Just before Pa. budget deadline, Gov. Tom Corbett pushes for school vouchers

Gov. Tom Corbett’s push for school vouchers is not over yet.


Even as lawmakers put the final touches on the 2011-12 state budget, Corbett launched a two-minute drill yesterday to see if the General Assembly can hand him a victory on a signature piece of his gubernatorial campaign.

Corbett raised the issue of vouchers at a news conference yesterday. He asserted that there is still time to deliver a plan that would provide taxpayer-funded vouchers so parents could send their children to a private or public school of their choice.



“Contrary to some of the rumors I hear out there, we have been working on it,” Corbett said. “We’ve been working on it behind the scenes. To me, it is an important issue to the people of Pennsylvania. They want this option.


“We still can get this done,” Corbett said.


At a late afternoon closed-door meeting, Corbett made his pitch personally to House and Senate Republican leaders.


Afterward, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, said there’s interest in the Senate in enacting some school choice components and interest in the House in enacting others.  “Whether it comes together, I think, [today] is D-Day for that. We’re running out of time,” Scarnati said.
He said there was no package in place Tuesday night. But staffers planned to work through the night on a plan that mixes some charter school reforms with school choice measures. It could see Senate committee action today.


The effort is probably no better than a coin toss to see if it would get through both the House and Senate in time to reach Corbett before the summer recess.


Still, the late push on vouchers had opponents on alert Tuesday night.


“At a time when the Legislature has agreed to cut nearly $1 billion from our public schools, this is absolutely the worst time to design bills at the last moment with no public input that would divert taxpayer money to a voucher program,” said David Broderic, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state’s largest teacher union.


Corbett is also pushing for a change in state law to give voters a greater say in school property tax increases. The measure is likely to see House action today.


“I consider this crucial to this budget and to help school districts,” Corbett said. “The Legislature needs to protect the taxpayer from being hit with property tax hikes that go well beyond the rate of inflation. They want to have a vote on that. They are entitled to that.”


A state law known as Act 1 allows taxpayers to vote on school budgets only in very limited circumstances. School districts looking to raise taxes above a state inflation index can gain 10 exceptions before seeking voter approval.


Corbett wants to get rid of all the exceptions. But legislation that took shape Tuesday would allow for three exceptions: spikes in special-education costs, construction debt and higher pension costs.
“It looks like that’s where it’s headed,” Scarnati said after the meeting with Corbett.


House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, declined comment about the meeting.


The House has legislation in place that could allow for quick passage of the property tax reform proposal.


Observers suggested that the property tax reform legislation was more likely to make it to the governor’s desk than a school-choice proposal, given the varying views on what Republicans and Democrats would accept.


Until recently, much of the school-choice discussion was focused around Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin County. It would phase in vouchers over four years but target vouchers to low-income students in the state’s 144 worst-performing schools. In later years, vouchers would go to all low-income students and to some from middle-income families.


That plan stalled last month due to lack of support. Some voiced concerns about the costs, and others worried about siphoning money from public schools.


A different school-choice approach that won House approval in the spring would increase funding for the state’s popular Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program. It would expand the program from $60 million to $100 million in 2011-12 and then to $200 million in 2012-13.


The program offers state tax credits to companies that donate to private-school scholarships or innovative educational programs. The legislation also would allow more students to qualify for scholarships.
Last week, some House Republicans issued other voucher plans.


Rep. Curt Schroder, R-Chester, proposed giving $5,000 grants to students in persistently failing schools. He also offered an alternative that would offer $5,000 grants for school choice to any student statewide.
Rep. Jim Christiana, R-Beaver, then unveiled what some saw as a plan that could garner support from skittish lawmakers afraid of the cost of other voucher plans. His plan would divert the per-student state subsidy a school district receives to fund vouchers to students in the state’s worst-performing schools. The vouchers would be available to families of any income level.


Corbett has spoken out repeatedly in support of vouchers, making a speech in Washington, D.C., during the spring. But he has been criticized by some voucher supporters for not doing more to spur lawmakers to get a bill passed before the recess.

-- By Jan Murphy and Charles Thompson, The Patriot-News

The GOP Fails Pennsylvania Kids

Keystone Republicans look like Keystone Kops on education reform.


The next time some Republican wonders why the African-American community doesn't
just come to its senses and start to vote the GOP ticket, point him to Pennsylvania.


This past November, Republican Tom Corbett successfully campaigned for governor on a
platform that included giving Pennsylvania moms and dads more options for where they
can send their children to school. Given that he enjoys Republican majorities in both the
House and Senate, prospects for making good on this promise were, as the Philadelphia
Inquirer recently put it, "once considered a slam dunk." With just two days before the
legislature takes off for the summer, however, the GOP leadership is sending mixed
signals. As we go to press, school choice is in political limbo.


At the heart of this debate is Senate Bill 1. Co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Jeffrey
Piccola and Democrat Anthony Williams, it would allow parents of a needy child to take
the money the state pays to their home school district and apply it to the public, private
or parochial school of their choice. The plan would be phased in and expanded over three
years. It further includes a $25 million increase in a popular state program that gives tax
credits to businesses that donate money for scholarships.


In their press release announcing SB 1—the bill number is meant to reflect its priority—
the two senators likened it to a rescue plan for people trapped inside a "burning building."
By that they mean the tens of thousands of school children now trapped in one of
Pennsylvania's many failure factories, where violence and low achievement are often the
rule.


If you go by their words, every Republican leader in Harrisburg supports choice and
competition. So why are they scrambling, just two days before a big budget vote and the
end of the legislative session? The answer is a classic Republican screw-up.


Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett has called education reform the 'civil rights issue of the
21st century.'


First, there is Gov. Corbett. Yes, he's thumped for choice publicly, including a major
address delivered last month at the National Policy Summit of the American Federation
for Children. Manifestly, however, he has not done enough to get GOP leaders together
to hash out a bill they can pass. The result has been a steady ratcheting down of the
substance of what (if any) measure will make it through this week.


Second, there's the senate. Though it has the votes to pass SB 1, senators want to be sure
that it will go through the House before they commit. Their hesitation reflects one of the
ugly realities of the issue: Many Republican voters, especially those in the suburbs, do
not like school choice because they see it as more black kids in their schools.


Finally, there's the Pennsylvania House, and especially Majority Leader Mike Turzai.
Mr. Turzai's waffling is the main reason school choice has languished in a Republican-


dominated legislature. That in turn provoked a grass-roots campaign of pressure from
Pennsylvanians tired of business as usual. Last week FreedomWorks—a tea party group
headed by former Congressman Dick Armey—chimed in with emails and tweets urging
voters to call Mr. Turzai and make themselves heard.


Mr. Turzai's spokesman responded by denouncing the pressure campaign against his
boss. He points to other reform measures that Mr. Turzai has supported, including
another choice bill and expansion of the scholarship tax credits. The House leader's
defenders also say that he cannot be blamed for not pushing a bill that the Senate itself
has yet to pass.


Certainly politics is the art of the possible. Certainly some compromise would probably
have been necessary to get school choice through the state legislature. The truth,
however, is that every day SB 1 languishes, the possibilities narrow.


Recently the governor seems to have awoken from his slumber. Probably he realizes
that voters will not be concerned with the inside baseball when they assign blame.
Most simply will not understand why a party that holds all the power in the state capital
cannot deliver on something its leaders said was a priority. It's not the first time, either:
Republican Gov. Tom Ridge also failed to get school choice through in the late 1990s,
when he too had a GOP majority in both Pennsylvania houses.


In the end, it's a good lesson about the importance of delivering what you promise.
For years, Republicans have rightly pointed out how Democrats have transformed our
public schools into jobs programs at the expense of students. Especially in big cities
such as Philadelphia, the students hurt most by the miserable status quo have been
disproportionately African American.


On the campaign trail last fall, Mr. Corbett seemed to appreciate this fact when he called
education reform "the civil rights issue of the 21st century." Many African Americans,
including President Obama, agree with that, though they remain suspicious of such talk
when it emanates from Republicans. When you look at how GOP leaders in Harrisburg
have handled the issue, who can blame them?

Sec. Tomalis Featured at Press Club Luncheon

By Matt Hess


Ron Tomalis, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), was the featured
speaker at today’s Press Club Luncheon.


On April 26, 2011, the Pennsylvania Senate unanimously confirmed Ron Tomalis as the
Secretary of Education by a 50-0 vote. From 1995 to 2001, Sec. Tomalis served as PDE’s
executive deputy secretary under former Governor Tom Ridge. From 2001 to 2004, he worked
for the United States Department of Education in several positions, including counselor to
the Secretary and as acting assistant secretary of education in the Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education. After his public service, he was a private advisor and consultant in the
field, and most recently was the director of Dutko Worldwide/Whiteboard Advisors, based
in Washington, DC. Sec. Tomalis, born and raised in Camp Hill, is a graduate of Dickinson
College and is married with two children.


Sec. Tomalis said he has traveled throughout Pennsylvania in the past few months and has
spoken with parents, students, business leaders and educators on the prevalent issues facing
public education. “We still are a system of 500 school districts, which is an improvement since
the last time I was here in ’95 and ’96 when there were 501 school districts, and we have 1.7
million public school kids out of a total of 2.1 million children in education,” he stated. “Buried
underneath that number and census data that was reported out last week was the fact that we
have in the last ten years seen a ten percent decline in the number of school age children in
the commonwealth, we have seen a decrease of 115,000 school age children in the last ten
years. By comparison, however, the amount of money that the Pennsylvania taxpayer invests
in public education has gone up quite a bit. In 1995-1996 the amount of money that we spent
in public education in the commonwealth was approximately $13 billion. If you keep up with
inflation we’d be at about $17.5 billion right now. This past year we spent a little bit over $26
billion in K-12 public education in the commonwealth and that’s federal, state and local money.
Total K-12 education spending increased from the time the census numbers were given out
about 78 percent but the numbers went down. If you look at the number of employees and staff
that are hired and work in our public education system we’ve seen an increase of almost 20,000
employees, the number of teachers have gone up about 14.5 percent.”


Sec. Tomalis said the disparity was caused, in part, by a push for decreased class sizes but
emphasized that it has not generated significant academic gains. “We still have approximately
17 percent of schools in Pennsylvania that aren’t making AYP, Adequate Yearly Progress,
under federal definition,” he stated, noting that this year’s AYP target for math is 56 percent of
students being at grade level and 63 percent in reading. “So when we champion the fact that
we are making AYP look at the bar that we’ve set. Ten years into a lull, multibillions of new
money into this system, and our expectation for making AYP is a little bit better than a coin flip. I
don’t know if that’s the standard that we want to set.”


