Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Reading between the lines: a response to the Palm Beach Post

While much of MSM’s coverage of school choice is spotty at best, the Palm Beach Post is in a league of its own when its comes to one-sided–sometimes even venomous–reporting and commentary on the issue.  Today’s editorial is a case in point.  This is the first in a regular series of responses to erroneous, distorted reporting and commentary in Florida media in general and the Palm Beach Post in particular. 

And here we go: 

Gov. Bush started the "Just Read, Florida!" program. But the Legislature is considering voucher bills that show why it isn’t enough to "just read." Floridians have to think about what they read.

Those who "just read" this year’s voucher bills and amendments could conclude that they aren’t voucher bills at all. The word voucher is banned, because Gov. Bush and Republican leaders in the Legislature hope that voters won’t notice what’s in those bills. Polls have shown that most Floridians oppose vouchers.

As we’ve pointed out earlier (along with Eduwonk), it depends on how the question is worded.  Thanks in no small part to the work of newspapers like the PBP, the dreaded "v" word has become hopelessly loaded.  But when the poll question is posed such that people are told what the term actually means–giving children a publicly-funded scholarship to attend a higher-performing public or private school–the poll numbers tend to shift in the other direction.  

The House (in HJR 1573) and Senate (in SJR 2234) are considering an amendment that, if voters approve it in November, would overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s January ruling that the Florida Constitution does not allow the direct use of tax money to provide vouchers for use at private schools. Rather than tell the plain truth – that this amendment, after an interim step by the state, would give a voucher to any student who wanted one – voucher backers have crafted language designed to appeal to all.

Aside from the editorial’s attempt to channel Hillary Clinton from back in February, the other portion of the PBP’s argument–that vouchers would suck the treasury dry–completely ignores nearly two decades of experience in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington, D.C.  What they’re complaining about hasn’t happened.  Because it’s up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine policy.  What happened in Florida is a prime example of what happens when judges try to make policy from the bench.  Moving right along:

"Every child deserves an equal opportunity to obtain a high quality education, regardless of his or her family’s income, religion, or race," the proposed amendment declares. Therefore, "The Legislature may enact and publicly fund pre-kindergarten through college education programs, without regard to the religious nature of any participant or non-public provider." These are the same voucher supporters who are so committed to "a high quality education" that they exempted most voucher programs from any meaningful academic oversight.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce the Palm Beach Post to HB 7041 and S10.  These are sister bills going through the Florida House and Senate intended to introduce eligibility and accountability requirements to the McKay Scholarship Program. 

Oddly enough, you can check the status of this and similar legislation at the website for the Florida Alliance for Choices in Education.  And you’ll never believe this (no, really–we don’t expect you to believe it), but said organization supports the legislation.  Let’s repeat that: the Florida Alliance for Choices in Education, one of the premier school choice organizations in the Sunshine State, supports increased accountability requirements for school choice programs. Not only do they support this legislation, but they and independent accrediting agencies in the state have supported similar bills that have been introduced during the last two or three legislative sessions–bills that lawmakers on both sides have kicked around, used as pawns, fought over and generally left for dead as the congressional session drew to a close. 

See, one of the most tiring misconceptions about school choice programs is that schools operate entirely free of any sort of oversight.  So it’s time for another real-world, common-sense assertion: if a parent sees that his/her child is not learning, said parent will take his/her kid and tuition and move elsewhere.  It is in a school’s best interests to demonstrate to a parent that it is doing what it is being paid to do.  Therefore, no school in its right mind will operate without meaningful testing.  Believe it or not (again, we expect you probably won’t), most private schools already administer standardized tests.  In short, we suggest that the constant demands for increased accountability are another way of saying parents are too stupid to see if a school is working.  But to fill in the gaps, the legislation currently pending in the Florida legislature would require all schools participating in the McKay program to administer a norm-referenced test recognized by the Department of Education. 

Now, we certainly aren’t going to go so far as to say that all choice schools and activists support this legislation.  Some don’t.  But many do.  Because they see the realities of the situation in Florida, and are willing to meet up halfway to show that, no, tax dollars aren’t being wasted in this program.  So to assert that choice schools are trying to dodge accountability requirements–in essence, to accuse them of trying to game the system–is disingenuous to say the least. 

The Senate also is considering a bill (SB 2234) that would let students in the unconstitutional voucher program – the first, one of three the state operates – continue to receive vouchers. How? Rather than take the money directly from the treasury, corporations could donate up to $5 million for private "scholarships" – then get a dollar-for-dollar tax break. That method already pays for some vouchers in Florida, but the Supreme Court hasn’t considered their constitutionality. Based on the court’s rejection of the original voucher plan, however, the so-called "corporate tax vouchers" also are unconstitutional.

