Monday, August 8, 2011
Administration seeks to add more schools to voucher bill in negotiations
By Peter L. DeCoursey
Bureau Chief
Capitolwire
HARRISBURG (Aug. 8) -- Education Secretary Ron Tomalis and Senate Education Committee Chairman Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin, both expressed optimism about ongoing voucher negotiations aimed at producing a bill this fall.
But a top House GOP leader said it was up to the Senate to pass a voucher bill and up to the governor to drum up public support for it.
Tomalis also said the proposal would be based on the first two years of Senate Bill 1, plus an expansion of the Education Improvement Tax Credit and adding 48 schools where half the students were behind their current grade level in test results.
Tomalis, in a forthcoming CapitolCast interview, said: “This is the governor’s highest priority and what he wants to address with the legislators this … coming fall. … I’m very hopeful, I am much more positive about things in the fall than I was… I feel very comfortable about the conversations we have been having with the Legislature.”
Asked if there was agreement between Corbett and the Senate GOP on what the fall voucher bill will look like, Tomalis said: “Pretty close.”
Piccola responded: “There has been hard work for the last several weeks at the staff level but nothing is finalized. I am pleased with the leadership of the governor's office and the positive involvement of the House.”
The current bill would allow thousands of students in the 144 schools with the worst student achievement records to apply for a voucher of $7,000 or more – limited by the cost of the private school tuition – to attend another school. Tomalis said the Corbett administration also wants to allow - in future years, not the first two years of the bill - kids from schools where 50 percent of students are below grade level, to get vouchers.
That would add 48 schools to the list said Tomalis spokesman Tim Eller.
Piccola said the proposal was still under discussion and not yet finalized, and declined further comment on the addition of the 48 schools.
Other provisions Tomalis said Corbett will push for would seek to bring “accountability” for the private school scholarships. That testing requirement for students receiving the vouchers would largely follow Piccola’s proposal, Tomalis said.
But while Gov. Tom Corbett said Thursday that ultimately a House-Senate-administration joint plan was his goal, a top House Republican leader continued to say a voucher bill has to get to them first, and Corbett and the Senate have to sell it.
Piccola blamed the collapse of a late-starting June voucher effort on the unwillingness of House Republican leaders to negotiate a bill, much less commit to pass it. That drumbeat was then repeated by other Senate leaders on that issue.
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, said July 20: “The Senate took the lead on school choice the way we took the lead on fair share and welfare reform and passed them first. The Senate is just going to have to decide what they can pass and send over to the House. One chamber has to start all these bills, and we started a bunch. They took the lead on school choice. Now we will see if they can deliver a bill to the House.”
Then, late last week, Turzai told The Morning Call of Allentown on the topic of vouchers: "I think that there are important issues. But the governor and his team, they’re going to have to go sell it. They really need to make the case [to the House and the state]. A lot of time[s], you see movement in the Legislature, when people are pushing it.
"I think, in the school districts that aren’t performing, it’s not always their fault. I don’t blame educators in some of these districts. Sometimes I think it is the system. Sometimes there are bigger issues. But you got to find ways for kids to succeed. I’m certainly open to looking to find more ways to get kids to succeed. But in the end, the governor and his team have to state the case.”
Asked last week by the newspaper to respond to those comments, saying it was up to him to move vouchers, Corbett shrugged and said he hoped for “a joint proposal” on the issue.
Piccola’s e-mailed response to the Turzai comments was: “No reaction since nothing is final.”
Tomalis said the Corbett administration’s commitment to giving students and parents more choices would include, over time, giving students more curricular options through the Internet, and not limiting a student’s classes to a school’s faculty.
Tomalis said this voucher bill “is an important first step, but it is in my mind just the tip of the spear of where we’re going to go in education, not just in Pennsylvania, but across the country.
While the House had pressed to take the EITC from $75 million annually this year to $200 million, Tomalis said it may take a phase-in of years to achieve that level of funding, given the state’s budget problems.
Corbett said: “Vouchers are very important. … We came close to getting it [in June], a lot closer than you all know, I think, to getting it. We’re looking at it, we’re working on it, to come up with a bill that addresses the needs of the children who are attending the failing schools and to get them the ability to go to a better school, to have the money go with the child.”