While acknowledging that some gains have been made by Pennsylvania students over the past
decade, Sec. Tomalis did not credit the gains to an increase in funding. “Most of the efforts
in infusing dollars into our public education system occurred 2006 onward,” he stated. “When
you look at the academic scores, most of the academic scores increased in the first half of the
decade. The trajectory for student improvement went up from 2002-2006 and went up from
2006 to 2010 but not as steep. In math, the PSSA scores during those first four years went up
15 points, yet after the money started to freely flow into the system they only went up seven
points. In reading, 2002-2006 school years our scores went up 6.5 percent after that time our
reading scores only went up 4.4 percent. One would think that if money was going into the
system to drive academic achievement why did the major increases take place before the
money came in?”


Sec. Tomalis said the governor called on the school districts to implement a pay freeze to help
save teaching jobs and programs, but according to a Pennsylvania School Board Association
survey only 30 school districts have had a “hard salary freeze.” He noted that $1.1 billion in
salary raises have occurred in public education in Pennsylvania since the recession began.
Sec. Tomalis stressed “salary and money are not the only things that drive quality education.”


Turning to the governor’s education priorities, Sec. Tomalis said a major policy issue will be
a focus on the quality of the teachers. “We want to take a look at how we evaluate teachers,”
he stated. “It was determined that 99.4 percent of all teachers evaluated in Pennsylvania got
a satisfactory rating. That tells us a little bit about what our evaluation system is and our rating
system is in the commonwealth. I think we have to take a very serious look at our evaluation
system.” Sec. Tomalis stated he strongly believes in school choice because it gives parents
with children in failing schools greater opportunity and he has seen “multiple education options”
succeed in districts across Pennsylvania. He indicated that the administration would also like an
evaluation system for schools and will continue to monitor advancements made at the federal
level with No Child Left Behind.


“There’s a lot on the plate and it’s the right time to do it,” he stated. “There are a lot of things
that are happening. Some things will happen regardless of who the governor may be. Some
things are happening in public education that are happening in other parts of the country that
are finally taking root here in the commonwealth and of course we’re doing it in a challenging
budget environment. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for the budget to get
better. We don’t have the luxury of worrying what the appropriation will be next year or the year
after. We don’t have the luxury of waiting because that third grade girl in that third grade class
doesn’t.”


Sec. Tomalis then responded to questions from the audience.


Do you support the consolidation of school districts?


Yes. What’s the magic number? I don’t know. One thing I think is important is how it’s done. A
top-down approach saying there will be this many school districts, I’m not sure is the right way
to go because we need to provide incentives for why school districts come together. The three
biggest hurdles for merging schools districts: debt limit, millage rates and the mascot on the
field. Those three things more than anything else keep school districts from coming together.


Will we do school choice in the fall or in the next week?


I would like to see a school choice plan as quickly as possible. It is my hope we get to that this
week. We are still under discussions with the legislature and we will continue those discussions.
It’s the right time to have this talk. Going back to the 1990s, we had some pretty aggressive
discussions about another choice program back in that time called charters. There were a lot
of people who said ‘delay, delay, delay’ and there were some who said charters would destroy
public education. Here we are about a dozen years later and if you take all those children who
are in charter schools in the commonwealth and put them in one school district it would be the
second largest school district in the commonwealth.


Which voucher bill does the administration support?


We support SB 1. We worked on the amendments, the changes to the legislation. We’ve
discussed it with the Senate. We had concerns about certain aspects of that bill and after some
lengthy discussions with leadership in the legislature and the Senate we came up with what I
believe is a very good compromise. The House has its own opinion as to what should be there
and what should be part of that and we are engaged in some discussions about that. We’ll see
what happens.


Regarding SB 1, there’s been some criticism among lawmakers that some of the tactics
used by supporters of SB 1 have been akin to negative campaigning against lawmakers
who don’t support it. Do you believe that has perhaps hurt the bill’s chances?


I’ve been in education a long, long time and I’ve been engaged in battles on education reform
initiatives in Pennsylvania and across the country. I’ve seen some pretty nasty things. The
amount of money that’s been put in to buy ads and to put together grassroots campaigns
across throughout the last decades hasn’t necessarily been weighted on the side of those
in favor education reform. Most of the money that has been dedicated to influencing public
education initiatives over the past 15 years hasn’t been about moving and changing the system
in a way that drives academic achievement. Most of that money, most of those tactics were
dedicated in a way that helps support the status quo. One very specific issue is the economic
furlough piece and how it relates to seniority. I can’t find a lot of studies that say seniority is
great idea as far as protecting student achievement and what is in the best interest of the child.
Would you rather have your child in a classroom of a teacher that’s been in a classroom eight
years and is an outstanding teacher or a teacher that’s been in the classroom for 15 years
and is so-so? If the organizations that are involved in education are really concerned that the
most important thing is in the best interest of the student then I think this would be a different
conversation.


What’s the most important education initiative that Governor Corbett has proposed and
why?


I’ll take two. I do think choice is one of the key, central parts of all this. We talk a lot about the
voucher bill and a lot about school choice. The system of public education is going to be in
for a shock in the next ten years. The system of public education is going to be experiencing
something that I can’t control, the unions can’t control, the school boards, nothing but it’s going
to happen. There’s a new generation of parents that their whole life has been about choice and
now they’re going into a system that says this is your school, this is your curriculum, and this
is your teacher. They’re not going to like that. In the next ten years they’re going to show up
at PTA meetings, at school board meetings and there’s going to be a clash. We need to build
in choice because it’s coming. Second is the teacher evaluations and teacher effectiveness.
More and more the research shows that it’s the quality of that person standing in front of that
classroom that drives student achievement. We have a system build in place that’s a legacy
system. There are a lot of protections for special interests that have been built up over the
years at the state level and the local level. We need to make sure that regardless of all the
discussions we’re having around budget, regardless of all the other discussions that the quality
of that teacher is the highest quality that they can be.

