Free-Market Accountability Could Rescue Our Schools

February 3, 2016 by

 

        The  Wall Street Journal

  • LETTERS
    Updated March 30, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

Philip K. Howard’s March 25 op-ed, “Why Freer Schools Are Better Schools,” correctly points to “centralized legal dictates” as the shackles that keep teachers and principals from exercising common sense. However, his solution, “to abandon adversarial legal proceedings and protect against abuses with a local oversight board,” betrays his misunderstanding of the fundamental difference between government accountability and free-market accountability. Local oversight boards already exist. They are called school boards, and they have already demonstrated their inability to provide “common sense” in large urban school districts.

A government accountability system is always a mandate-entitlement system. Government can only exercise its management authority by passing “dictates.” Even if the legislature’s motives were to transcend politics, it suffers from Friedrich Hayek’s “lack of knowledge” problem. The legislature in Austin, Texas can’t possibly know what Johnny in Houston and Mary in El Paso need.

This system is also based on entitlements. Since parents have been stripped of all authority, they also have no responsibility. Their children are “entitled” to an education regardless of how badly the parents or children behave. Hoping to solve Mr. Howard’s complaints within this system is like hoping to put the square peg in the round hole.

In contrast, a free-market accountability system encourages common sense and avoids most “dictates” because it is a voluntary-contract system. A mutually voluntary system is the opposite of a mandate system. The “lack of knowledge” problem is minimized because the great majority of parents know their children better than anyone else.

A contract system provides for mutual responsibility, not entitlement. The parents are responsible to deliver a child who is ready to learn. Tuition or scholarship funds must be paid. The school is responsible to teach the values and academics desired by the parents. If either the school or the parents don’t meet their responsibilities under the contract, it terminates, and the family moves on to establish a contract with another school. The free-enterprise system by its very nature solves Mr. Howard’s complaints.

We are squandering the greatest resource that any nation has, our children. Depriving them of their financial inheritance through Social Security and Medicare is nothing compared to depriving them of the ability to be productive citizens by not educating them.

Bob Schoolfield

President
Texans for Parental Choice in Education
Austin, Texas

Detroit’s Public School Plague

January 23, 2016 by

A teacher walkout highlights the need for radical reform.

Jan. 22, 2016 5:55 p.m. ET
The Wall Street Journal

As if Flint’s water crisis wasn’t bad enough for urban Michigan, on Wednesday 88 of Detroit’s 100 public schools shut down, after 800 some teachers called in sick purportedly to protest their abject working conditions. Many Motown schools are a picture of poverty, but the root of the rot is the lack of accountability for failure.

Unions orchestrated Wednesday’s teacher “sick-out,” the latest of more than a half dozen this school year, to coincide with President Obama’s visit touting the White House auto bailout. Their goal is to draw political steam from Flint, flog supposed Republican racial animus—95% of students are black or Latino—and impel a bailout.

Media accounts of Detroit schools have documented rodent infestation, caving ceilings, black mold and putrid air. Emergency manager Darnell Earley, who previously ran Flint until being redeployed this month to Detroit by Governor Rick Snyder, has become a scapegoat. But the collapse of Detroit’s schools has been decades in the making.

Enrollment has fallen by two-thirds since 2000 due to population flight and charter-school expansion. Public schools have lost about 71,000 students in a decade while charters have gained 23,000. About 53% of Detroit students attend charters compared to 20% in 2006.

Detroit Public Schools have $3.5 billion in liabilities including $1.3 billion for pension and retirement health benefits. Since 2009 the public school system has been under the guardianship of a state emergency manager. Although 100 schools have since closed, deficits persist. This year’s $215 million hole is nearly a third of the district’s general fund revenues.

The district has repeatedly borrowed to balance its budget in lieu of making capital repairs and improvements. Legacy costs have diverted money from instruction, while good teachers have left for charters that offer more freedom and class discipline. Seniority-based layoffs force out promising young teachers while tenure protects the worst. Collective bargaining agreements block reforms like longer school days. The union contract also prohibits strikes, so instead teachers call in sick.