Friday, August 5, 2011
County Ups the Ante in Voucher War
By STEPHANIE SIMON
DENVER—In a bold bid to revamp public education, a suburban district south of Denver has begun handing out vouchers that use public money to help its largely affluent residents send their children to private and church-based schools.
The move is being challenged in state court and a judge has held hearings this week to determine if the program can go forward.
Douglas County School Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen at Cougar Run Elementary in November.
The Douglas County School District experiment is noteworthy because nearly all voucher programs nationally aim to help children who are poor, have special needs or are trapped in failing public schools. Douglas County, by contrast, is one of the most affluent in the U.S., with household income nearly double the national median, and has schools ranked among the best in Colorado.
The program is also unique in that the district explicitly promotes the move as a way for it to save money. The district is, in effect, outsourcing some students' education to the private sector for less than it would spend to teach them in public schools.
If Douglas County persuades the courts to sign off, it could transform the debate about vouchers nationwide, potentially turning them into a perk for families who want more than even high-performing public schools offer.
"This is a radical idea," said Claire Smrekar, an investigator at the National Center on School Choice, a federal research organization.
Nationally, most voucher programs are run by states. Qualified students receive a voucher that is accepted as full payment at local private schools.
Douglas County does it differently, acting as middleman between state and student—and taking a cut. The state sends the district $6,100 per pupil; the district forwards 75% to each voucher recipient and keeps the rest. Even after administrative costs, the district expects to make what amounts to a profit of $400,000 this year on the 500 students in its pilot program.
That money will be used to "provide services to the students that are left behind in the regular schools," district spokesman Randy Barber said.
State education officials consulted with the district on the program and haven't objected to it.
Opponents, however, fear kids in traditional public schools will suffer. If a high school loses 10 freshmen to vouchers, for instance, it loses more than $50,000. In response, the principal may lay off a math teacher and distribute his students among other instructors, raising class size. The district says it will help the hardest-hit schools, but acknowledges some class sizes may increase.
That enrages parent Cindy Barnard, who says it isn't fair that her son's education in public schools may be diminished so her neighbors can use tax dollars to pay private-school tuition.
But Derrick Doyle, who plans to use vouchers to send his twins to a religious school, says the district is right to help all parents find the best fit for their kids. Parents dissatisfied with class size at their public school, he said, can always pursue other options.
Indeed, the Douglas County system embraces school choice, already offering charter, magnet and online schools. Officials there say the vouchers are a logical next step, helping parents to access different types of education, including faith-based schooling. "It's about parents being able to decide what's best for their children," said Meghann Silverthorn, a school-board member.
About 20 private schools in the area accept vouchers. They're a diverse lot, though predominantly religious: A tiny secular academy serving a few dozen first- through eighth-graders; a Jesuit high school with nearly 1,600 students; a church-based school that touts its curriculum as "unashamedly creationist" and Bible-based. One school accepting vouchers serves only gifted kids, another focuses on students with disabilities.
Many are highly selective, requiring entrance exams and, in some cases, statements of faith. Tuition ranges roughly from $7,000 to $15,000 a year, and vouchers only cover the first $4,500 or so; parents must find other aid or pay the rest out of pocket. The most popular school among voucher recipients, Valor Christian High School, charges $14,000 tuition plus fees of as much as $6,000 for books, sports and field trips.
Because the vouchers are being used at religious schools, the move has drawn fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a parent coalition. All have sued in state court. A ruling on their request for an injunction is expected soon.
Their lawsuit cites a state constitutional provision forbidding public expenditure to support church-based schools. The state Supreme Court has signaled a flexible interpretation, ruling that college students can use state scholarships to attend religious institutions. But Mark Silverstein, legal director for the ACLU of Colorado, says K-12 education is different because young students are more vulnerable to indoctrination.
District officials say they aren't sending money directly to religious schools. Vouchers go to parents, who decide where to spend them. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar arrangement in Cleveland, Ohio.
Critics also say the voucher plan discriminates because most private schools won't accept disabled or struggling students, and because families can only use the vouchers if they have the resources to pay the rest of the tuition bill. District data show the vouchers have been claimed disproportionately by students in the county's wealthiest public schools.
Mr. Barber, the district spokesman, says the vouchers were available to all, without regard to ability, faith or wealth. "We really had nothing to do with who chose to take them," he said.
