Competition as an Effective Education Reform (Part 1 of a Series)
Nancy Salvato
“You know competition is not for children. It’s not for human beings. It’s not for public education.” Former teacher, Ruth Holmes Cameron
On January 19, 2006, Heartland Senior Fellow George Clowes kicked off the Illinois School Choice Initiative’s monthly Speaker Series on Educational choice. Commencing with the premise that competition plays a very large role in all of our lives, he noted a recurring plot involves the triumph of the underdog; i.e., the American colonists defeated the most powerful nation in the world in 1783 and the women’s suffrage movement succeeded in extending the power to vote to women, though women held no bartering power.
Reminding the audience that public education is charged with educating our citizenry to participate in self government, he quoted Jefferson, “If you want a nation that is both ignorant and free, that is something that never was and never will be.” Because a good education should afford each person an opportunity to participate in the American Dream, education taxes are levied so that generations may acquire the skills necessary to earn a living, knowledge required to sustain a Democratic-Republic, and civility essential to a free society.
A plethora of studies implicate the public schools for failing to provide a good education. The American Institute for Research found U.S. math students at all grade levels were consistently behind their peers around the world. A survey, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, found only 31% of college students tested as proficient in reading and extracting information from complex material, such as legal documents. In an employer survey from The National Association of Manufacturers, 84% of respondents reported K-12 schools were not doing a good job of preparing students for the workplace; lacking basic employability skills, such as: attendance, timeliness, and work ethic, exhibiting deficiencies in math and science, and in reading and comprehension. Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force found the performance of the U.S. public education system virtually unchanged in the twenty years since the publication of A Nation at Risk. The Knight Foundation found most U.S. high school students don’t understand the First Amendment. Finally, none of the eight education goals (Goals 2000) established by President Bush (41) and 49 state governors were achieved.
Chicago’s Civic Committee of the Commercial Club determined 40 percent of CPS high school students, entering in 8th grade, dropped out by 11th grade. Another 10 percent drop out before graduation, establishing an on-time graduation rate of less than 50 percent. In 2002, of students remaining in 11th grade, 36% in reading, 26% in math, and 22% in science, met or exceeded state standards. Ten years into mayoral control of public schools, the 2005 Urban NAEP Assessment determined only 14% of students read at proficient or above in 4th grade and only 17% in 8th grade. Drawing on his Research Chemist background, Clowes drew parallels to chemistry’s “inhibition effect”, when resources are increased to net a negative effect; and software development’s, “mythical man-month”, adding more manpower to a software development project at some point actually starts to slow the project down and makes it take longer because of the increased complexity of the internal communications required to keep the project moving forward. Both suggest increasing money and manpower, the hours of the school day, or calling for universal preschool is not the way to solve education problems.
According to Milton Friedman, government involvement in the education delivery system is unnecessary; better to distribute tax dollars to parents to spend at qualified educational institutions, public or private, secular or religious (the way Pell grants and federal day-care grants are set up). The nation has over 50 years of experience with GI Bill vouchers for higher education. Voucher programs have operated successfully in Vermont and Maine for a hundred years. Milwaukee’s Voucher students graduate at higher rates (64%) than students enrolled in the Milwaukee Public Schools (36%). More importantly, public schools improved as a result of voucher school competition. Another benefit of 15% of Milwaukee’s student body enrolled in choice schools is taxpayers save an estimated $50 million a year. Success stories abound where vouchers are permitted. In 2002, the US Supreme Court ruled parents choosing to use vouchers at religious schools does not violate the establishment clause of the federal constitution, however, that hasn’t stopped teacher unions from fighting every new voucher or choice program. Using political clout, they offer campaign contributions to candidates who oppose school choice and when proven unsuccessful, they fight in the courts. Because the union believes that the public schools should maintain their monopoly over public education, they oppose reforms which don’t provide money or manpower in the public schools.
