ABOUT CONTACT DONATE SEARCH

Educational freedom

When I took microeconomics my sophomore year in college, the professor asserted that teachers make bad economists because they live in a world where the concept of limited resources doesn’t exist. The Rhode Island public school system is certainly giving credibility to that theory.

That concept of limited resources is rearing its ugly head in Rhode Island. In protest to prospective budget cuts, public school teachers are acting like the children they instruct every day:  refusing to do anything beyond show up and teach for six hours until the state forks over the money. But some in the state legislature are fighting back by pushing through a constitutional amendment that would financially penalize striking teachers.

The people of Rhode Island do not deserve to be gaffed out of more of their money because the public schools want it. The Rhode Island State Legislature deserves credit for not folding up like a cheap two-dollar suitcase in the face of the educational establishment and defending citizens’ right to their income.

Even in Texas, one of the most conservative states in the Union, government still sometimes needs to be slapped around a bit. Fortunately, the Homeschool Legal Defense Association is there to do it.

Last year, a family in compliance with all laws set forth by the El Paso school district faced $7000 in fines for homeschooling their seven children. They also filed charges of truancy against four of the children.

Now, thanks to HSLDA, the charges have been dropped. The McIntyres can continue to educate their children as they see fit and another little piece of educational freedom has been preserved.

Congratulations to the HSLDA for this victory. And to Mrs. McIntyre, for homeschooling all those kids.

People in capitol buildings often lack a clear view of what really happens after they pass a law.

In her State of the State address last month, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm once again proposed raising the mandatory high-school enrollment age from 16 to 18. Twenty-seven states require students to attend school until age 17 or 18; the rest, like Michigan, allow students to drop out or finish at 16.

Like many government proposals, this one looks good – until you examine it at an individual level. I was homeschooled, and graduated from high school at age 17 (I had finished second and third grade in the same year, a decade before). This early graduation allowed me to get a jump start on college. The only drawback I could see was my scrawny, skinny frame getting knocked about on the soccer field.

Perhaps my situation is not the best example – educators claim they support the law to help underprivileged youth, or ones in crime-plagued areas. But while kids in those situations certainly deserve more attention, it’s debatable that a mandatory dropout age will help them, and it’s certain such a law would have, and will, hurt exceptions like me.

If you’re a Michigander, contact your legislator and make sure he or she is aware that this law has negative consequences for real kids. We’re not all statistics.

Read the bill here.

A new political environment and the rebuilding process after Hurricane Katrina have opened the door to new experiments in Louisiana. How to improve its schools is one that may be most promising.

Shreé Madlock with the Black Alliance for Educational Options recently moved from next door in Texas to become the group's Louisiana director. WBRZ news reports that part of her time will be focused on something that I don't think has done well enough by people and groups advocating for more choice to be in the hands of parents and students: teaching them how to take advantage of programs that they may not know exist.

Because each child is different, the same school setting won’t work for every youngster, and parents need solid information to make the best choice, Medlock said. But many poor, working parents lack the information they need to make informed choices about their child’s education, and Medlock said her group is trying to change that.

Best of luck, Shreé! 

Just in time for the often-musical holidays, allow me to present the Friedman Choir, singing a song on educational freedom.

The man himself introduces the group.

Hat-tip: Drew at NTU's Government Bytes

...is under serious threat by two groups of people: 1. Government school employees who don't relish the idea of having to compete for students; and 2. People who misunderstand the nature of government spending. Allow me to explain. 

School vouchers are good because they allow parents get a voucher from the government to pay for some or all of their child's tuition at a school--public, private, charter or religious--outside of their assigned district. This allows parents to send their kids to school where it benefits them most, a freedom that isn't available if a child is stuck in a particular school district.

The short-term effect is better education for the student; the medium and long-term effects are better schools everywhere thanks to the miracle of competition. When schools have to provide the best service to students in order to attract them, overall quality goes up, test scores increase and more people get the chance to get into college.