Corbett would agree to scale back school voucher program

By Brad Bumsted and Sari Heidenreich, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, June 20, 2011


HARRISBURG — Gov. Tom Corbett wants to see a school voucher program enacted by June 30 and would support a compromise to scale the program back to two years, his spokesman said today.
Meanwhile, House Republicans on Tuesday will hold a closed-door caucus session on vouchers and other education issues, lawmakers and staff said. A new compromise voucher proposal will be unveiled at 10:30 a.m. by a Beaver County Republican.


Corbett still supports the four-year program proposed under Senate Bill 1 — stalled in the Senate — ″but wants to see some type of vouchers pass,″ said Kevin Harley, his press secretary.
The governor in January identified vouchers as one of his priorities.


Senate Education Chairman Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin County, the lead sponsor of S.B. 1. also said he would ″be more than willing″ to negotiate a compromise for a two-year voucher program along  with expanded business-paid scholarships through a state tax credit program, his spokeswoman Colleen Greer said.


Rep. Jim Christiana, a Republican from Beaver County, on Tuesday will introduce a bill for a two-year voucher program and an expansion of the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC.) Corbett also backs an EITC expansion.


The bill will be co-sponsored by Tony Payton, D-Philadelphia.


Under the bill, taxpayer-paid vouchers would enable low-income parents of kids in failing public schools to send their children to parochial and private schools, according to a co-sponsorship memo by Christiana, a Republican. Middle-income kids would get more opportunities through an expanded scholarship program, he said.


Today, Rep. Curt Schroder, R-Chester County, announced two voucher bills. His broadest bill (HB 1679) would provide all students with $5,000 vouchers, and the second (HB 1678) would provide that same level of funding only to students who attend or live within the attendance boundary of one of the state's 144 failing schools. The broader bill, he said, is his preference but the second is more realistic.
The Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, opposes vouchers.
″At the current moment, when the commonwealth is saying they can't afford to fund the public schools, there is certainly no reason to redirect that money,″ spokesman David Broderic said.


With public schools likely losing a substantial chunk of state funding in the budget, the money that is left should be used for programs such as full day kindergarten, he said.


″This is not the time to be directing state money to any kind of a tuition voucher program because our public schools are on the chopping block, so to speak,″ he said of the fact that vouchers would allow state money to follow students to private schools.


″Certainly there are school districts that are struggling ... School vouchers are not the answer,″ Broderic said.


A key question is whether House leadership would call up a voucher bill for a vote before the summer recess.


″There's been no definitive statement from leadership,″ said House Education Chairman Paul Clymer, R-Bucks County. ″It's in a mix″ with other education bills, he said.


″It's like a yellow light — be on the alert, things could move,″ Clymer said.


The state budget by law must be completed by June 30. Lawmakers will break for summer on or near that date.

STUDENTS FIRST HOLDS SECOND TELE-TOWN HALL MEETING

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:  John Brabender, 412.370.7018

June 15, 2011 –

On Monday, June 13,  Students First held a western Pennsylvania "Put Students first Tele-Town Hall Meeting" on school choice and Senate Bill 1. Almost 3000 Pennsylvanians tuned in to learn more on how the passage of Senate Bill 1 will change the lives of students across our commonwealth.

This was the second tele-town hall, and once again participants were asked to voice their opinions through open dialogue with a question and answer format. They were also given the chance to partake in a survey in which over 70% said they believe parents have the right to chose which school is best for their child - and that same percentage said parents should be provided with vouchers to send their children to safe, quality schools. 

Dawn Chavous, Students First’s Executive Director, said, “Tele-town halls have proven to be another, effective way to reach out to the thousands of parents with children in failing schools. We are looking to use every means possible to ensure that the most needy are engaged in this conversation and armed with knowledge that right now we have the opportunity to save children who are in danger."

                                                                     # # #

Download PDF

About Students FirstStudents First is a non-partisan organization dedicated to bringing broad-based school choice and education reforms to Pennsylvania.  For moreinformation on Students First and school choice visit www.studentsfirstpa.com

Supporters Lobby for School-Choice Bill

Junior Courtney Scheingraber said she felt as if she was "just my student number" during her elementary and middle school years in public school. That's when she decided to switch to Lancaster Catholic High School for her freshman year. "It was a completely different experience," Scheingraber said at a news conference on state Senate Bill 1 at Resurrection Catholic School on Thursday afternoon.

"I wanted to go to school. I wanted to get an education," she said. "I actually felt motivated and had a desire to do well." Scheingraber said that at Lancaster Catholic she feels like a "real person." Her teachers, and even the administrators, all know her by name, she said.

She's very active in the school, participating in programs such as student council, Model UN and National Honor Society. She also is a dance team member and marching band manager — all things "I couldn't have done in my previous school," she said.

But Scheingraber couldn't have attended Lancaster Catholic, she said, without financial support from scholarships and grants.

That's where S.B. 1 comes into play.

Co-sponsored by state Sen. Lloyd K. Smucker, a West Lampeter Republican, it would increase the Educational Improvement Tax Credit scholarship program to $100 million and provide Opportunity Scholarship Grants — better known as vouchers — to low-income students for tuition at any school their parents choose.

The school voucher system would be phased in over three years to families who normally would receive free or reduced lunches in the public schools. A family of four may have an income of only $28,600, Smucker said.

By year four, the vouchers would be extended to middle-income families, too.

Smucker said school vouchers are "not a magic bullet." But he believes all types of educational systems — public, private, parochial, home-school, cyber and charter — have merit for individual students. "All avenues of education should be supported," he said. Smucker himself has experience with both parochial and public school education. He is a graduate of Lancaster Mennonite High School, and his children attend public school in the Lampeter-Strasburg district. He said he's had a "great experience" in both venues.