Reformers can fight back by bringing lawsuits against the public schools for failing to provide an adequate education or filing anti-trust lawsuits to create competition. Although choice reformers are the underdogs in this education revolution, history proves the power of right is a potent motivator against might. Without a doubt, if enough people join the Illinois School Choice Initiative in the movement to systemically expand school choice, Illinois graduates will access the American Dream and our nation’s freedom will be maintained through a properly educated citizenry.
Nancy Salvato is the President of The Basics Project, (www.Basicsproject.org) a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to promote the education of the American public on the basic elements of relevant political, legal and social issues important to our country. She is also a Staff Writer, for the New Media Alliance, Inc., a non-profit (501c3) coalition of writers and grass-roots media outlets, where she contributes on matters of education policy.
###
Nancy Salvato is an Independent Contractor with Prism Educational Consulting. A teacher, she has worked with students ranging from preschool through college. Her credentials are in History, Language Arts, and Early Childhood Education. Nancy serves as the 6th Congressional District Coordinator with the Center for Civic Education, the Education Liaison for Illinois Senator Ray Soden, and is a member of the DROE Strategic Planning Process to Promote a Countywide Community of Learning. Nancy is currently developing a Constitutional Literacy Program which the DROE hopes to pilot upon completion. Her columns can be found in American Daily, The Common Voice, Education News, GOP-USA, Opinion Editorials, TheRant.us and The Washington Dispatch. She has been published in The Washington Times, Townhall.com, Iconoclast, & Free Republic Network, as well as other nationally and internationally published media outlets.
Center for Education ReformVol. 8, No. 14March 21, 2006
EQUALITY AND CHOICE. Charter school and school choice advocates continue to fight in various states to be heard. Here are some of the recent movements:
Massachusetts: The joint Education Committee voted to delay action on two charter school funding bills until the end of the legislative session on July 31. One bill would cap the amount cities and towns pay for each resident's charter school tuition at $5,000. The second would create a 10-member working group to craft recommendations for changing the financing system for charter schools. Lucky for charter school proponents in The Bay State, even if the bills pass, legislators would need a two-thirds majority to override a likely veto from charter-friendly Governor Mitt Romney.
Florida: Rep. David Simmons introduced a bill that seeks voter approval of an amendment to the state Constitution. The amendment would remove some of the language responsible for the Florida Supreme Court ruling in January that struck down a state voucher program. Based on the arguments of dissenting judges Kenneth Bell and Raoul Cantero, Simmons' bill, PCB JU 06-06, would stop Florida courts from applying an old legal theory. The theory says if a law specifically lays out a way of doing something, then all other means of doing it are excluded. This theory and the state Constitution's "uniformity clause" were at the heart of the January ruling against vouchers.
New Hampshire: "Live free or die." That is the motto that appears on every New Hampshire license plate. And finally, it appears The Granite State is fighting for that freedom in their educational system. The state Senate recently passed a school choice bill that will face a vote in the House this week. Hardly a bastion for educational options - with just six charter schools - New Hampshire took another step forward last week with the approval of three new charter schools. The Academy for Science and Design, sponsored by Daniel Webster College, Strong Foundations Learning Academy and Surry Village Charter School are all scheduled to open by the fall of 2007.
Connecticut: More than 100 charter school supporters went to the state Capitol last week to back legislation that would increase charter approval and funding. But they want - and deserve - more. Calling attention to themselves with orange T-shirts that read, "Raise the Cap, Close the Gap," charter proponents pushed for equal funding and asked that the 300-pupil enrollment cap on charter schools be lifted. Currently, charter schools only receive $7,625 per pupil versus the $9,600 funding at traditional public schools.
Fixed or Fixated?
Fixation with funding fails students in lowest performing schools
by Arwynn Mattix
March 20, 2006
The Goldwater Institute
Over 26,000 Arizona children attended a failing public school last year, according to Arizona Department of Education data.
Some people think more money is the solution. For example, state Representative David Lujan told the Arizona Daily Star, “The reason we have the crisis is the failure of the Legislature to provide adequate resources to public schools.” However, in fiscal year 2004 districts containing those failing schools received an average of $9,300 per student, more than 10 percent above the statewide average.