No surprise then that Detroit has ranked at the bottom of 21 large urban public school districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress since 2009. Last year only 4% of Detroit eighth graders were proficient in math and 7% in reading. A Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcome study last year found that Detroit charter students on average gained 65 days of learning in math and 50 days in reading per year over their public school counterparts.

Mr. Snyder has proposed spinning off Detroit Public Schools’ debt, which would be paid down over time with state aid. A new debt-free district would be created with state funds. Financial engineering and more aid may forestall bankruptcy, but they won’t improve math scores.

Detroit schools need radical reform, and the expiration of the teachers’ collective-bargaining agreement in June gives state guardians an opening. One model is New Orleans, which converted nearly all of its schools to charters after Hurricane Katrina. Strict accountability should require low-performing charters to close. Detroit’s poverty is real, but it doesn’t excuse continuing educational failure.

Carly Fiorina on Education : Mar 24, 2015

November 21, 2015 by

Synthesis of public school system and competitive vouchers

In education, the polarizing debate is about vouchers versus public schools. It’s about “teaching to the test” versus “teaching that nourishes hearts and souls.” It’s about squeezing history and music and philosophy out of the curricula in order to make room for math and science and reading in the quest for test scores and future funding.

Let me tackle just one dimension of the debate: The private versus public school debate–free access for all versus a free-market voucher-driven system. The thesis on the table is: Keep the system the way it is–a vast system of public schools, some with strong performance, but many that are able to achieve only the lowest common denominator. The antithesis: Let competition reign, give all students vouchers, and let the strongest schools prosper–and the weakest ones perish.

Perhaps the synthesis would be far more than just a compromise–it allows us to build on the best of what we have, but instills new responsibility and accountability to the system as well.

Louisiana’s School Voucher Victory

November 21, 2015 by

Bobby Jindal made a name for himself in the GOP by championing school choice. Upstaged by new candidates on the block, the Louisiana Governor this week dropped out of the Republican presidential race. But at least the education reformer can take heart that his private-school voucher legacy has finally been protected.

Last week a 2-1 majority of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court ruling that granted the Justice Department pre-clearance review of Louisiana vouchers. The “burdensome, costly, and endless” process imposed “a vast and intrusive reporting regime on the State without any finding of unconstitutional conduct,” wrote appellate Judge Edith Jones for the majority.

The rebuke punctuates a sordid, two-year case in which the Obama Administration sought to deny poor, black kids better educational opportunities under the pretext of promoting integration. In August 2013 Justice sued to block Louisiana’s vouchers, which the Administration claimed appeared “to impede the desegregation progress” of public schools under federal desegregation orders dating to the 1960s and ’70s.

Only students who come from families below 250% of the poverty and attend schools with a C or lower grade are eligible for the vouchers. In 2013 black students received 85% of 6,800 vouchers awarded. But Justice complained that black voucher recipients might leave their failing public schools more white.

According to a study by Boston University political scientist Christine Rossell—who has analyzed desegregation plans for more than 25 years—Louisiana vouchers “had no negative effect on school desegregation in the 34 school districts under a desegregation court order.” Justice produced no evidence to the contrary.

Switching tactics, Justice in November 2013 asked the court to allow federal oversight of Louisiana’s vouchers under a 1975 desegregation order that banned public funding of discriminatory private schools. Justice demanded that the state, prior to issuing vouchers, hand over racial data for each public school as well as applicants’ names, addresses, race, previous public school and private school preference.

In April 2014, federal Judge Ivan Lemelle imposed a tortuous federal pre-clearance review that allowed Justice to veto voucher awards. Parents of voucher recipients and the Louisiana Black Alliance for Educational Options petitioned to intervene in the case. They argued that the feds didn’t have jurisdiction over a private school voucher program.

