PA Poll: Dump Low Income Vouchers, Increase Tax Credit

There is an age-old adage: if you’re going to do something, do it right --- or don’t do it at all.

Based on poll results exclusively obtained first by Freindly Fire, nowhere is that more applicable than in the fight for school vouchers in Pennsylvania. According to the Pulse Opinion Research poll conducted on behalf of UNITE PA, which surveyed 500 likely voters across the state, the majority of Pennsylvanians prefer that any school choice program be open to all students (or at least most of the middle class), as opposed to just low income, predominantly inner city students. This result is not surprising on any level, and, undeniably, leads to five rock solid conclusions:

1) The middle class realizes that ALL schools need improvement, and competition through choice is the best way to achieve that objective;

2) Pennsylvanians, by a whopping 78 to 9 margin, favor a broad-based choice program;

3) If a comprehensive choice program isn’t offered, citizens would prefer an expansion of the EITC educational tax credit --- by a 3 to 1 ratio;

4) The reason voucher legislation failed in the Spring, and in all likelihood won’t pass now, isn’t due to opposition to school choice, but because the senate refuses to consider a broader, more inclusive bill, and therefore:

5) If a suburban or rural legislator supports vouchers only for low income families, while their constituents would be left out in the cold without receiving a penny, they do so at their own peril.  A full 40 percent of likely voters stated that they will be “less likely” to support that lawmaker in his or her next election based on that vote.

The message of this poll is clear: do vouchers the right way, or don’t do them at all.  And since the senate has already passed a low income version by the slimmest of margins, with its leaders stating that’s all they will do, expect the voucher bill to die what may be its final political death, and look for the EITC expansion to pass as a stand-alone bill (which it did in the Spring by a virtually unanimous 190-7 bipartisan vote on Rep. Tom Quigley’s House Bill 1330).

Failure to act responsibly will leave the GOP politically vulnerable, and, infinitely more important, abandon yet another generation of Pennsylvania’s future.

*****

Since last January, Republican Senator Jeff Piccola has been trying to pass legislation offering school vouchers only to students in underperforming schools who meet low income requirements. Despite crafting Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) during the Rendell Administration (when there was a Democratic State House and an anti-choice governor), Piccola never bothered to broaden the bill to reflect the new ten-seat Republican majority in the House, and pro-school choice Governor Tom Corbett.

Piccola, along with Democratic co-sponsor Senator Tony Williams, ran the bus over anyone who dared question why SB 1 was being treated as hallowed legislation, scoffing at --- but not answering --- queries as to why no attempt was made to broaden the bill, given the favorable legislative climate.  In the process, many SB 1 proponents demonized long-time political allies for their “brazen” attempt to improve a badly flawed education reform bill that would neither educate nor reform.

That intransigence directly led to vouchers dying on the vine in June.  Despite repeated assurances that it would pass the Senate, it was never brought to the floor for a vote. Piccola’s excuse for not running the bill was that the House wasn’t embracing SB 1 with the same fervor, yet the truth is that he didn’t even have the votes in his own chamber.

Last month, a watered-down version of SB 1 finally passed the senate after much arm-twisting, but as the poll shows, it’s back to Square One, meaning that SB 1 faces a tough road ahead. Many folks in Pennsylvania view vouchers favorably, but when they learn that the only voucher bill being considered is one that will never impact them, their support plummets.

Many traditional supporters of school choice have had SB 1 sold to them as the be-all-and-end-all.  But the huge irony is that these people in turn become the biggest detractors of SB 1 upon learning what the legislation does, and, more importantly, doesn’t do. From Catholic school advocates to Tea Partiers to everyday parents, the majority of those who favor school choice become irritated, if not downright angry, after discovering that in SB 1, a full seven years after enactment, middle income students would still be excluded. Because of this, many look at SB 1 as nothing more than yet another targeted entitlement program for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

The results of the Pulse Opinion Poll are so clear cut that it’s a good bet many House members on the fence will now be moved to oppose the voucher aspect, instead calling for other educational reform measures to be considered individually rather than part of an SB 1 package.  Charter school reforms, teacher evaluations, and the EITC should be debated on their merits and not held hostage by certain senators hell-bent on ramming an ineffectual voucher bill down the House’s throat --- or all-else be damned.