Students shouldn’t have to wait for their schools to improve when quality education options exist at half the price. Giving vouchers to students worth $3,500 for elementary school or $4,500 for high school would enable them to attend most private schools in Arizona, and school districts could keep the savings.
School choice critics are quick to say vouchers are not the answer. But, research proves otherwise.
The results of “gold standard” random-assignment studies conducted by researchers from such leading universities as Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins found students in five cities using vouchers improved their performance in math and reading by six to 11 percentile points in as little as one year.
With 26,000 Arizona students in failing schools, we shouldn’t throw more money at the problem. We should throw the doors of educational opportunity open.
Arwynn Mattix is a Goldwater Institute Ronald Reagan Fellow.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2006
The Goldwater Institute
Cash for College
Market-based Reforms Will Make Schools More Efficient and Save Tax Dollars
PHOENIX—With rising tuition and enrollment at Arizona's public universities and colleges expected to grow by 60 percent in the next 15 years, policymakers are looking for new ways to finance higher education. A new Goldwater Institute policy report, Cash for College: Bringing Free-market Reform to Higher Education, takes a close look and finds many current proposals will only make the public higher education system bigger, not better.
Currently, state and local appropriations are made directly to Arizona public universities and colleges. In 2003, appropriations for operating expenses alone, which exclude capital and construction costs, amounted to over $1 billion. Cash for College suggests giving students a portion of state funding directly in the form of grants. Like Pell Grants, these grants would be redeemable at any public or private college or university in Arizona.
Former Arizona Board of Regent's Member John F. Munger says, "This report presents us with a new perspective on how to make our institutions of higher learning more efficient and responsive to student needs and demands. This vision for higher education funding merits careful consideration by policymakers." Cash for College outlines how a student grant program could be implemented, building upon Colorado's College Opportunity Fund and the proven track record of Arizona's Private Postsecondary Education Student Financial Assistance Program (PFAP). The proposed grant program would expand PFAP to give 100 percent of Arizona high school graduates projected to enroll at in-state colleges and universities an annual $5,000 grant to attend a two-year institution and $8,000 to attend a four-year institution. This amount is roughly equivalent to the subsidy public colleges and universities receive per student today, excluding funding for capital, construction, or other non-operating budgets. By tying appropriations for operating expenses to inflation, the program could save taxpayers an estimated $768 million annually. Competing for students on a level playing field will give Arizona's public and private institutions of higher learning powerful incentives to keep costs down and improve performance or risk losing students and their education dollars. Cash for College: Bringing Free-market Reform to Higher Education is available online at http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/921.html. Contact: Starlee Rhoades, Director of Communications, Goldwater Institute, (602) 712-1257, srhoades@goldwaterinstitute.org
Center For Education Reform
Vol. 8, No. 13
March 14, 2006
CHOICE
FUTURISTIC NONSENSE. If Senator Hillary Clinton is serious about becoming president in 2006, she might want to stop making crazy predictions. Or maybe think twice before she maligns the parents who make choices for their kids. In a recent speech in the Bronx, Sen. Clinton argued that school choice would lead to children attending "the school of the White Supremacist." Clinton also remarked, "So what if the next parent comes and says, I want to send my child to the School of Jihad? I won't stand for it." Her strange vision of the future, where school choice leads to segregation, has been discredited by several reports. In one such report, Educating Citizens: International Perspectives on Civic Values and School Choice, Dr. Patrick Wolf of Georgetown University reviewed the findings from 20 rigorous studies of the effects of school choice on civic values such as tolerance, voluntarism, political participation and several other criteria. All of the studies found that school choice doesn’t hurt and often helps the cause of cohesion. In a recent statement, Wolf argues, “Since Clinton’s claims are futuristic hypotheticals, I suppose they cannot be proven wrong, but I have studied the effects of school choice on civic values in the U.S. and around the world and the claim that private school vouchers will diminish social cohesion, though common, is simply unsupported by the facts.” In a recent commentary on MichNews.com, Gabriel Garnica also noted, “Hillary Clinton has not only stuck to her weak claims that vouchers don’t work and will hurt public education, but has chosen to throw in racist, bigoted, and inflammatory rhetoric into the mix as well.”