As a businessperson, Smucker said you solve problems by making the product better, not by shutting down the competition.

"Competition drives up quality service, and education shouldn't be exempt," he said.

In response to those who believe school vouchers will harm public education funding, Smucker said public schools still will keep their local and federal reimbursements. Only the state portion for qualified children would go to parents.

Because the public school would no longer have to educate that child, its average revenue per student actually goes up, Smucker said.

Smucker also believes the Senate bill is constitutional and doesn't violate separation of church and state.

"We have had constitutional authorities look at it and assure us it is constitutional," he said. It directs money from the school district to the parents, who then have a choice of any type of school, not just parochial, he said.

Livia Riley, the first lay superintendent of schools of the Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg, said every parent should have the right to choose where their child is educated. It is, however, the financial responsibility that often precludes the ability of parents to send their children to parochial school, she said.

Throughout the 15-county diocese, there are 12,000 students attending Catholic schools, and next year there will be space to add 4,000 more, Riley said.

Currently, there are 700 students attending Catholic schools in Lancaster County — all because of the EITC, Riley said. Senate Bill 1 will extend that opportunity to 1,000 more students, she said.

"There is a child for every school and a school for every child," said Riley, who began her career in education at the former St. Anthony's Catholic School in Lancaster and later was principal at St. Anne Catholic School.

Parochial schools, unlike public schools, provide an opportunity to "educate the entire child — academically, emotionally, physically and spiritually," Riley said.

Catholic schools, she said, are child-focused and spirit-driven.

"Every child is a gift of God. Like Courtney, our children are valued, and you don't get lost in the shuffle," Riley said. "Smaller populations are more advantageous to children."

There is still time to weigh in with your legislators on school choice, Smucker said, because he doesn't believe a vote by the Senate will take place until at least fall, owing to the more urgent matter of the state budget.

Vouchers are constitutional under U.S. and Pa. law

By Patriot-News Op-Ed ,
The Patriot-News

Thur, March 3 2011 

Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is now considering a proposal that would empower parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools to choose, if they so desire, to enroll their child in a private school and receive a scholarship, or voucher, to help pay the tuition.

While the debate swirls around the state, one fact is certain: School vouchers, as proposed by the Legislature, are absolutely constitutional under the federal and Pennsylvania state constitutions.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of school choice programs such as that proposed in SB 1 in 2002 in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. In that case, the high court rebuffed a challenge that Cleveland’s scholarship program violated the federal Establishment of Religion Clause. Provided that such programs are religiously neutral and that any students who attend religious schools do so based upon the independent decisions of their parents, the programs pass federal constitutional muster.

Publicly funded school choice is constitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution because the funds are not appropriated for or given to private schools. The funds are appropriated and given to parents for the support of children who desperately need educational alternatives. Parents — independent of any government official — select the school that is best suited to their child.

Under the program, the state does not send any child to a religious or private school — families make that decision. And as long as the program does not provide any incentives that would skew parents’ choice toward or away from a religious school, the program is perfectly constitutional.Under the current proposal, the state is completely neutral with regard to religion and leaves it up to each individual family to decide where to enroll their children. The proposal merely expands parental choice in education.

Some have raised the specter of Pennsylvania’s so-called Blaine Amendment as an obstacle to expanded educational choice. Blaine Amendments nationwide have at their roots religious bigotry springing from the end of the 19th century, which saw a wave of Catholic immigration and an unfortunate rise of strong anti-Catholic sentiment among Americans. At the time, our public schools were predominantly Protestant and often inhospitable to Catholic teaching. Many Catholics thus pushed for a separate system of publicly funded Catholic schools. This push was unpopular, to say the least.

A Maine congressman named James G. Blaine tried to harness anti-Catholic sentiment and proposed amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit funding for “sectarian” schools.It was an open secret that “sectarian” was code for Catholic.Blaine’s efforts to amend the federal Constitution failed, but similar language found its way into 37 state constitutions, including Pennsylvania’s, with the intent to prohibit the establishment of a separately funded system of Catholic schools.

The Blaine Amendments were not written to prohibit states from providing aid to families seeking to get their children a good education and giving those families a wide array of choices as to where to use such aid.Pennsylvania’s Blaine Amendment restricts the use of funds, raised for the support of the public schools, from being “appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”

As an initial matter, the proposed voucher program avoids the Blaine Amendment entirely by funding the program from other sources of government revenue — and not from any money — raised for the support of public schools. But even if the Pennsylvania courts were to consider general revenues as funds, raised for the support of public schools, the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution and existing case law demonstrate the programs easily pass constitutional muster.

The voucher programs appropriate money to and are used for the support of children — not schools. Parents receive the aid and use it to pay tuition at the school of their choice. Thus, no public funds are ever “appropriated to or for the support of any sectarian school.” And not one dollar of these funds can ever be used at an educational institution without the say so of a parent.Moreover, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognizes an important distinction between “appropriations” and “payments for services rendered.”

In Schade v. Allegheny County, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that paying public funds to religious orphanages did not violate Pennsylvania’s Blaine Amendment because the funds were not “appropriations,” but rather payments for services rendered. The same is true of vouchers. Parents use the money to buy educational services from private providers.

Under any fair reading of Pennsylvania’s Blaine Amendment, especially when combined with Pennsylvania case law, the only reasonable conclusion is that education vouchers are entirely consistent with the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Richard D. Komer is a senior litigation attorney at the Institute for Justice. Recently, he testified before the Pennsylvania House Democratic Policy Committee hearing in Philadelphia on the proposed voucher legislation.