The way that the value of vouchers are usually calculated is usually as a percentage of the amount that would otherwise be spent per pupil in the area public school. For example, I know that in Illinois, the annual spending per pupil is about $10,000. A school voucher program here might be worth 40% of that--$4,000--so to defray government school administrative costs and provide enough for a good religious or even private school tuition.

Now that I've explained that, let me address a letter that I read today in the Salt Lake Tribune, a major paper in Utah, where, like I wrote, a major educational freedom has been enacted (but faces a serious challenge this November).

In a letter entitled "Vote down vouchers," John Nelson laments the fact that Utah is at the bottom of the list of states when it comes to spending on the government school system. I really see no problem with that--that isn't the issue. The issue should be one of performance, not how much is spent.

His main complaint with the idea of vouchers, however, is the fact that wealthy families will be able to get the same vouchers as all other Utahans:

"...[W]here will the money come from? It'll come out of your pocket one way or another. Do you want your tax money to be given to wealthy families who want you to subsidize their children's private education?"

Here's the truth: Even the children of wealthy parents are eligible to go to public schools, where thousands of dollars of tax money would be spent on them regardless of how much their household income is. (Besides, how many "wealthy families" are there in Utah? Compared to the overall population that would benefit from school choice, my guess is that it's very few, just like everywhere else.)

The point of a voucher program is to give parents a say in where their kids go to school, and also where to spend a portion of the money that would be spent on them on them anyway.

To answer your question, Mr. Nelson--"Where will the money come from?"--I'll say this: It'll come from the taxpayers, yes, but at least now, it'll create an environment for better educated children and better public and private schools. The money comes from the taxpayers now, so absolutely nothing changes in that regard.

To borrow a phrase from the Lending Tree commercial (while substituting one word): "Because when schools compete, you win."

Find out more about the Utah voucher program and the campaign to keep it alive at choiceineducation.org.

Although most of the smart reforms were not passed during the recent Michigan government standoff, there was one reform that eeked by: Now school districts must explore ways to save money on employees' health insurance. Can you believe that they didn't have to do this before?

Kyle Olson of the MI-based Education Action Group, along with Dick Morris, last Thursday published a column in the Detroit News:

The new law requires school boards to solicit four bids for health care benefits for school employees. Perhaps the most profound of the changes forces existing companies and third party administrators to release anonymous claims history. This piece is critical because it allows competing companies to give more accurate bids. 

But school boards must not be cowed by pushy unions, and actually take advantage of this new route to competition (and saving the taxpayers a lot of money):

But the estimated savings will only be realized if school board members make decisions on health coverage based on actual bids and not on bargaining requirements. An MEA local may still insist on the district buying through MESSA, even if it isn't the lowest bidder. Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers to get the best deal so more tax dollars flow to the classroom. Every taxpayer should demand their school board take advantage of the power this school reform gives them. It is one more way to send dollars to where they're needed most: directly educating our kids.

The case of Avery Doninger is sweeping the web like wildfire right now. People believe that citizens--yes, students are citizens, too--have the right to petition their school administrators without the risk of persecution. 

The story went like this: Last year, high school junior Avery Doninger was her class's secretary at Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, CT. She led the charge to get a battle-of-the-bands concert to be in the school's gym instead of its cafeteria--neither being an ideal place for a concert, but let's face it, who wants to go to a concert where the lunch lady serves the mystery bean dish of the day?

School administrators denied her and her colleagues' requests, and then got really upset when parents and other taxpayers called in. I mean, wouldn't you if your employment and extremely generous benefits were dependent on keeping people in the dark? Government employees of all shades prefer darkness to sunlight, and Avery had just crossed the line.

Avery later wrote a blog post on her private website calling the administrators some choice names, so they punished her, even going so far as to nullify her victory as senior class secretary. The government-backed...whoops, I mean "school-backed" candidate was placed into office, even though he or she came in second place. This even after Avery apologized for her choice of words.

