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.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
STUDENTS FIRST HOLDS SECOND TELE-TOWN HALL MEETING
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: John Brabender, 412.370.7018
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."
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.
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."
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)