And if the House decides to eliminate the voucher and significantly expand the EITC, what then? Will Piccola once again call that legislation “dead on arrival” and kill it upon its return to the senate?

And if so, will the House leaders do the right thing and relegate Piccola to the dustbin of irrelevancy by simply mandating that the EITC expansion be part of the 2012 budget? 

It’s time to stop playing games.  Pennsylvania students are 42^nd in SAT scores, ranking low in literacy, graduation rates and those attending college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11^th graders are not proficient in math and reading.  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Advocating school choice for only low-income students results in the default perception that education is adequate everywhere else, which is not remotely accurate. We cannot afford to waste another decade, forsaking our children --- our future --- because some choose to ignore the widespread failure occurring on a daily basis.

The poll clearly shows what common sense already dictates: only competition can begin to reverse decades of educational failure. Comprehensive school choice provides that free-market solution, and, if passed, would be a model for the nation.  But since stubbornness, personal agendas and lack of political will are still prevalent in the Senate, let’s hope the House of Representatives acts responsibly and does the right thing for our children.

As Voltaire said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

And jettisoning a bad voucher program while passing other meaningful reforms is a very good start.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

School Choice Non Debate: Sen. Tony Williams A No-Show --- Again

The Great School Choice Debate, hosted by The Independence Hall Tea Party Association on March 6, was a passionate discussion of Senate Bill 1, the school choice bill currently in the state senate. At issue was whether SB 1, a limited scope bill granting a voucher to low-income families (in which the state subsidy would follow the child, not the school) is the only legislation achievable at this time, or whether a broader, more comprehensive bill can be passed.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t the healthy debate that it should have been because Senator Anthony Williams, one of the bill’s prime sponsors and a confirmed panelist, arrived well after the event had ended.  It seems he was misinformed of the time, despite everyone else getting it right. 

Although mistakes happen, it is curious that this is the second time in one month that the senator committed to a school choice discussion, and failed to show.  Some may chalk that up to bad staffing, but others who have been around politics don’t believe in such coincidence.

Regardless, the discussion was lively, civil and productive, with all the participants in agreement that school choice was crucial, the only measure that would bring competition and accountability to our failed school system. The panelists were:

-Reverend Joe Watkins, former Lt. Gov. candidate, MSNBC commentator and Executive Director of the Students First organization;

-Dom Giordano, talk-show host extraordinaire on 1210 WPHT, the region’s largest talk-radio station.  Giordano was slated to be the moderator, but sat with Watkins so the discussion wouldn’t be lopsided.

-State Representative Curt Schroder, a proponent of statewide school choice. Schroder was a House member in the mid-90’s when a comprehensive school choice bill barely missed passage;

-Yours truly, author of numerous columns and participant in several television segments advocating school choice, including why SB 1 is flawed legislation that will most likely fail if it is not amended in the House to expand choice.  I was also Executive Director of the REACH Alliance, the preeminent statewide school choice organization, during the school choice battles in the 90’s.

*****

Before the Pennsylvania dialogue began, New Jersey state senator Michael Doherty discussed his state’s efforts to pass education reform.  Doherty explained that, while more expansive tax credit programs and school choice would be ideal, they simply weren’t possible given the sizable Democratic majorities in that state’s House and Senate. He said that they had to settle for what was politically possible.

And that’s exactly why the defeatist attitude of some SB 1 proponents is so incomprehensible.  To say that a bill limited only to low-income families is the best we can hope for is simply inaccurate. 

Which is why something doesn’t pass the sniff test. 

Rational political observers have stated that, if they didn’t know better, it would seem, for some reason, there has been undue influence to kill any effort to expand the bill.

Either that, or legislators don’t want to do the work necessary to come up with better legislation.