Where does the school get the ability to punish Avery for something she wrote after school and on a private blog? How can the school teach students about a free, pluralistic society when they demonstrate invalidating a democratic victory of a student they do not like? What kind of example are these adults setting when they bar free speech at a school assembly, and confiscate "Team Avery" t-shirts off of students?

If you feel the same way as I--that Avery Doninger's constitutional rights are being violated by a vindictive school administration--then join the Team Avery Facebook group, and keep on top of events as a case to recognize Avery's victory, and for an apology from Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz.

UPDATE: You can donate to Doninger's legal fund here. 

We’re always happy to see local groups getting noticed for their efforts to defend liberty.

That’s why we’re glad that Michigan’s Education Action Group (EAG) is gaining more and more traction. We featured them earlier this summer, and the Michigan Media recently took notice of their work—and just this past weekend, they were promoted by Dick Morris, best-selling author, Fox News analyst, and former strategist to Bill Clinton.

Morris was part of a panel discussing school reform issues at the Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, and he spoke highly of the EAG’s work to ensure that taxpayer dollars are actually going to educate children. He said:

“What I love about [EAG’s] approach is that instead of dealing with [reform] on a cosmic level, they’re dealing with it on a very specific level—of real tangible stuff that has nothing to do with children, except freeing more assets to go to children.”

The EAG hopes to have a video of Morris’s full remarks soon—so stay tuned.

Our friends at E³--New Jersey's educational freedom organization--have begun a weekly podcast/radio show called The Third Rail, and it's worth checking out.

Listen to it on their website, and keep an ear out for it on your local NPR station.

The highlight of last week's episode, for me, was E³'s Deputy Director Derrell Bradford calling foul on the concept of "highly qualified teachers" as outlined in the big-government No Child Left Behind program. When the program's host recounted a newspaper headline that said, "99 Percent of NJ School Teachers Are 'Highly Qualified,' Derrell chimed in, "That's like saying that 99 percent of people with two legs are highly qualified at walking."

For more amusing--and painfully true--rhetorical gems like that, listen to The Third Rail for yourself.

We’ve profiled Michigan resident Kyle Olson before for his efforts as a Michigan Education Association (MEA) watchdog and as “the guy who will rally communities to support school boards when they are casting those tough votes on union contracts and privatization.”

But we’re not the only ones who have taken notice.

Today, the Grand Rapids Press printed a piece spotlighting Olson’s work. Read it here.

How much do government school teachers and administrators make in your neck of the woods?

If you're in Illinois you can find out. A group called The Champion Foundation has a database of the salaries of government school employees, as well as a pension calculator.

Did you know that the New Trier superintendent's pension would be $231,000 with a 3% annual increase? That's paying him not to work! Did you also know that Superintendent Henry S. Bangser's salary increased by $116,000 just since 2003?

The mission of The Champion Foundation is "to act as a counter-veiling force to ineffective and uninformed school boards, administrators, and teachers unions." To that end, they've done a good amount of research for The Champion School Accountability Project. 

Go ahead and do your own digging. Share what you find out. 

Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker is turning things around in his city, starting with embracing a proven system of educational choice.

The Wall Street Journal featured a profile on Mayor Booker this past weekend, highlighting his opinion that fixing the school system will be a cornerstone for revitalizing his city.

Part of Mr. Booker's solution to [Newark's] dilemma is education reform centered on school choice. "It's the last frontier we have to cross in order to become the most thriving city in America," he states confidently. "Parents in Newark are more demanding than ever, and they deserve a plethora of options of excellence to choose from that meet the needs of their kids." Mr. Booker is a longtime advocate of school choice: In 1999 he helped found E³, a prominent education-reform group in New Jersey that pushes for charter schools and vouchers for inner-city communities. 

We've written about E³ in the past (read our article here), pointing out the group's focus on building broad coalitions in order to put parents back in control of their students' education. 