Williams calls school choice ‘moral imperative’

Catholic Standard Times (Philadelphia)

By John T. Gillespie ,
Special to the CS & T

Wed March 2, 2011 

Philadelphia State Senator Anthony H. Williams invokes the language of the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr. when arguing for school choice.

As lead cosponsor of a bill in Harrisburg to give low-income parents tuition vouchers to transfer their children from failing public schools to schools that succeed, Williams called it a “moral imperative.”

“For too long we have trapped and failed thousands of children and their families and failed the taxpayers who have paid for this expensive failure.”

Nearly 70 years after the United States Supreme Court banned segregated schools, declaring “separate is not equal” Williams has adapted the famous ruling to describe his own crusade for choice: “Failing schools are not equal, ” he said.

The bill – SB 1 or the Opportunity Scholarship Act – co-sponsored by Senator Jeffrey Piccola from the Harrisburg area and 15 other legislators, would use taxpayer money to give tuition vouchers to children from low income families – those earning less than $28,688 in a family of four -- so they could attend a school of their choice, be it public, private, Catholic or charter.

The money would come from the per pupil subsidy the Commonwealth pays to local school districts. The vouchers would cover tuition up to the current cost of the base subsidy: $8,950. According to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, average Catholic school tuition across the state is $3,500 in parochial school and $6,500 in high school. The money saved – i.e. the difference between tuition and the state’s per pupil subsidy – would revert to a fund for future opportunity scholarships.

The legislation also increases money available for tuition tax credits – from $75 million to $100 million for middle income families earning up to $60,000.

Williams says his bill is not an attack on public education but on failing schools.

“Those that oppose school choice argue that they need more time and more money to fix failing schools, he told a recent rally in Harrisburg in support of the bill. “I say 50 years and $25 billion is enough! They say school choice will take more money from failing schools. I say close the failing schools.”

The state Department of Education has identified 144 “failing” public schools in the lowest performing 5 percent as measured by state standardized tests. Ninety-one of those schools are in Philadelphia.

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference has endorsed the bill. “All parents should be able to choose schools that best suit their children. Financial realities often preclude parents from having that choice. The Opportunity Scholarship Act is a step in the right direction towards expanding those opportunities to more parents.”

The Pennsylvania Education Association and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association oppose the plan.

The Senate Education Committee held hearings last month and is expected to send the bill to the Senate any day. Williams said prospects for passage in the Senate and House are encouraging. Gov. Corbett supports school choice.

A November 2010 Pew Research Foundation survey reported that 62 percent of parents in Philadelphia public schools said they had considered sending their children to charter, Catholic or private schools.

Williams, a Democrat, has long been a leader in the fight for alternative schooling. In 1997, as a member of the state House of Representatives, he led the battle for charter schools. His tenacity in the face of party opposition won support for the measure and put Pennsylvania in the forefront of the charter school movement.

John Gillespie is a freelance writer and member of St. Bridget Parish in East Falls.

PSBA's Office of Governmental and Member Relations

March 1, 1011
Senate Education Committee Moves Voucher Bill With 8-2 Vote

This afternoon, March 1, the Senate Education Committee voted to approve SB 1, the taxpayer-funded tuition voucher bill introduced by Senators Jeff Piccola (R-Dauphin), committee chairman, and Anthony Williams (D-Philadelphia). The bill was approved with a vote of 8-2, with Senators Jim Ferlo (D- Allegheny, Armstrong, Westmoreland) and Daylin Leach (D-Delaware, Montgomery) opposing the bill.
The bill was moved out of the committee following a lengthy discussion on a number of amendments relating to issues of funding and costs, constitutional impediments, measures of academic success and mandated religious instruction. Discussion in favor of the bill was dominated by Senators Piccola and Williams. Concerns about the bill were raised by Senators Dinniman (minority chairman of the committee), Ferlo and Leach, who each offered amendments addressing various points. It was acknowledged by the minority chair that the cost of the voucher program under SB 1 would reach $1 billion by the third year. Nevertheless, only three amendments were adopted, none of which substantively change the provisions of SB 1.

The committee approved three amendments, offered by Sen. Piccola, that:

* Prohibit athletic recruiting of opportunity scholarship recipients by either school districts or participating nonpublic schools.
* Require participating nonpublic schools to be nonprofit entities that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and to make their written policies. regarding such matters as academics, extracurricular activities, admissions, tuition, religious studies and discipline available upon the request of parents seeking to enroll their children in the school.
* Make technical amendments to the bill to clarify the following: (1) eligibility of students to participate in years 1 and 2; (2) definition of "persistently lowest achieving school"; (3) reimbursement of transportation expenses; (4) manner of awarding vouchers; (5) funding of program by appropriations and moneys in the excess scholarship fund; (6) transitional funding for students currently attending public schools; (7) timing of EITC applications; and (8) division of EITC funds among scholarship organizations and educational improvement organizations.