I had the opportunity to speak with Senator Williams after the non-debate, and while I came away with some good news, I also left with a lot more skepticism.

Williams claimed that the legislation for comprehensive, statewide school choice failed in 1995 by a single vote, a point on which I wholeheartedly agree.

I then asked him if he would support a more expanded version of school choice than is currently offered in SB 1, and he stated that he would (great news), but that “it would not pass,” (a perplexing statement).

And therein lies the problem.  There is absolutely nothing on which that assumption can be made, and, in fact, the opposite is undisputedly true.

Let’s forget our biases for or against school choice, and focus just on the political realities between 1995 and now.

Despite the Republican wave of 1994, the State House remained Democratic by one vote. It took a party switch to give control to the GOP --- and the ability to push school choice in that chamber. 

In the time span since, the legislature has experienced a turnover of at least 70 percent.

Fast forward to the wave of 2010, when thirteen seats flipped and the GOP gained a ten seat majority.  And not only are there more conservative legislators, but the public is much more accepting of school choice.

As an added benefit, Williams will most likely bring several more Democratic legislators with him who were previously “No” votes.

So let’s follow this logic.  Fact: the statewide school choice bill fell one vote short in 1995, when the House had a one seat Republican majority.  Fact: the House now has a 10 vote GOP majority.  Fact:  the electorate is much more understanding of the need for this legislation.  Fact: the Republican Governor has stated his support for statewide school choice.  Fact: Williams brings additional Democratic votes.

Given these facts, the passage of comprehensive school choice legislation should be a slam dunk.

Instead, with no actual vote count having been taken, the white towel has been thrown in before the fight has begun.

The “we can only get school choice incrementally” argument is based on a number of false assumptions, such as the House and Governorship remaining in Republican hands over the next several cycles, the legislature actually agreeing to take up such a controversial issue year after year while facing the wrath of well-funded teachers unions, and that a limited program will produce noticeable improvements. And if a limited program is judged to be only a marginal improvement, the entire program could be jeopardized, nullifying the one-slice-at-a-time argument.

Here’s the bottom line: the forces standing in the way of progress by deliberately ignoring all the political signs need to stop being part of the problem. 

Pennsylvania cannot improve its economic position by graduating functional illiterates, which is exactly what we are doing.  Half of the state’s 11^th graders cannot read or write proficiently.

It’s time, once and for all, to take our heads out of the sand and do the right thing for our children --- all of them. Failure to do so will simply waste another decade and forsake our future.

And what a terrible “choice” that would be.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

How To Pass Pennsylvania School Choice

Author’s Note:

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia just announced that it will be closing seven more schools, a trend that has been occurring for decades. Despite some disingenuous critics who label any choice program as a “bailout of the Catholic Schools,” it is no secret that non-public schools would significantly benefit from comprehensive school choice legislation. And the more non-public schools there are, the more competition there is.

These school closings --- four of which are in Philadelphia ---reinforce Freindly Fire’s earlier-stated position that Senate Bill 1’s effectiveness will be extremely limited, not just because it caters only to low income families, but for the simple reason that fewer and fewer schools remain as alternatives to the current monopolistic system.

And to repudiate yet another fallacious argument that school choice costs taxpayer money (when in fact it would save it), consider the following:

The seven schools had a cumulative projected enrollment of 857 students next year.  Based on dwindling number of non-public schools, assume that half will attend public schools.  At an average cost of $15,000 per student, per year to educate one student in the public schools, these 428 students will cost taxpayers an additional $6,427,500 per year.  If each student has, on average, six years of grade school remaining, the cost rises to over $38 million. 

And of course, that figure does not reflect inflation, nor the huge costs of hiring more teachers, funding additional pensions, building more classrooms, buying more textbooks, and increasing busing. 

Pennsylvania can’t afford NOT to enact school choice.

The school choice bill in the Pennsylvania Senate is significantly flawed legislation which should never have been introduced.  Rather than craft a new bill to reflect the positions of the current legislature and Governor --- both far more receptive to comprehensive school choice than their predecessors --- the prime sponsors didn’t do their homework and jumped the gun by dusting off outdated legislation.  As a direct result, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) is effectively dead-on-arrival.

