Dear Friends:

        Happy New Year! 1994 is already shaping up to be a breakthrough year for education reform. With coordinated, concerted effort on all our parts, we may well see victories for reform in several states.

        The line-up of hot spots follows, along with information about what's being dug up in state law books, a wish list of research projects for the reform movement, and other tidbits.

···················································

        A report issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provided country-by-country spending comparisons and other sundry facts was highly touted in the press, but some of the more salient facts were passed over. For example, in 1991, 2.6 percent of the U.S. workforce was comprised of teachers, while 2.9 percent were involved in education in non-teaching jobs. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the student-teacher ratio is only 15.2 for elementary schools and 15.5 for high schools, which falls right in the middle in comparison to other industrialized nations. The report is chock full of such factoids, and is a must for anyone who speaks, writes or thinks about the subject. We'll have a copy on hand just as soon as the government sends it.

• Arizona

        January 18 could mark the start of a special session of the Arizona legislature devoted to the Governor's education reform package. At the top of the agenda — with the backing of the Governor, both House and Senate leaders, and several members — is a school choice bill that would initiate a parental choice grant pilot program, as well as authorize charter schools. Locally, Jeff Flake of the Goldwater Institute is working with state leaders on pulling together a national SWAT team to help convince fence-sitting Republicans to vote for choice. The influence of our biggest and best leaders in school choice has the potential to make this one a victory. Interestingly, the measure has the support of a very influential business group, which over the past few years had worked through a laundry list of the usual "reforms" before ultimately reaching the conclusion that choice is the answer. It's always nice to welcome supporters home — and instructive to see the evolution that often must take place before leaders are willing to admit that the problem is bigger that the latest education fad.

• Connecticut

        A remarkable meeting of both parties has resulted in support by the House's legislative leader, Democrat Tom Lube, for a school choice bill that would allow local school districts to petition their school board for district-wide choice including private schools. This local option may not automatically result in success, but the provision they've added to help spur reform is to allow any petition turned down by a school board to be voted on by popular referendum. With the support of key Republicans and Democrats, as well as a growing number of organized grass roots groups, this could prove a giant step forward for this New England state.

• New Jersey

        Legislation that provides for private school choice for Jersey City kids, as well as charter schools and public school choice, is about to be introduced in the New Jersey legislature. The first part of the bill is clearly the most important, and, I believe, the most readily done. One hopes that the other provisions don't provide convenient political cover for union-worried legislators, but one thing is certain — of this year's early hot spots, the Jersey City effort enjoys the unequaled advantage of the leadership of Mayor Bret Schundler.

• Texas

        If the attendance and excitement at the November 19 conference sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation is any indication, the battle in Texas to pass a low-income pilot project for school choice is off to a solid start. TPPF gathered an incredible crowd of legislators, media, and community and business leaders who quickly became informed and active solicitors in their state's undertaking. A Texas Coalition for Parental Choice has formed for the grass roots, neatly complementing TPPF's leadership role. This, combined with the readily available fire power of the local private scholarship foundation parents and supporters, can be used to shore up support for choice through this year in preparation for the vote in 1995. Last year, the same bill lost by a tie vote — with little ground work done. By building the networks and a little early planning, we hope we'll soon hear good things out of the Lone Star state.

        We've just completed an action paper summarizing the private scholarship programs, which is enclosed along with two other briefs we've done to give an overview of key topics in education reform. In assessing the progress of private scholarships, one idea came to mind that may be worth considering as a provision for any future choice legislation.

        In private scholarship programs helping thousands of children in states across the country, low-income parents are generally required to match the tuition scholarships they receive. This gives the purchasers a real stake, and as Chubb and Moe discovered, the consumer side of choice is what keeps schools accountable. The idea is to require any recipient of a choice grant to pay some additional amount toward his child's education. Even a small contribution of $200.00 per year would be enough to secure this kind of stakeholder's allegiance to being involved, and ensure that choice works the way it is intended. If low-income parents are required to pay a certain amount (perhaps on a sliding scale), then you bypass some of the criticisms of such programs which contend that some parents aren't willing or aren't able to choose their child's school.

        Why require anything? Well, most choice scholarships, while technically provided to the parents, are really held in the state coffers until the money is redeemed. As such, some say there is a risk that this might then be treated, or at least construed, as just another education entitlement. This is a controversial response, perhaps, but we think worth the discussion. Your thoughts?

        Superintendent of Public Schools Franklin Smith has become an enthusiast of contracting out with the private sector for management and educational services. The D.C. School Board recently toured several sites in Baltimore where Educational Alternatives, Inc., holds a contract with nine schools, and Smith reportedly is close to making a decision. In private, he has suggested that he is also interested in Charter Schools, as well as alternative certification (allowing professionals to skip the traditional route of teacher education to qualify for teaching positions).

        Smith and the Board also let go all the teachers at three schools in D.C. and sought application from among all teachers to refill these vacant positions. All but ten teachers hired for each of the three schools were new, and the departing teachers were re-assigned to other schools where many are reportedly re-energized. This was an attempt to find motivated teachers whose choice in selecting where they work would have a positive effect on their teaching. If the results prove positive, this too could be a model for school districts looking to make an immediate impact, however incremental, in their schools.

        Yes, the unions went nuts, and are thinking about suing on behalf of some disgruntled teachers who were reassigned. Stay tuned.

        Many have asked us, "What are the pro-active research needs of choice reformers and advocates?"

        Nothing replaces the kind of facts unearthed from Cooper and Sarrel's report on New York City spending; or Denis Doyle's past work on the number of public school teachers sending their kids to private schools. While Denis is doing an update, and we're working on expanding the New York City study into other states, there are many other research projects that are worth supporting among our vast array of policy groups and individual researchers. Following is a list of To Do's that, to our knowledge, are not yet being done or sought:

1) Analysis of state-sanctioned subsidies to private education, such as Arizona's recently uncovered public voucher program, Milwaukee's at-risk program, and Minnesota's private alternatives program.

2) Productivity survey of all schools: break down of public school spending vs. private school spending, by state and by type of school, also evaluating class size, enrollment demographics, admission criteria, achievement, etc.

3) Abstract style listing of ALL education research over the last twenty years that pertains to spending, school financing, achievement, standards and testing, school choice and related reform issues, with qualitative recommendations for future summaries of important findings based on what already exists.

4) Analysis of regulations that private schools must comply with and how they are accredited, state by state.

···················································

        This Letter is sent to a small group of supporters, people with whom we want to stay in close touch, and friends in general. If there is anyone you know who you think should receive this, please tell us.

        With best wishes for the new year,

Jeanne Allen

MONTHLY LETTER MAILBOX: Register to receive the Monthly Letter by mail, send us your comments, questions or compliments about this or any other issue of the Monthly Letter, or let us know what's happening in your community and state for coverage in future Monthly Letters. We welcome your input!

CER Home Page CER Monthly Letter E-Mail CER CER Publications