It's my opinion that government bureaucrats who are far-removed from school districts know very little about what students in diverse communities need from their schools, and it appears that Mayor Booker agrees:

Before Mr. Booker can pursue any sweeping reforms, though, he must wrest control of the district from the state, which took over in 1995. "My goal is to turn the clock back to the '70s and vest control in the mayor to appoint school board members that can drive an agenda for reform," Mr. Booker says with hope. "Elected school boards often hit the lowest common denominator...they are not the way to get courageous, driven change." 

Sounds good to me!

Download the entire WSJ article on Mayor Booker and his proposed reforms for Newark (PDF file).

And let's remember: a "dialogue" is always a two-way thing. Tell that to school boards and town councils in Connecticut (or, really, anywhere else).

One Florence Stahl of the Avon Taxpayers Association located in, predictably, Avon, CT, has a great op-ed in today's Hartford Courant in which she explains how the rules for approving school budgets ought to be subject to a lot more public attention and scrutiny, especially considering that such spending accounts for more than half of towns' annual budgets throughout the state.

She writes:

"Informing taxpayers is not disrespecting teachers, the teaching profession or negotiators' hard work. Rather, an informational session could be a defining moment dispelling the mystique that has surrounded education negotiations for far too long. Public engagement is, after all, the cornerstone of a democracy...Without a public forum at which people can ask questions and seek explanations, [simply posting information onto a website or press release is] nothing more than a one-way conversation."

Read more at courant.com.  

And, as always, we welcome two-way conversations on our blog. Please let us know what you think by commenting on any blog posts, or sending us an e-mail at info@samadamsalliance.org

Just ask parents and taxpayers in Rockwood, PA who have formed the Rockwood Area Taxpayers Association to investigate corruption an unaccountability in their local school board.

The Tribune-Democrat reports that the school district borrowed $500,000 to account for a "budget error," a move that motivated some people to take a closer look.

“For the past couple of years, nothing has been done to improve educational programs for students and, at the same time, our fund balance is exhausted,” association member Susan Gerhard said. “We’re basically bankrupt.”

Read the entire article here.

 

When your school districts trustees are corrupt, and they build themselves fancy buildings instead of spending money on students, well, then, what do you do? A citizens' group in Orange County, CA has a plan, and it's called a recall.

The OC Register today reports that a citizens' group called CUSD Recall is prepping to gather 60,000 signatures to recall four school district trustees.  The OC Register writes:

Parents and residents say they will again try to recall four Capistrano Unified trustees, saying the trustees have allowed a "culture of corruption" and "grossly mismanaged finances" in the county's second-largest school district.

Their action comes a week before the district's former superintendent is scheduled to be arraigned on charges of using taxpayer money to produce and keep lists of political appointments.

Check out CUSD Recall's website. It's extremely comprehensive, and is a model for anyone interested in taking matters of school board corruption into their own hands. 

You want evidence? I've got your evidence right here, buddy.

Anyone who knows me--outside of the Internet realm, that is--knows that my favorite magazine is The Economist.

Well, this week, this staple of informed journalism has a great piece on the evidence in favor of promoting more school choice and educational freedom. Its correspondents write:

"More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition."

Sweden and Chile have it; but why not we here in this country? 

Two words: Da Unions.

You'd think that the people of Ohio--especially parents with children in school--would have quite a say in what policies their governor supports. Think again.

OH Governor Ted Strickland bucks the people's wishes for a program giving them a say in where they send their kids to school. I wrote about the EdChoice program a few weeks ago, but now we have a bit more data to show that Ohio parents are craving the ability to educate their children well.

The Columbus Dispatch writes:

"Nearly three times as many people — 7,957 — are seeking to use vouchers to pay for private-school tuition for the coming school year compared with the number currently in EdChoice. There are 2,785 in the statewide program this academic year, which is available to students assigned to low-performing public schools. Most of those — 2,545 — have applied to continue in the program."

So, who's the Governor actually listening to, the clear wishes of his constituent-customers...or someone else?