The Fifth Circuit agreed. As Judge Jones explains, Justice can’t compel disclosure of state records without alleging illegal public aid of discriminatory private schools, which it didn’t. “DOJ admits that [its] position amounts to a fishing expedition,” writes Judge Jones, and an “attempt—through pre-award ‘back and forth’ with the state on every single voucher—to regulate the program without any legal judgment against the state.” Justice’s argument “represents more than ineffective lawyering.”

The Administration’s dubious prosecution of vouchers in Louisiana reflects its willingness to throw poor kids under the bus to curry favor with the teachers’ unions. Unlike President Obama, Mr. Jindal will leave office on the right side of history.

Clinton Turns Against Charters

November 21, 2015 by

Hillary Clinton has moved to the left of President Obama on trade, energy, immigration, student loans, health care and entitlements. But even we’re surprised by her latest move, which is to turn against charter schools as an engine of education opportunity.

“Most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation,” Mrs. Clinton said last weekend in South Carolina. She also acknowledged that “for many years now” she has “supported the idea of charter schools,” though “not as a substitute for the public schools.”

The Center for Education Reform Senior Fellow Jeanne Allen on the presidential hopeful’s embrace of teachers unions. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Well, as Mrs. Clinton used to appreciate, charter schools are public schools—albeit freed from bureaucracy and union work rules. In her 1996 memoir, “It Takes a Village,” she wrote that “I favor promoting choice among public schools, much as the President’s Charter Schools Initiative encourages.” In 2007 she told a teachers-union conference in New York that “I actually do believe in charter schools.”

Why the sudden change? Her press assistant explained to Politico that “Hillary Clinton looks at the evidence. That’s what she did here.” Sorry, that quote is from Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.6 million-member American Federation of Teachers that endorsed Mrs. Clinton in July, 16 months before Election Day. The National Education Association followed. Unions loathe charter competition, and Mrs. Clinton is returning the favor of these early endorsements.

If Mrs. Clinton had looked at the evidence, she’d have seen a different story about charters and “the hardest-to-teach kids.” Charters don’t exclude difficult students. Like other public schools, they aren’t allowed to discriminate. Nearly every state requires a random lottery to choose students if there are more applicants than openings. The reason some charters turn away students is that they lack the resources to accommodate every desperate family trapped in a teachers-union compound.

Charters serve some of the most troubled students, including a higher percentage in poverty than all public schools, according to Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes. In urban centers in particular, charters serve mostly minority students and include more who are learning English than do public schools as a whole.

Mrs. Clinton knows these basic facts, so she may be tapping into the recent political melodrama over New York City’s Success Academy charter schools. Founder Eva Moskowitz runs tight ships, and students who misbehave can expect the once typical response called discipline. Ms. Weingarten has been running a political and media campaign against Success Academy, though its attrition levels are lower than district averages in the Big Apple. If you want to see public schools that really don’t tolerate disruptive students, go to your average rich suburban school.

Mrs. Clinton’s charter reversal suggests her Education Department would be a wholly owned union subsidiary. The losers will be the poor parents and children who Democrats claim to represent.

The Education Gangs of Los Angeles

September 14, 2015 by

 

Meet the decorated former Green Beret

who is rallying Los Angeles parents to fight

the unions and reform the worst public schools,

one school at a time.

PHOTO: KEN FALLIN

Anaheim, Calif.

When most people think of this quintessential California suburb, the Angels baseball team or Disneyland probably comes to mind. But a five-minute drive from the “happiest place on earth” takes you to Palm Lane Elementary, ground zero in a fight between teachers unions and parents who are trying to fix California’s broken public schools. The conflict—as so often in American education—boils down to unionized teachers trying to stop minority children from attending charter schools.

Ninety percent of Palm Lane students come from low-income families. About 85% are Latino, and more than half aren’t native English speakers. Palm Lane has been on the California Education Department’s list of underperforming schools since 2003. In 2013 a mere 38% of students scored proficient or better in English on state tests. And Palm Lane is hardly an exception in the area: Four other elementary schools in Anaheim rank even lower on the state’s Academic Performance Index.