Since SB 1 was introduced a mere week after the new legislature was sworn in, no preliminary vote count was conducted during those seven days.  Therefore, statements that SB 1 is “the best we can hope for at this time” and “school choice can be expanded incrementally in the coming years” are fallacies based on the musings of out-of-touch ivory-tower proponents naively setting the bar artificially low.  Incomprehensibly, they are throwing in the towel before the fight has even begun.

Here are the facts why statewide school choice is needed, and suggestions on how to accomplish that goal:

1)      Pennsylvania students are 42^nd in SAT scores, and rank low in literacy, graduation rates and those going to college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11^th graders are not proficient in math and reading.  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Advocating school choice for only low-income students results in the default perception that education is adequate everywhere else, which, based on the results of PSSA standardized test scores, is not remotely accurate. We cannot afford to waste another decade, forsaking our children --- our future --- because some choose to ignore the widespread failure occurring on a daily basis.

2)      Pennsylvania spends $26 billion per year on education --- more per student than 39 other states --- an amount which has doubled since 1996.  Despite a drop of 27,000 students over the last ten years, the public school system had added 33,000 employees in that time. Therefore, by definition, increased funding, more personnel and decreased class size has not improved student achievement.

3)      Teachers’ salaries and benefits rank among the highest in the nation, yet Pennsylvania leads the nation every year in school strikes --- more than all other states combined. 

4)      The components in SB 1were derived during a prior legislative session with a Democratic House and an anti-school choice governor (Rendell).   But the current legislature has thirteen more House Republicans than last session, giving the GOP a ten-seat majority.  While education should never be partisan, it is no secret that Republicans are much more favorable to choice than Democrats.  And Governor Corbett made school choice a cornerstone of his campaign. Combined with the pro-school choice positions of several Democrats, including Senator Anthony Williams, passage of comprehensive choice is eminently obtainable.  (And if Williams and his colleagues won’t support statewide school choice, but only a program only for low-income families, their motivations will be questioned and their credibility severely undermined).

5)      With a legislature approximately 80 percent different (and one clearly less open to choice), no votes from the Black Caucus, and only a one-seat House Republican majority, the statewide school choice effort in 1995 failed by a mere three votes. Given the night-and-day differences between then and now, it is indisputable that political will from Governor Corbett and legislative leaders could, should and would result in the nation’s most comprehensive and inclusive school choice program, one which will save taxpayer money.

6)      The argument that school choice will take money away from the public schools is not just wrong, but irrelevant.  The only thing we should EVER be concerned with is the children. Schools don’t get jobs and lead nations; people do.  The funding should follow the child, not the system --- a brilliant aspect of SB 1, where parents designate the school to which the state subsidy will be applied.

Following are the steps necessary to ensure that meaningful school choice is passed in Pennsylvania:

A)    SB 1 must be re-written and introduced as a new bill, or a separate bill needs to be introduced in the House.  Grassroots organizations cannot support flawed legislation with the hope or “promise” that it will be amended at a future date.

B)    The bill must make school choice available to all students, regardless of family income.  This type of comprehensive program is the only way to bring accountability and competition to all schools, public and non-public alike. Our dire situation demands no less.

C)    The provision for public schools to “opt out,” as is permitted in SB 1, must be stricken.  Opting out will result in the public school establishment’s “Good Old Boys” network to kick in, guaranteeing that the vast majority of schools won’t participate.  If that occurs, school choice is meaningless.

D)    The bill should contain strengthened language that no additional regulations may be imposed on non-public schools.  Current government requirements are adequate and unobtrusive, such as core curriculum and length of school year.  Vouchers or subsidies do not lead to additional regulation, as the highly successful post World War II GI Bill attests, but eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, so such language will alleviate this issue.