Finding a Conservative Compass in Federal Education Policy By Dan Lips
The Heritage Foundation
March 10, 2006
Campaigning in 1980, Ronald Reagan pledged to abolish the newly minted Department of Education, which he dubbed "President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle."
President Reagan wanted to improve learning opportunities for children across the nation, and he knew that federal involvement wasn’t the answer. Instead, Reagan believed that the surest way to improve education is to let parents and local governments set policies that meet their children’s needs.
Reagan never was able to convince Congress to end the federal government’s meddling in local education. And today, under the watch of a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress, federal spending on K-12 education is up by 46 percent since President Clinton left office.
With all that money has come more and more federal control. While the federal government funds only 8 percent of K-12 public education costs, No Child Left Behind has led Washington to involve itself in student testing, teacher training, and classroom instruction, muscling aside individual schools, local boards, and state authorities.
Clearly, education is one of the areas where the principles of the Reagan presidency have been forgotten. In their new book Getting America Right, Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, and Doug Wilson of Townhall.com outline a strategy to reverse that slide and reinvigorate the core principles of conservatism.
"And what are those core principles?," Feulner and Wilson ask. "They are nothing less than what has made America great…free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, a strong national defense, and the rule of law."
Getting America Right is a handbook for individual citizens and elected officials to put those principles into practice. The authors evaluate all policy issues through a prism of six questions. When it comes to federal education policy, one key question stands out: "Is it the government’s business?"
According to Feulner and Wilson, America’s Founding Fathers had a good answer to that question. "The Founders omitted education from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, laying out the powers of the government," they write. "The omission was no accident. The Founders understood the importance of making educational decisions at the local level. It is the right and responsibility of parents, after all, to see to it that their children are…given the necessary knowledge and skills to allow them to make their own way in the world."
Now that the federal government spends $66 billion per year on K-12 education and exerts so much control over public schools, how can citizens give life to the conservative principles of parental and local control? Devolving federal authority in education won’t happen quickly, but it’s time to start towards that goal.
First, Congress can work to eliminate wasteful, unnecessary, and duplicative programs. The 42 programs identified for elimination in the Bush Administration’s budget should be ended. Second, Congress can reform existing programs such as No Child Left Behind to give parents greater control over how their children’s share of federal funding is spent.
But for the long term, conservatives should think even more boldly.
With charter schools, scholarship programs, and school vouchers growing in popularity across the nation, Congress should use federal education policy to expand parental choice further. Rather than funding bureaucrats, programs, and school systems, the federal government should provide money directly to families and let parents decide how to spend this money on behalf of their children.
If all of the $66 billion in federal K-12 education funding were put into grants for disadvantaged students, such as children from low-income families and those with special needs, tens of millions of parents would have the power of school choice. Finally, parents would again control education policy in America—not politicians, education bureaucrats, or teachers unions.
Ronald Reagan’s dream of abolishing the Department of Education may seem a distant memory. But it is instructive today. Conservatives must conceive a new and no less bold conservative vision for education—one that returns control to parents. That’s a goal President Reagan would have heartily cheered, and it is a big part of, as Feulner and Wilson put it, Getting America Right.
Dan Lips is policy analyst for education at the Heritage Foundation, www.Heritage.org .