Among the amendments that were rejected by the committee are those that would:

* Require voucher recipients attending a participating nonpublic school to take the PSSA or any successor tests implemented for public school students to comply with federal law. It also required the Department of Education to determine whether each participating nonpublic school is making adequately yearly progress and to annually publish aggregate data on academic performance for voucher students tested, except where the number of students tested is so low as to make their identities known.
* Require nonpublic schools to administer an assessment or a nationally normed standardized test in the same subject areas that are part of the PSSA state assessments in grades 3 - 8 and 11. The Department of Education must publish a listing of recognized nationally normed tests that may be used by a participating nonpublic school, and to report test scores.
* Require a participating nonpublic school to provide voucher recipients the ability to opt out of religious instruction or ceremonies.
* Clarify that nonpublic schools could not discriminate against students with disabilities regarding admissions.
* Require each school district to include with its annual property tax bill a notice stating the estimated costs of complying with SB 1.
* Remove language of SB 1, which deals with the reduction of student aid to a school district in the second year of the program due to a voucher recipient enrolling in a participating nonpublic school.
* Eliminate Year 3 of the voucher program and increases the total available credits to the EITC program in 2013-2014 fiscal year from $100 million to $150 million.
* Clarify that voucher funds received by a participating nonpublic school may be subject to audit in accordance with law.
* Require a participating to return the full amount of the voucher when the recipient is expelled by or requested or directed to withdrawal by the participating nonpublic school.
* Reduce the contribution deduction percentage for business firms making an EITC donation from 75% to 65% for an annual donation and 90% to 80% for a two year commitment.

The education monopoly - Rescuing students

By Bucks County Courier Times
Voucher plan would put pressure on poor schools.


Two Pennsylvania senators - Philadelphia Democrat Anthony Williams and Dauphin/York County Republican Jeff Piccola - have introduced a bill to use tax money to pay for tuition vouchers that low-income students could in turn use to attend a public or private school of their choice.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association predictably was quick to condemn the idea. Public school districts don't want any tax money siphoned away from them. They will never agree to any plan that threatens their monopoly on education.

Parents with the financial means can and do opt to assume the added burden of private education for their sons and daughters. But those with limited resources can't do that. They are forced to send their children to a designated public school. Too often, not only in Pennsylvania but across the country, schools that serve low-income populations are a disaster, and they have no incentive to improve. The kids are trapped.

Gov. Tom Corbett made clear during his election campaign his support for making public money available for tuition at parochial and other private schools. He said schools "have a monopoly, and if they're not competitive, they're going to continue to lose that money."

We're fortunate here in Bucks and Montgomery counties. Our schools aren't plagued with the problems dragging down so many urban districts. But every school district could profit from healthy competition. And just throwing more money at problem schools has been shown time and again to be a futile, wasteful exercise.

Schools that provide an excellent learning environment with dedicated teachers who challenge and nurture their students - where young people feel comfortable and valuable and parents know their children are receiving a well-rounded education - have no reason to fear school vouchers. Schools that don't measure up have every reason to fear, and that's the point. Underperforming school districts that see no reason to change aren't going to. Put those districts in a situation where they have to compete for students and the money each of them represents and they'll have to shape up to survive.

Advertisement There is another side to this issue as well: that a voucher system is a way around powerful teachers unions that, in effect, reallocate public money to pay for excessive teachers' salaries and benefits that otherwise would fund the tools of education. The further disadvantage to public schools is that publicly funded charter and private schools could simply bounce special needs kids, who are expensive to educate, back to the public schools.

There is merit to those arguments. But we don't think perpetuating the status quo is the right approach. A voucher system might not be a panacea, but we already know that the public school monopoly isn't succeeding - especially in low-income communities. Let's give parents a choice and public schools a reason to improve.

Tim Allwein, PSBA's assistant executive director, said he'd like to see state lawmakers "start addressing some of the other societal things that are keeping children from becoming better learners." We'd like to see that, too, although Allwein makes it sound like the schools themselves have no responsibility to get better.

They do, but they won't as long as public education remains the no-choice monopoly that it is for so many families. Pennsylvania should be interested in seeing that every student has access to educational success, not perpetuating a system that accepts failure.

Op-Ed: Pa. can make education history with greater school choice

Patriot News January 21, 2011 by Jeanne Allen

“Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” That famous saying, by Sir Edmund Burke, popped into my head when I read outgoing Gov. Ed Rendell’s recent defense of charter schools as justification for why Pennsylvania’s families do not need additional choices through school vouchers or scholarships.

Greater school choice is being proposed by a bipartisan group of state senators. Among them is Philadelphia’s own Democratic senator, Anthony Hardy Williams, who made school choice a focal point of his platform in his run for governor last year.

Today, Pennsylvania stands at the precipice of making history on education policy. Gov. Tom Corbett supports a better charter school law along with a new publicly funded scholarship program for families that cannot make the choices more affluent families make every day.

Together with the help of Democrats, advocates for the poor and business leaders of all kinds, the Keystone State could become the most competitive state in the nation and a model for all. It was on its way to becoming so until Rendell took office.

From a historical perspective, I have watched since the days I attended Dickinson College in the 1980s and the state was not even on the map for reform. Those were the days we were all convinced that our schools were great and where they were not, poverty was to blame. A few years later, data began to roll in showing just the opposite. We learned that poverty did not equal ignorance, and we learned that an effective teacher can, literally, wipe out the deficiencies caused by a bad home environment.

That’s why in the ’90s, then Gov. Tom Ridge joined with Sen. Williams and Rep. Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia, to author the charter school law and come within earshot of enacting a major voucher program. Back then, Rendell was loudly in opposition to such moves. He believed more money was the way to go. I was there as they debated and put that law into place, working with policymakers and the grassroots to create a law that would spur great new innovative choices.

Rendell was not there, and the teachers unions and bureaucracy that later welcomed his tenure as governor fought to make things as difficult as possible for reformers. They still do. As governor, Rendell never really embraced the mainstream charters. He tended to act as if they did not exist, which was a loss for the commonwealth’s families. The nation stands ready to create changes that truly build up excellence in teaching, create more effective and personalized learning opportunities for students and engage parents in holding both accountable.