E)     While government should not impose tuition mandates on non-public schools, the possibility of inflated tuition costs at these schools is an area of concern. Language can be written that limits the subsidy (which cannot exceed tuition cost) to a maximum two percent increase per year, based on the tuition charged in the first year that school choice is enacted. This common sense solution would keep tuition inflation in check while keeping government out of private school decision-making.

F)     Expanding the Educational Improvement Tax Credit is a positive step, as the program has seen positive results.  But to be clear, the EITC is not school choice since parents do not control their tax dollars; the scholarships, which average $1000, are doled out by organizations and schools.  Parental control is significantly limited, unlike a true statewide school choice program.

Like any controversial issue, the school choice debate lends itself to misinformation, half-truths and personal attacks.  Pennsylvanians should not be hypnotized by the complexities of education reform, but rather focus on what is indisputable: our government-run public school system is a monopoly with no incentive to change, and only competition can begin to reverse decades of educational failure.

Comprehensive school choice provides that free-market solution, and, when passed, will be a model for the nation.  Failure to do so will destroy another generation’s chances for success.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

                                         

Some School Choice-ers Have Defeatist Attitude

“Since 1995 the average mathematics score for fourth-graders jumped 11 points. At this rate we catch up with Singapore in a little over 80 years . . . assuming they don't improve."

- Norman R. Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin

Let’s keep that quote from a recent George Will column in mind as the school choice debate unfolds.

*****

Even in a bad housing market, if someone were to initially offer his home at the lowest acceptable price, he would be called an idiot.  And rightly so.

Likewise, negotiators never come to the table with their bottom line proposal. Doing so would be pointless --- obviously --- since they would be leaving themselves no negotiating room.

It’s Business 101: you set the bar high, and work downward, if need be. It doesn’t get any simpler.

Which makes the current school choice bill in the State Senate, SB 1, all the more puzzling.  Since true choice would be made available only to low-income students, and that’s after a three-year phase-in, the bill would be almost totally ineffectual, affecting an extremely small number of primarily urban students.

Given that Pennsylvania students rank near the bottom in several important categories, such as SAT scores, the only way to right the ship is to enact a statewide, comprehensive school choice program.  Since choice only works if the vast majority of students and schools are able to participate, and there seem to be the votes for that type of program, why the bar is being set so artificially low remains a mystery.

But a good bet is that sponsors Jeff Piccola (R) and Anthony Williams (D) simply didn’t do their homework on the make-up of the new legislature, choosing to dust off an old bill rather than craft a better, more inclusive one.

Because of its limited scope, it’s a bill many view as destined to fail. To think suburban and rural legislators will put up a tough vote for SB 1 --- despite none of their constituents realizing school choice --- and, as a reward, face well-financed union-backed opponents in next year’s elections is just naïve.

So it is somewhat surprising that some school choice advocates on the Right have reacted so illogically to Freindly Fire’s criticism of that bill (as detailed in last week’s column).

If that defeatist attitude is pervasive within the ranks of the Republican base, one thing is certain: the entire agenda of new Governor Tom Corbett and the GOP-dominated House and Senate will be jeopardized. It’s like being pregnant --- you are or you aren’t.  You either push hard to truly solve the state’s unprecedented problems, or you willingly give up your political leverage, compromising your way to meaningless solutions via the Business as Usual approach.

And anyone who thinks the budget deficit, pension bomb and liquor privatization issues can be solved by bowing to insider tactics rooted in political minutia is just whistling Dixie.

While education should never be a partisan issue, school choice is more widely supported by Republicans.  So if you can’t pass meaningful legislation with solid GOP majorities in both chambers and a very friendly Governor, you might as well pack it up and turn off the lights.

So let’s take a look at the misguided talking points some proponents are advocating:

SB 1 helps a wide range of students.

The sponsors’ rhetoric simply doesn’t match the substance.  Senators Piccola and Williams talk a great game, saying all the right things:  "We are ready to challenge any…who oppose freedom,” “the civil rights movement of this century,”  “…all kids deserve access to a great education - regardless of race, income or zip code,” and “providing access to a quality education for every child is the most important issue facing our state.”