Write to Stephanie Simon at stephanie.simon@wsj.com
DENVER—In a bold bid to revamp public education, a suburban district south of Denver has begun handing out vouchers that use public money to help its largely affluent residents send their children to private and church-based schools.
The move is being challenged in state court and a judge has held hearings this week to determine if the program can go forward.
Douglas County School Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen at Cougar Run Elementary in November.
The Douglas County School District experiment is noteworthy because nearly all voucher programs nationally aim to help children who are poor, have special needs or are trapped in failing public schools. Douglas County, by contrast, is one of the most affluent in the U.S., with household income nearly double the national median, and has schools ranked among the best in Colorado.
The program is also unique in that the district explicitly promotes the move as a way for it to save money. The district is, in effect, outsourcing some students' education to the private sector for less than it would spend to teach them in public schools.
If Douglas County persuades the courts to sign off, it could transform the debate about vouchers nationwide, potentially turning them into a perk for families who want more than even high-performing public schools offer.
"This is a radical idea," said Claire Smrekar, an investigator at the National Center on School Choice, a federal research organization.
Nationally, most voucher programs are run by states. Qualified students receive a voucher that is accepted as full payment at local private schools.
Douglas County does it differently, acting as middleman between state and student—and taking a cut. The state sends the district $6,100 per pupil; the district forwards 75% to each voucher recipient and keeps the rest. Even after administrative costs, the district expects to make what amounts to a profit of $400,000 this year on the 500 students in its pilot program.
That money will be used to "provide services to the students that are left behind in the regular schools," district spokesman Randy Barber said.
State education officials consulted with the district on the program and haven't objected to it.
Opponents, however, fear kids in traditional public schools will suffer. If a high school loses 10 freshmen to vouchers, for instance, it loses more than $50,000. In response, the principal may lay off a math teacher and distribute his students among other instructors, raising class size. The district says it will help the hardest-hit schools, but acknowledges some class sizes may increase.
That enrages parent Cindy Barnard, who says it isn't fair that her son's education in public schools may be diminished so her neighbors can use tax dollars to pay private-school tuition.
But Derrick Doyle, who plans to use vouchers to send his twins to a religious school, says the district is right to help all parents find the best fit for their kids. Parents dissatisfied with class size at their public school, he said, can always pursue other options.
Indeed, the Douglas County system embraces school choice, already offering charter, magnet and online schools. Officials there say the vouchers are a logical next step, helping parents to access different types of education, including faith-based schooling. "It's about parents being able to decide what's best for their children," said Meghann Silverthorn, a school-board member.
About 20 private schools in the area accept vouchers. They're a diverse lot, though predominantly religious: A tiny secular academy serving a few dozen first- through eighth-graders; a Jesuit high school with nearly 1,600 students; a church-based school that touts its curriculum as "unashamedly creationist" and Bible-based. One school accepting vouchers serves only gifted kids, another focuses on students with disabilities.
Many are highly selective, requiring entrance exams and, in some cases, statements of faith. Tuition ranges roughly from $7,000 to $15,000 a year, and vouchers only cover the first $4,500 or so; parents must find other aid or pay the rest out of pocket. The most popular school among voucher recipients, Valor Christian High School, charges $14,000 tuition plus fees of as much as $6,000 for books, sports and field trips.
Because the vouchers are being used at religious schools, the move has drawn fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a parent coalition. All have sued in state court. A ruling on their request for an injunction is expected soon.
Their lawsuit cites a state constitutional provision forbidding public expenditure to support church-based schools. The state Supreme Court has signaled a flexible interpretation, ruling that college students can use state scholarships to attend religious institutions. But Mark Silverstein, legal director for the ACLU of Colorado, says K-12 education is different because young students are more vulnerable to indoctrination.
District officials say they aren't sending money directly to religious schools. Vouchers go to parents, who decide where to spend them. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar arrangement in Cleveland, Ohio.
Critics also say the voucher plan discriminates because most private schools won't accept disabled or struggling students, and because families can only use the vouchers if they have the resources to pay the rest of the tuition bill. District data show the vouchers have been claimed disproportionately by students in the county's wealthiest public schools.
Mr. Barber, the district spokesman, says the vouchers were available to all, without regard to ability, faith or wealth. "We really had nothing to do with who chose to take them," he said.