Today, with a successful tax credit program, several strong charter schools and full-blown recognition that teacher quality must finally be addressed, Gov. Corbett’s team has much to do to pick up on history and continue the trends that began in the ’90s.

That starts with positive reform efforts that are being proposed and can be done if the people of the great state of Pennsylvania take seriously the data that show even good is nothing to cheer about and the schools that are bad are truly dismal. It will require the public and policymakers to recognize that unions and teachers are not one and the same and listening to one does not ever serve the latter.

It requires that we all heed history and recognize that without fundamental change nothing will dramatically improve. It’s been 20 years in the making. It’s time to close the books.

Jeanne Allen is president of The Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C.

State School Voucher Plan Opposed

Reading Eagle January 21, 2011: by David Mekeel

A plan to introduce school vouchers in Pennsylvania is drawing criticism even before it's been formally introduced.

The Pennsylvania School Board Association, or PSBA, announced opposition Thursday to news that a school voucher bill soon will be introduced in the state Senate.

Last week, state Sens. Anthony Hardy Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat, and Jeffrey E. Piccola, a Dauphin County Republican, announced details of legislation they plan to introduce that would give state money to poor students who wanted to transfer to a private school or another public school.

It is unclear when the legislation will be introduced.

The bill, which will be named Senate Bill 1, initially would only affect the 144 poorest-performing schools in the state.

Only two Berks County schools - Reading High School and Reading's Gateway School for International Business and World Language - are on that list.

After two years the program would expand to include all "low-income" students in the state.

Students would be identified as low-income if their families fell within 1.3 percent of the federal poverty level.

For example, a student in a family of four that has a family income of $28,665 or less would qualify.

Those students would be allowed to apply for a voucher equal to the amount the state gives a district per student. That money would be taken from the state subsidy to the student's home district.

The vouchers could be used to pay tuition at a private school, or to transfer to another public school.

According to information from Piccola's office, the vouchers - which they dub "opportunity scholarships" - would create an escape route for students trapped in failing or unsafe schools.

But PSBA officials said the voucher plan has some serious flaws.

According to Tim Allwein, PSBA's assistant executive director of governmental and member relations, one of the major concerns is whether the potential of using public money for religious schools violates the state constitution.

Another is the ability of schools - both private and public - to refuse voucher students, which would let them pick and choose which students benefit most from the vouchers.

Allwein also said private schools that accept public funds should be required to meet all of the state and federal requirements that public schools meet.

"If not, then take them off the public schools also," he said of the requirements.

Economics is another concern about the voucher plan.

Allwein said taking state funding away from schools now - when they're facing decreased tax revenue and increases in costs such as pension contributions, salaries and utilities - is unwise.
"It's a loss of state money at a time when there are a lot of state pressures on school districts," he said.

Contact David Mekeel: 610-371-5014 or dmekeel@readingeagle.com.

State school board group to oppose school choice measure

Pittsburgh Tribune Review January 21, 2011 : by Jodi Weigand

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association is prepared to challenge a proposal to use taxpayer dollars to pay for private school education.

The nonprofit group also has concerns about open enrollment in the state's public schools, its assistant executive director, Tim Allwein, said Thursday.

State Rep. Jim Christiana, R-Beaver County, plans to introduce legislation next week -- National School Choice Week -- that would allow parents to send children to any public school outside their home districts.

Christiana's proposal is different from a voucher program touted by Sens. Anthony Williams, D-Philadelphia, and Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, that eventually would give all low-income students annual vouchers to attend public, private or parochial schools of their choice.

Several states, including Ohio, New Jersey, Minnesota and Wisconsin, have had open-enrollment policies for years. There are 18 voucher programs in 12 states.In Pennsylvania, the school boards association's stance is the same as when a voucher system was proposed was under former Gov. Tom Ridge -- legislation that failed. Allwein acknowledged the fight will be tougher this time.

Political analysts have said school choice plans have a better chance of moving ahead in a Republican-controlled Legislature led by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, a school choice proponent."I think going into any fight, you have confidence you can win it," Allwein said. "I think it's going to be a lot of hard work, but I think it's one we can win."

Stuart Knade, the association's chief counsel, said the voucher proposal violates Pennsylvania's constitution, which prohibits using money raised for public schools to support any sectarian school.

The Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers opposes the voucher plan. In a letter to state leaders, union President John Tarka said "legislation that would divert badly needed funds" could hamper efforts to improve Pittsburgh public schools.

Christiana, who supports the Williams/Piccola plan, also supports increased competition among schools, saying it could result in better educational opportunities. He said it's clear parents want options, based on climbing charter and cyber charter school enrollments.

"That shows there is a demand, that parents are not getting the results they want in the public system," Christiana said. "I think education reform is at the front of the line in this new term."Joyce Keith, 57, of McKeesport likes school choice in any form.

"Parents would be able to go to the school, evaluate the environment and what curriculum they think their child may need," she said. "It will make the schools want to do better to improve their way of educating children."

Under Christiana's open-enrollment plan, districts would not be required to participate and wouldn't have to accept every student who applies.

School boards would develop admission standards, set class sizes and student-to-teacher ratios, and could designate the number of vacant spaces available, according to a draft of the legislation. Students couldn't be rejected based on grades, race, gender or special needs.

Wythe Keever, spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teacher union, didn't take a position on open enrollment, though he's not optimistic about school districts' support.

"No school board wants to vote to raise property taxes to add staff and expand facilities in order to receive nonresident students," he wrote in an e-mail.