But Alfonso Flores is leading a grass-roots insurgency against the union-controlled regime at Palm Lane. The former teacher and father of four kids who attend public schools in Hesperia has used the state’s “parent trigger” law, passed in 2010, to force changes at a half-dozen schools in California. The law stipulates that if a majority of parents at a struggling school sign a petition, they can compel changes in school management or personnel. Sometimes, the parents contract with a charter-school operator. In one case, they hired a new principal. Parents have also used the law as a negotiating tool to force the district to make improvements like adding more staff.

As the new school year was getting started, Mr. Flores sat down with me in the park next to Park Lane that has served as a meeting place and training ground for parents in the trigger campaign. The 45-year-old decorated Gulf War veteran has plenty of stories to tell about doing battle with teachers unions that bring heavy artillery to every fight.

“It’s grass-roots,” he says of parent-trigger efforts, “and that’s what scares the teachers unions.”

Mr. Flores, a self-described “anchor baby” of Mexican immigrants, knows firsthand the value of escaping bad schools. As a child in the 1970s, he spent three hours daily on a bus trekking to and from a school in the San Fernando Valley under the Los Angeles Unified School District’s desegregation plan. Busing to achieve racial integration is hardly optimal, but Mr. Flores says it did allow him to avoid the horrendous schools in the Los Angeles inner city.

As a senior in high school, he signed up with the U.S. Army and after graduating served tours in Colombia, the Persian Gulf and Somalia. “I wanted a way to thank my country for allowing my parents to bring me to this great nation,” he explains. In 10 years the Green Beret earned a Silver Star and two Purple Hearts, and he lost a kidney after being wounded in the 1993 rescue mission in Mogadishu, Somalia, that was depicted in the movie “Black Hawk Down.”

During his military service, Mr. Flores says, he was struck by his fellow soldiers’ deficient educations. They had to “redo grammar school” because they “couldn’t write a simple report,” he recalls. “The Pentagon has complained about high-school kids not able to pass the ASVAB”—the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.

After an honorable discharge in 1998, he got his teaching credential from California State University at Dominguez Hills. His first teaching job was at Normandie Avenue, one of the worst elementary schools in L.A. One teacher, Mr. Flores recalls, would watch television while students filled in coloring sheets. A new principal tried to raise standards, he says, but if she entered a classroom without the teacher’s permission, she would get slapped with a union grievance.

In 2007, after being named a district teacher of the year, Mr. Flores was hired as the founding principal of the Global Education Academy, a charter school in South Los Angeles with an almost entirely black and Latino student population. Although most teachers were young and inexperienced, the charter far outperformed neighboring public schools. In 2008, 88% of its students scored proficient or advanced in math, compared with 37% districtwide.

The key to improving student performance, Mr. Flores says, was engaging parents. At most public schools, “parents are treated with hostility,” but at charters, administrators and teachers tend to “embrace parents as partners.” Teachers unions and their liberal allies blame poverty for bad schools, but Mr. Flores calls that an insult to good teachers who are helping poor children succeed: “Poverty is not an issue.”

In 2011 Mr. Flores joined the nonprofit Parent Revolution, inspired by the group’s role in California’s first parent-trigger campaign, at McKinley Elementary in Compton. McKinley parents wanted a high-performing charter operator to take over the failing school but were stymied by the teachers union, which had joined forces with the school district.

The union tactics at McKinley included requiring parents to show up at the school during the workday with a photo ID—a good way to scare off illegal immigrants—to verify their signatures. The trigger petition failed after a lengthy court battle, but Mr. Flores says the injustice propelled him to enlist as a parent organizer. “Before you begin a petition drive, you have to start a parent organization,” Mr. Flores says. Parents “have to be aware of how the system works and how the system is broken.”

For instance, “parents are unaware that principals don’t have power to dismiss or even hire their own staff. Districts do a really good job of keeping parents away from all of this information,” Mr. Flores notes. “Once they learn, it agitates them even more.”