Who issued this unequivocally straightforward statement of deservingnity–one can make up words on blogs, right?–and what, exactly, do "they" deserve? Could it possibly have something to do with educational freedom, and could the utterer of these words be a friend (or foe) of school choice?

Well, turns out he's a foe, and his name is Mike Merrifield, Colorado State Representative Mike Merrifield to be exact. Until recently, he was the chairman of the Colorado legislature’s education committee...until he let a fellow state rep know that he believes, and I quote, "There must be a special place in hell for these Privatizers, Charterizers and Voucherizers...They deserve it!"

We don't hear that kind of rhetoric on the campaign trail now, do we?

Jim Waters of the Kentucky-based Bluegrass Institute has more in an article that he wrote on their website, where he elaborates more on some politicians' opposition to educational freedom. He also includes a few notes on some of the most recent school choice successes nationwide, one of the most profound of which is in my home state of Georgia.

Oh yeah, Georgians (and everybody else) sure do deserve it. School choice, that is.

The politicians sure aren't keen on doing anything about it, so why don't you?

A gentleman named Christopher Knight ran for a position on the Rockingham County, NC school board. He didn't win, but check out his sweet ad.

Frequently, the best examples of government bureaucracies run amok can be found in local school boards. Because officials have little to no competition for their product--as well as a guaranteed source of funding in the taxpayers--waste runs rampant, and kids are the ones who stand to lose the most.

That's why I'm encouraged to see that proponents of Utah's new school voucher program have built a new website to inform parents and dispel some of the disinformation about this infant program. UtahVouchers.com discusses the Parent Choice in Education Act--which the governor signed into law last month--and gives parents basic information about how they and all Utah schools can benefit.

Check it out, and pay a visit to their brand-new blog, too.

For news on the latest battle for educational freedom.

In his State of the State address last week, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland announced that he is ending funding for the year-old EdChoice school voucher program. The program provides scholarships to 2,829 students in underperforming school districts to attend private schools.

"To me, vouchers are inherently undemocratic because they allow public dollars to be used in ways and in settings where the public has little or no oversight," said Strickland in a recent interview with the AP. (I added emphasis on the one word on which Strickland is basing his entire opposition to the program...at least in public.)

But answer me this, Mr. Governor: Why have nearly 3,000 students' parents decided to take their children out of failing government schools and, instead, send them to private schools? Could it be because "public oversight" was failing their children, and that they have more faith in their own oversight in matters having to do with the education of their children?

A monopoly of any size or industry cannot accurately gauge the needs of its customers, and Ohio's government school system is no different.

Here's to the promise of educational competition everywhere, even if Governor Strickland can't (or won't) see it in Ohio.

So says Mike Rosen of Utah educrats in the Rocky Mountain News:  

The state of Utah has just passed a landmark educational voucher program under which every family, depending on its income, will be reimbursed between $500 and $3,000 per child for annual tuition paid to the private school of their choice....This will now give parents of modest means options that the well-to-do have long enjoyed. 

Predictably, the educratic establishment is in full counterattack. The Utah teachers' union has launched a campaign to repeal the new law. If that fails, they'll try their luck in court. Their resistance is bred of desperation.

Read more for details on Utah's upcoming battle for educational freedom. 

Last week, Diane Rado at the Chicago Tribune reported: 

The biggest advocates for Illinois' school boards and administrators have been making millions of dollars off school districts and taxpayers, court and financial records show.

The Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Association of School Business Officials and the Illinois Association of School Administrators set up a non-profit energy company in 1999 to help school districts get better deals on electricity and gas.

But to the surprise of many school officials, the Illinois Energy Consortium, as the company is called, has been charging the districts fees that have nothing to do with utility service. The financial details are disclosed in a Cook County Circuit Court lawsuit filed in June.

How did this get unearthed?  An effort driven largely by the hard work of several Illinois residents who decided to tackle government accountability at the local level. Read the whole story to learn more.