Booker - Democrats both - have taken courageous stands to offer children more and better school options. And these brave souls are being joined by a growing number of parents, pastors and advocates who recognize that the status quo is cheating their children out of a chance at the American Dream.

There's a good opening here for John McCain. As a senator, he has been a forceful voice for giving lower-income moms and dads the same options for their children that wealthier parents already enjoy. What if he took this campaign into the heart of our cities - and gave a little straight talk about the scandal that their public-school systems represent in this great land of opportunity?

Hillary Clinton can't do it for the same reason that Barack Obama can't:

They cannot offend the teachers unions that are arguably the most powerful constituents in their party. John McCain can.

Will he?

Dance of the Lemons

An article in Reason Magazine chronicles the difficulty New York State (and other states, I’d imagine)is having firing teachers who haven’t performed well—it’s hard to believe the extent of red tape:

Joel Klein led the Justice Department's attack on Microsoft for its alleged efforts to monopolize the software market. But Microsoft is a hotbed of competition compared to the organization Klein runs now. Klein is chancellor of New York City's public school system, a monopoly so heavily regulated that sometimes it's unable to fire even dangerous teachers.

The series of steps a principal must take to dismiss an instructor is Byzantine. "It's almost impossible," Klein complains.

The rules were well-intended. The union was worried that principals would play favorites, hiring friends and family members while firing good teachers. If public education were subject to the competition of the free market, those bureaucratic rules would be unnecessary, because parents would hold a bad principal accountable by sending their kids to a different school the next year. But government schools never go out of business, and parents' ability to change schools is sharply curtailed. So the education monopoly adopts paralyzing rules instead.

The regulations are so onerous that principals rarely even try to fire a teacher. Most just put the bad ones in pretend-work jobs, or sucker another school into taking them. (They call that the "dance of the lemons.") The city payrolls include hundreds of teachers who have been deemed incompetent, violent, or guilty of sexual misconduct. Since the schools are afraid to let them teach, they put them in so-called "rubber rooms" instead. There they read magazines, play cards, and chat, at a cost to New York taxpayers of $20 million a year.

Once, Klein reports, the school system discovered that a teacher was sending sexual e-mails to a 16-year-old student. "This was the most unbelievable case to me," he says, "because the e-mail was there, he admitted to it. It was so thoroughly offensive." Even with the teacher's confession, it took six years of expensive litigation before the school could fire him. He didn't teach during those six years, but he still got paid—more than $350,000 total.

If I were a teacher, I’d be bent out of shape that teachers either with serious infractions or ineffective plans could continue getting paid for not doing the job they were hired to. And while teaching and how to measure one’s efficacy and efficiency is terrifically hard and controversial, with situations where a teacher has violated trust or been negligent of responsibilities we should not want that kind of person to spend another second around children.

It’s hard to believe that taxpayers will sit idly by as criminals or opportunists suck at the marrow of education funds, but it’s hard when your vote doesn’t reach the people who make these policies, and it’s even harder when your leverage is a tax that you are required to pay. Giving more power to parents, and allowing them to choose how their education dollars are spent and what practices they want to support in their child’s school will make sure that whatever protection is in place for teachers does not infringe on a child’s right to be educated in a safe environment.

The more money we come across the more problems we see

The Commonwealth Foundation has this article about the savings inherent in school choice programs:

Friday, March 28, 2008

School Choice Tax Credit Saves Money in IL

An analysis by the Illinois Policy Institute of the Illinois Education Expense Tax Credit finds that an increase on the cap for that credit to $4,000 per child would save taxpayers $3.5 billion over 10 years. The savings would occur when families choose lower cost schools of choice rather than public schools (per pupil expense in IL is over $11,000, similar to here in Pennsylvania).

The Illinois tax credit differs from Pennsylvania's EITC, in that it allows parents to take a tax credit for educational expenditures (tuition, books, et. al) for children in grades K-12. (For more details on this program, and others across the country, see The ABCs of School Choice, produced by the Friedman Foundation.

An individual tax credit would be one avenue to reduce property taxes in Pennsylvania, a variation on our model Property Tax Relief Scholarship Act. For how school choice saves PA taxpayers, read The Dollars and Sense of School Choice.

Instead of continuing to spend more and more on public schools where drastic flaws are leaving children far behind, let’s get creative! Three and half billion in savings is what I call getting more bang for your buck. Every year is seems there is a push to get more and more revenue from the same sources, and shuffling the burden around through different types of taxes—but is it perhaps possible to start spending less money to get a quality education rather than continuing to spend more with no change in quality? Competition drives down cost while stimulating achievement, while monopolies drive cost up—which system would you rather see your tax dollars going into?

Speaking of school finance, The John Cook School of Business @ SLU is hosting the Show-Me Institute’s Speaker Series. Thursday, April 17^th is James Guthrie, Ph.D. speaking on “How much money will it take to give America good schools?” A good question indeed. Guthrie is a smart fellow, so it should be an intriguing discussion. It’s 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Cook Hall.