But the biggest challenge is collecting signatures while being barraged by the unions. In every petition campaign, he says, “they use the same accusations and playbook.” Two standbys are false charges that the petition organizers are bribing parents to sign and that the people gathering the signatures are paid by outside groups.

The unions hit the “outsider” label hard, Mr. Flores says, alleging that petition organizers “have a political agenda—that we’re trying to privatize education.” Another union tactic: Overplay the collateral damage, telling parents that a petition could force the school to close. When all else fails, the unions try to junk the petition signatures. In the parent-trigger drive Mr. Flores helped organize at Desert Trails Elementary in Adelanto in 2012, the school board invalidated nearly 100 signatures. But a state judge ordered the district to accept the petition and allow the charter conversion.

Compared with fighting unions, Mr. Flores’s encounters with local gang leaders have been a relative breeze.

“In every campaign I’ve been a part of, you have situations where you have to respect the community,” Mr. Flores says. “That means if the local community leader is a minister, you meet with the minister. In Watts, it was a gang leader.” That was three years ago, he says, when Latino parents at Weigand Avenue Elementary were seeking to oust the principal. A black pastor said he had to get permission from a local gang to mobilize parents, and he set up a meeting at the gang leader’s apartment.

“There were all types of weapons throughout the house. I remember opening the door and that distinctive smell of marijuana,” Mr. Flores recalls. “I was afraid because I was aware of the turf battles—the fact that I was Latino and they were African-American.”

But the only triggers that came up in the meeting were of the parental variety. To Mr. Flores’s amazement, the gang members supported the Weigand Avenue takeover. One, he says, “happened to be a former student at the school and said, ‘You need to do this for the future generation of kids, because I am a product of this school.’ He was very self-aware.” While parents gathered signatures, Mr. Flores says, the gang “would egg us on and tell us they were sending parents our way.”

The petition at Weigand succeeded, but Mr. Flores says he grew frustrated by what he perceived as an inefficient use of resources at Parent Revolution. In 2014 he left to launch his own school-reform outfit, Excellent Educational Solutions.

Later that year, he got a call from Gloria Romero—the former Democratic state Senate majority leader, who co-authored the parent-trigger law—about organizing a campaign at Palm Lane in Anaheim.

Palm Lane had cycled through five principals in three years. Mr. Flores says the catalyst for the petition drive at the school was the removal of a principal who had “started making teachers accountable” by taking steps like requiring them to assign homework. Teachers howled, and soon the school board reassigned the principal—to work as a teacher at another school.

Parents went public with their outrage. Ms. Romero proposed that Mr. Flores help mobilize them for a petition drive. When presented with various trigger options, parents chose to go for a charter-school conversion.

Mr. Flores used the park outside the school for daily parent meetings. Some mornings, he says, “we had to be out here at 6:30” to catch parents before they went to work. With a three-member team and $60,000 budget, Mr. Flores gave parents a tutorial in public-school dysfunction.

“Parents don’t know about API”—the state’s Academic Performance Index—“but they know when their kids don’t have homework, it is an issue,” he says.

Once again, the union pulled out its playbook. Signature gatherers were accused of bribing parents with iPads. The Anaheim City School District superintendent wrote a letter warning parents: “It has been reported to us that there are people in our community who have been paid by an organization to gather parent signatures for a petition that could completely change the way some of our schools are run.”

The parents were unmoved. More than 60% signed the petition—but the district threw out 133 of the 488 signatures. The matter moved to the courts, and in July a state superior court judge reprimanded the district’s conduct as “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and unfair” and ordered the school board to accept the petition.

The school board has appealed and doubled the contract for its legal firm, to $678,000. The fight has garnered plenty of headlines in California, but state leaders like Gov. Jerry Brown and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson have been notably silent.