Education InnovatorU.S. Department of EducationMarch 9, 2006
With the increase of charter schools in Arizona , more parents are “shopping around” for their child's education through careful research and financial planning. To compete with charter schools, school districts are moving toward more specialization to attract students. Vail School District allows parents to choose a high school for their child, Catalina Foothills School District focuses on the arts as part of a well-rounded curriculum, and Tanque Verde Unified School District offers small class sizes. There are 517 charter schools in Arizona , with four more schools planned to open in the fall. [More-The Arizona Daily Star] (Feb. 23)
School reform: check. Next priority: teacher quality. Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin, founders of KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), a national network of public schools that helps raise the academic achievement of disadvantaged students, note that their next challenge is to focus on teacher training and certification. Mr. Feinberg and Mr. Levin started teaching fifth graders in inner-city Houston 14 years ago. KIPP students consistently outperform their counterparts in traditional district schools, and more than 80 percent of KIPP students from the classes of 2004 and 2005 are enrolled in four-year colleges. Already, KIPP operates a training program for principals at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. [More-U.S. News and World Report] (Feb. 20)
Cash Strapped or Crying Wolf? School districts hire lobbyists to convince policymakers they need more money by Vicki Murray, Ph.D. March 6, 2006
Today, nearly half of the state’s general fund budget, nearly $4 billion, is spent on public K-12 education.
While many school districts might like more money, ten of them have formed a lobbying consortium. They’ll spend $120,000 for two lobbyists to convince policymakers that their clients need more money.
The complexity of Arizona school finance and the way it is reported makes it hard to know how much funding a school district receives per student. But, a forthcoming Goldwater Institute report synthesizes the state education department’s multiple accounting systems and formulas to show Arizona school districts received an average of $8,000 to $8,500 per student in 2004, very near the U.S. average of $8,900.
That same year, each of the ten districts in the lobbying consortium received an average of $600 to $900 more in per-student finding than districts statewide.
To bring transparency to school funding, the Goldwater Institute has created an easy to use online database that compiles all Arizona Department of Education financial data, providing anyone access to the most accurate per-student funding figures. In a few weeks, new figures will be online so you can compare funding from year to year.
The lobbyists that have been hired by these districts will no doubt give each legislator many numbers to consider. But what they won’t tell policymakers is that Arizona districts are funded at about the average nationwide per-student level and that current funding is twice as much as average private school tuition. After all, more money does not guarantee a better education.
Pro-Choice Parents Flee Underperforming SchoolsDebbie Smith, Executive DirectorP.A.T.H.S. Through School ChoiceMarch 2, 2006
In the article, "Black Flight: The Exodus to Charter Schools," posted on WSJ Opinion Journal.com, March 2, 2006, the benefits of school choice are once again highlighted.
The author, Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, argues that "something momentous is happening here in the home of prarie populism: black flight." Kersten describes how blacks from the city's "poorest neighborhoods" in Minneapolis are leaving their local schools for charter and suburban public schools due to open enrollment policies in the state of Minnesota.
As Kersten points out, African-American families have good reason to look outside the Minneapolis public school system because last year only 28% of eighth graders passed the state's basic math skills test, while 47% passed the basic reading skills test, and only about 50% of all seniors were able to graduate. With numbers as dismal as these, it's a good thing that in 1990 Minnesota adopted open enrollment policies allowing families to cross district boundaries in order to enroll their children in a public school of their choosing.
Minnesota has also become home to a burgeoning charter school population because charter schools are able to "operate free from burdensome regulations, but [remain] publicly funded and accountable," while also serving as an alternative to failing public schools. As Kersten states, in today's public schools, choice provides "a ticket out for kids in the gritty, mostly black neighborhoods of north and south - central Minneapolis."
Choice in Arizona can also provide students with a "ticket out," especially in Phoenix where blacks and Hispanics are condemned to attending the worst of the state's schools. Although Arizona does have open enrollment across district boundaries and generous charter school laws, the disparity in student achievement between students attending public schools located in the suburbs, and students attending public schools in central Phoenix remains.
To further ameliorate this disparity, school choice must be expanded to include school vouchers that would not only allow parents to choose between public and charter schools, but also allow them to consider the option of private schools that otherwise might be out of their financial reach.
P.A.T.H.S. believes that expanding school choice will help all students because it will allow parents to enroll their children in the most appropriate school for that child. Because one system cannot serve all children equally, all barriers to choice must be removed that currently stand in the way of students recognizing their full potential.