Now we’re playing judge, jury and executioner?  Hey, fine by us; it’s your paper.  (By the way, nice sneer quotes on "scholarship".)  We won’t deny that the Supreme Court ruling definitely places the McKay program and tax credit program in jeopardy.  But why stop at K-12?  The state of Florida offers a wide array of university financial aid.  If the Supreme Court’s decision is going to be applied based on a church-and-state question, then the Florida Student Assistance Grant Program and the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program, which allow funds to be used at private religious schools, had better be shut down. 

And while we’re on the subject of the Suprem

e Court decision, let’s talk about uniformity.  If you were to stop and think for a minute, the majority opinion wasn’t nearly as favorable as you would believe.  As Frederick Hess and Andrew Rotherham pointed out:

While the majority in the court decision seems not to have thought of it, any effort to honestly or faithfully apply their decision spells a death sentence for a number of popular reforms in Florida and sets an unfortunate precedent for elsewhere. Public charter schooling? Certainly not uniform in provision or operations. Specialty schools and tutoring programs? Neither uniformly available nor operationally standard. Programs for gifted students? Hardly uniform. Efforts by some districts to promote collaborative management, reward outstanding teachers, or adopt new curricular models? None of this is uniform either.

Nor should these or other ideas be uniform. Standardization was a reasonable goal sixty years ago, when fewer than half of Americans graduated high school and attention to sameness may have been the only sensible way to pursue equitable educational provision. We have seen how that experiment turned out, however. It worked okay for many students, especially those in comfortable communities, but standardized schools proved to be profoundly unsuccessful at educating those with nonstandard needs.

(snip)

In searching for every conceivable wrench to throw at the Florida voucher program, the Florida decision brings to mind Roe v. Wade. Just as many supporters of a woman’s right to choose now realize how the shaky legal reasoning of Roe and the ensuing politics have hurt rather than helped their cause, so those who oppose vouchers but believe in choice and customization may find themselves grasping a Pyrrhic victory in Florida. Let the NAACP and the National School Boards Association beware. 

So is this where we’re going to go, Palm Beach Post?  If we’re going to demand an equal or "uniform" education for all, then we’re going to have equality in mediocrity.  Moving on: 

Rather than tell the plain truth – that this bill is a dodge to continue an illegal voucher program – the measure claims that its goal is to "enable children in this state to achieve a greater level of excellence in their education." These tactics are more of the same from a governor and Legislature who have refused to pay for "a greater level of excellence" in education.

"Refused to pay".  This is probably one of our favorite assertions of all, because it’s such fun to shoot down!  This is the governor’s budget proposal for 2006-2007.  We chose this particular snapshot of the budget because a) it shows education spending as a percentage of the total budget, and b) if the governor really is the cheapskate the PBP is making him out to be, then it’s almost certainly lowballed from where the final budget will end up. 

Well, what does Bush propose to spend?  A total of $21 billion. That’s 34 percent of the total budget, and nearly half (49 percent) of the general fund.  Either way, it’s the single largest item in the budget–it’s more than Health and Human Services, and it positively dwarfs Public Safety and Transportation and Economic Development. 

So here’s yet another real-world question for the Palm Beach Post: the state is already spending one-third of all its available resources and nearly one-half of state funds on K-12.  Just how much more money do you want to spend?  And just where do you propose we pull it from?  Health and Human Services?  Maybe transportation?  Oh, wait–you want to raise taxes! 

And lest we be accused of taking too much of a macro view on this, let’s go to the Friedman Foundation, which has done the heavy lifting on per-student spending in the Sunshine State: combined with funding through capital costs and debt service, Florida spent a total of more than $22 billion on education, or $8,735 per student, in 2003-04.  That would be right in line with national averages.  And yet it’s not enough?

You know, suddenly those shrill cries of "accountability for voucher schools!" are looking rather deflated in the face of this level of spending.  Literally tens of billions of dollars spent, year after year, and still nothing to show for it?  Who’s unaccountable now?

That’s why Florida is near the bottom in every credible ranking of per-pupil school spending. Just read, Florida. Just read between the lines.

Read between the lines, indeed.   

UPDATE–John Kirtley e-mailed the following correction:

It is Senate Bill 256 that is the accountability bill. McKay kids will not be required to take nationally recognized norm referenced tests–only tax credit kids. Worth mentioning is that the test scores will have to be reported to a third party research entity and a public report issued on longitudinal gains every year.