Mr. Flores notes that the Democrat-dominated legislature in Sacramento has made a point of spending big on schools with a high concentration of disadvantaged students, with little to show for it. “You could throw millions of dollars into these schools,” he says, “and if there is no accountability, you have the same situation.”

When it comes to education reform, Mr. Flores says, “parents shouldn’t be leading this, it should be the state.” But given the stakes, he adds, sounding a militant note, sometimes “you have to force change.”

Ms. Finley is an editorial writer for the Journal.

The Judges Who Stole School Choice

September 8, 2015 by

A court rejects a voter-passed charter law in Washington state.

Eight new charter schools in Washington state opened this fall, but on Friday the state Supreme Court delivered a grim surprise by overturning the state’s charter law. Welcome back to the public school monopoly, kids.

The 6-3 ruling is as politically driven as it is overreaching and legally flawed. In 2012 voters approved a ballot initiative sponsored by Bill Gates and others that authorized up to 40 charter schools over five years. The law requires that charters receive per-pupil funding equal to that of traditional public schools and that taxpayer dollars follow the student.

The education axis of unions and administrators struck back in a lawsuit claiming that charters violate constitutional limits on funding for “common schools” (public schools). They also claimed charters aren’t accountable to local voters.

In fact, charters are far more accountable than traditional public schools. Charters must submit detailed applications to a state commission explaining, among other things, their curriculum, standards and plans for special-needs students. They must also submit to a public forum—i.e., a union beating. They provide annual performance reports, and the State Board of Education can sanction charters that fail to achieve their objectives and close those in the bottom quartile of public schools. Only the lowest 5% of traditional schools must propose corrective plans.

So it’s ironic that the majority cites a 1909 state Supreme Court ruling that “common schools” must be “subject to and under the control of the qualified voters” who “through their chosen agents” can “select qualified teachers, with powers to discharge them if they are incompetent.” According to the majority, charters are not “common” or accountable because their boards aren’t elected by voters—even if the law establishing them was.

The reality is that local school boards are responsible mainly to unions thanks to collective bargaining. Tenure protections all but guarantee incompetent teachers lifetime job security. Because charters are liberated from state tenure and collective-bargaining, they can dismiss lousy teachers.

The liberal majority’s real concern is preserving the union monopoly. Thus the court bars charters from tapping $2 billion in funds that the state constitution specifically restricts to so-called common schools. But the intent of this constitutional provision was to prevent the legislature from siphoning off designated education funds for other programs. Charter schools are public schools too.

The majority also blocks charters from accessing the state’s general fund because, lo, the restricted revenues come out of the same pot. Yet many education programs such as community college tuition for high school seniors are financed out of the general fund. By the majority’s logic, all of these programs are unconstitutional—and so is every other program that draws money from the general fund.

The ruling leaves 1,200 kids now attending charters in the lurch. Democratic Governor Jay Inslee hasn’t offered a solution, but the legislature needs to reconvene to pass a stopgap. In any event the liberal Justices should be held accountable for their political ruling in next year’s judicial retention election.

Nevada’s Voucher Breakout

September 2, 2015 by

Unions and the ACLU fight universal statewide school choice.

ENLARGE
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES/HERO IMAGES

The hullabaloo over Common Core is obscuring some major school choice flashpoints in the states. Consider Nevada, where the union for the public school status quo is suing to block revolutionary education savings accounts.

Earlier this summer Nevada Republicans established universal education savings accounts (ESAs), which allow all parents who withdraw their kids from public schools to spend state funds on private school tuition, textbooks, tutoring fees and special services. Jeb Bush last month praised Nevada’s ESAs as a model for “total voucherization,” which is scaring the unions silly.

Starting next year, parents who opt out of public schools can receive between 90% and 100% of the statewide average per-pupil allotment ($5,100 to $5,700) depending on their income. Unused funds can be rolled over for future expenses including college. According to the Friedman Foundation, ESAs will cover between 60% and 80% of the median tuition at private schools, many of which provide additional financial assistance.