Write to Stephanie Simon at stephanie.simon@wsj.com
Do We Really Need to Spend More on Schools?
By PAUL E. PETERSON
Even as the president was signing the debt-limit bill designed to cut spending this week, he insisted on continuing "to keep making key investments in things like education." Don't be surprised if the president and his allies reiterate this call for more spending in the nation's schools, which they argue is necessary if our students are to remain competitive.
At first glance, the public seems to agree with this position. In a survey released this week by Education Next, an education research journal, my colleagues and I reported that 65% of the public wants to spend more on our schools. The remaining 35% think spending should either be cut or remain at current levels. That's the kind of polling data that the president's political advisers undoubtedly rely upon when they decide to appeal for more education spending.
Yet the political reality is more complex than those numbers suggest. When the people we surveyed were told how much is actually spent in our schools—$12,922 per student annually, according to the most recent government report—then only 49% said they want to pony up more dollars. We discovered this by randomly splitting our sample in half, asking one half the spending question cold turkey, while giving the other half accurate information about current expenditure.
Later in the same survey, we rephrased the question to bring out the fact that more spending means higher taxes. Specifically, we asked: "Do you think that taxes to fund public schools around the nation should increase, decrease or stay about the same?" When asked about spending in this way, which addresses the tax issue frankly, we found that only 35% support an increase. Sixty-five percent oppose the idea, saying instead that spending should either decrease or stay about the same. The majority also doesn't want to pay more taxes to support their local schools. Only 28% think that's a good idea.
So there is the nation's debt crisis in a nutshell. If people aren't told that nearly $13,000 is currently being spent per pupil, or if they aren't reminded that there is no such thing as a free lunch, they can be persuaded to think schools should be spending still more.
The public is not altogether foolish about such matters. They know that schools are underperforming. When asked what percentage of ninth graders graduate from high school within four years, they accurately estimate, on average, that only 72% manage to do so. (That percentage is almost exactly what official government statistics report.) But the public is tempted to think that the way to fix the problem is to spend more.
So it makes good political sense for the president to call for more spending but never mention current expenditure levels, or the fact that more spending implies higher taxes. But ignoring reality also leads to bigger debts.
Mr. Peterson is a professor of government at Harvard University and directs Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance. He is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Even as the president was signing the debt-limit bill designed to cut spending this week, he insisted on continuing "to keep making key investments in things like education." Don't be surprised if the president and his allies reiterate this call for more spending in the nation's schools, which they argue is necessary if our students are to remain competitive.
At first glance, the public seems to agree with this position. In a survey released this week by Education Next, an education research journal, my colleagues and I reported that 65% of the public wants to spend more on our schools. The remaining 35% think spending should either be cut or remain at current levels. That's the kind of polling data that the president's political advisers undoubtedly rely upon when they decide to appeal for more education spending.
Yet the political reality is more complex than those numbers suggest. When the people we surveyed were told how much is actually spent in our schools—$12,922 per student annually, according to the most recent government report—then only 49% said they want to pony up more dollars. We discovered this by randomly splitting our sample in half, asking one half the spending question cold turkey, while giving the other half accurate information about current expenditure.
Later in the same survey, we rephrased the question to bring out the fact that more spending means higher taxes. Specifically, we asked: "Do you think that taxes to fund public schools around the nation should increase, decrease or stay about the same?" When asked about spending in this way, which addresses the tax issue frankly, we found that only 35% support an increase. Sixty-five percent oppose the idea, saying instead that spending should either decrease or stay about the same. The majority also doesn't want to pay more taxes to support their local schools. Only 28% think that's a good idea.
So there is the nation's debt crisis in a nutshell. If people aren't told that nearly $13,000 is currently being spent per pupil, or if they aren't reminded that there is no such thing as a free lunch, they can be persuaded to think schools should be spending still more.
The public is not altogether foolish about such matters. They know that schools are underperforming. When asked what percentage of ninth graders graduate from high school within four years, they accurately estimate, on average, that only 72% manage to do so. (That percentage is almost exactly what official government statistics report.) But the public is tempted to think that the way to fix the problem is to spend more.
So it makes good political sense for the president to call for more spending but never mention current expenditure levels, or the fact that more spending implies higher taxes. But ignoring reality also leads to bigger debts.
Mr. Peterson is a professor of government at Harvard University and directs Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance. He is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)