Twenty-three states have enacted 48 private-school choice programs, but nearly all include income and eligibility caps. Four states other than Nevada—Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Mississippi—offer ESAs that are limited to special needs or low-income students.

American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Rick Hess on the political debate over national education standards. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Unions are desperate to prevent Nevada’s model from spreading. They argue that giving all parents these educational options will destroy public schools, but the real point is to break up the union monopoly. Universal ESAs give all low and middle-income students the ability to escape failing schools, while providing enough funding to seed alternatives.

The American Civil Liberties Union last week took up the union water cannon. It argued in a lawsuit that ESAs violate the Nevada constitution’s ban on “public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal” being used for a “sectarian purpose” and undermine “the public school system that the State is constitutionally required to support.”

This is a legal Hail Mary. Dozens of state constitutions include these so-called Blaine amendments, which are a legacy of the anti-Catholic bigotry of the 19th century. Most state courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark 2011 ruling, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, have interpreted these prohibitions narrowly. The High Court ruled that tax credits to nonprofits that fund private school scholarships aren’t government expenditures.

Last year the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an appellate decision that ESAs are constitutional because they are “neutral in all respects toward religion” and direct “aid to a broad class of individuals without reference to religion.” What’s more, “the specified object of the ESA is the beneficiary families, not private or sectarian schools.”

The Institute for Justice, which helped defend Arizona’s ESAs and craft Nevada’s, notes that it is “the independent decision-making by parents that severs any link between church and state.” ESAs give “parents a genuine choice as to how to spend the money.” If ESAs are unconstitutional, then so are state Medicaid reimbursements to religiously affiliated hospitals.

It’s both a shame and reflection of modern liberal politics that the ACLU is teaming up with the teachers union to squash educational freedom.
Sept. 2, 2015

Inefficiency dogs Texas schools as classes resume

August 26, 2015 by

By   /   August 25, 2015  /   8 Comments

AP file photo

DOES NOT COMPUTE: The claim that Texas school funding is inadequate is undercut by financial data that show how the money is actually spent.

 

By Kenric Ward | Texas Watchdog.org

In a Texas Supreme Court showdown, school-reform groups are escalating the fight over education financing. Countering teacher-union claims that state funding formulas are inadequate, reformers say the system is demonstrably inefficient.

Pointing to large and growing diversions of instructional money, reformers contend that Texas schools are failing students.

“We are arguing that the system is not efficient — a term that is in the state constitution,” says Randan Steinhauser, a leader in the school-reform movement. “It’s not fiscally efficient and it’s not adequately educating students.”

Court briefs reviewed by Watchdog.org note that:

  • Less than half of total school revenue ($50 billion) is actually spent on instruction ($24 billion).
  • Teachers make an average of $8,859 less than support staff (not including administrators).
  • Texas school districts have a fund balance exceeding $9.5 billion.
  • From fiscal 1992 to fiscal 2009, Texas’ student population increased 3 percent while school district administrators and other non-teaching staff grew 172 percent.

“Public schools in Texas would have saved almost $6.4 billion if they had not increased the employment of administrators and other non-teaching staff more than the increase in students,” says Peggy Venable, policy and legislative director at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation of Texas.

Venable adds that the cost of lawsuits is also siphoning public funds. She conservatively estimated that $50 million in legal fees have been spent by districts to sue, repeatedly, over funding.

The efficiency argument is gathering steam in advance of the Supreme Court’s scheduled Sept. 1 hearing. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn — a former state attorney general and Supreme Court justice — and former Sen. Phil Gramm are filing supportive briefs with the high court.

Pastors of some of the largest congregations in the state are urging the court to add private school vouchers to address the inefficiency issue. They say per-pupil funding should go with the child to foster choice in education — not to top-heavy government bureaucracies.

Instead of going to classrooms, “money is lining the pockets of superintendents,” Steinhauser said.

RELATED: Three Texas districts mired in fiscal scandals

Charter school advocates are also weighing in, charging that “artificial limits” on the independently operated, publicly funded campuses restrict educational opportunities for Texas children.

“Charter school funding is inequitable,” says Steinhauser. “That’s part of the conversation.”

Even so, lesser-funded charter schools routinely outperform their conventional counterparts.

Though accounting for only 600 of Texas’ 8,574 public schools, 18 charters earned the state’s top five-star academic rating. Just 28 conventional schools scored that high.

Kenric Ward writes for the Texas Bureau of Watchdog.org. Contact him at kward@watchdog.org.

School Choice for Special-Needs Students

August 10, 2015 by

Other children like our son would benefit from having vouchers that increase their options.

The Wall Street Journal

By THOMAS M. CHIAPELAS

My wife, Liz, and I have a 5-year-old son named Sam who, along with his little brother, Pete, is our pride and joy. Sam was diagnosed with autism-spectrum disorder at age 4. The symptoms of ASD vary but are characterized by social deficits and repetitive behavior. His doctor says he is high-functioning, which means that with the right schooling, therapies, teachers and family support Sam could be “mainstreamed” into a regular classroom with his peers in the future.

But getting from here to there is going to take enormous effort, and our local public school has already shown an unwillingness to help. Sam is old enough to attend kindergarten in the fall, but after reading his progress reports and listening to his therapists, Liz and I agreed he was not ready to tackle the added challenges of kindergarten. His language skills are still delayed and he has sensory and social issues that could use another year of work.

Our son was evaluated by the special-education personnel in our public-school district, and we were told he qualified to attend a general education pre-K class for part of the school day and receive therapy in the special-education classroom the other part of the time. We also got him into applied-behavior-analysis (ABA) therapy outside of the school system that was recommended to us by the pediatric neuropsychiatrist who diagnosed him.

So we asked for a meeting with local public-school officials to see if we could keep our son back a year. To our surprise, there were 11 school representatives at the 90-minute meeting, yet not one was qualified to render a decision. We wrote a follow-up letter expressing our disappointment and requested a second meeting.

The second meeting had even more people in attendance and lasted nearly two hours, at the end of which the school administrators said they could not grant Sam an extra year of preschool. Sadly, it was clear to us that pushing him through the system was more important to them than giving him a chance to perform at grade level.

At that point we had no choice but to enroll him in a private, faith-based school where he can repeat his pre-K year and continue an ABA program in the afternoon. We hope this will give Sam the support he needs. This school is aware of his condition and is willing to work with us and our son in conjunction with his ABA therapist to make sure he will be ready for kindergarten.

Thankfully, we could afford to send our son to a nearby private school. But in many families that isn’t an option. For the great majority of children with learning and physical disabilities, the best they can hope for is whatever their local public schools can provide. Too often what is provided is a subpar education that fails to meet the needs of this population. That’s not only unfair, it’s unjust.

That is why, when Americans discuss the need for school choice and vouchers, we should consider students with special needs like our son Sam. Society’s goal should be to give special-needs children their full measure of dignity and opportunity at a school where they can better learn, adapt and thrive. These schools exist, and vouchers can make them more affordable. The schools often are expensive—because it does take more to educate a child with disabilities. But these children, regardless of their parents’ income, deserve a quality education and a chance at life.

A few leaders have pushed back. Jeb Bush is one of them. When he became governor of Florida in the late 1990s he helped to create the state’s McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program. Founded in 1999, the statewide program provides “scholarships for eligible students with disabilities to attend an eligible public or private school of their choice.”

The program is still thriving long after Gov. Bush’s second term ended in 2007, and 28,370 students from 1,248 private schools participated in 2013-14. Students with disabilities ranging from blindness to dyslexia to autism-spectrum disorder received in total more than $180 million in scholarships.

That’s a model that if implemented in more states would help many thousands of kids like our son Sam, and many parents who can’t afford what is often most important in their child’s education: a choice.

Mr. Chiapelas lives in St. Louis.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,783 other followers