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights movement created equality for all people, not just some ---which is why the sponsors’ talk rings so hollow.  How can you state that “all kids” and “every child” need access to a great education when this program is so limited in scope?  Where is the “freedom” in that? Leaving the vast majority of students out in the cold is not exactly benefitting “all.”

This is the best school choice bill we can hope for at this time. 

Says who?  The sponsors?  Uhh…no. The legislature was sworn in on January 4, and the bill was introduced January 11.  So are we to believe that the bill was written and a preliminary vote count taken in less than seven days?  Of course not. 

Rather than wait to introduce a meaningful bill, Piccola and Williams jumped the gun with a worthless piece of legislation that, even if passed, will affect virtually no positive change and only bury Pennsylvania that much further.  We don’t have another decade to waste.

We don’t have the votes to pass it, since it didn’t pass in…the mid 90’s when it “failed miserably.” 

Honest to God, I couldn’t make up that level of irrationality. This point is so wrong, on so many levels, that it almost doesn’t deserve a response.  But here are the facts.

Comparing the climate for school choice from 1995 and 2011 is ridiculous, for three reasons.

First, the legislature itself is at least 70 to 80 percent different now versus then. Second, despite the Republican wave of 1994, the State House remained Democratic --- by one vote.  It took Rep. Tom Stish’s switch to give the GOP control and the ability to push school choice in that chamber. 

But the wave of 2010 was a different story.  Thirteen seats flipped, giving the GOP a ten seat majority --- and a mandate to reform the system.  And the Republican caucus is more conservative than it was fifteen years ago, with increased support for school choice.

Third, the acceptance of school choice is much more widespread than it was in the 90’s --- a span of time where, not coincidentally, more and more schools have declined academically or closed altogether; Pennsylvania students continue to lag behind their national and global competitors.

With so many elements between those two time periods being night and day, any attempt at comparison is simply insulting.

And for the record, statewide school choice missed passage by no more than five votes in 1995 --- a far cry from “failing miserably.”  That is indisputable, and stated from first-hand experience, as Yours Truly was the Executive Director of the REACH Alliance at the time, the statewide organization pushing school choice.  Oh, and Williams, a State Representative at the time, was a NO vote.

And the question proponents of SB 1 cannot answer: has anyone done an actual vote count?

Here’s the answer: no.  Not the leaders, and not the grassroots activists, for the simple reason that there hasn’t been enough time to do so.  So why advocates would criticize efforts to expand the bill without even undertaking the most basic step ---counting votes --- is mindboggling and counterproductive.

What is Senator Williams’ position on full school choice?  

He certainly says all the right things about expanding choice, but it seems that none of the critics has actually asked Williams his position on a comprehensive program.  If he doesn’t support it, why not? Why should choice be available to some but not all?  Any type of exclusivity dooms the bill before it’s out of the gate, as is evidenced by the growing number of pro-school choicers who are against this bill.

But if Williams does support a larger program, that’s gravy.  And since Williams would most likely bring additional Democrats with him, the likelihood of passing an expanded bill would be extremely high --- hence, the obtuseness of not attempting a more inclusive bill.

This bill helps the middle class through the expanded EITC.

The Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) is a nice program on the margins, and without a doubt has helped many families and kept some schools from closing, but it is NOT school choice; those labeling it as such do a great disservice to true choice.

The EITC allows businesses to give money to a non-profit scholarship organization or educational improvement program and receive a tax credit for that donation. Families with a household income under $60,000 would be eligible (plus $10,000 per child), and the program stops once $100 million worth of tax credits are doled out by the state. ($75 million is dedicated to the scholarship program).

The educational improvement aspect has nothing to do with school choice, so that’s irrelevant to the choice discussion.

Scholarship organizations must be granted approval from the state; upon meeting that requirement, they then solicit business donations to fund the scholarships.

For many businesses, participation in the EITC is based on the economy, so a struggling company may cut back or eliminate their contributions altogether.  Additionally, the EITC is also more subject to reduced funding by the legislature (as happened in 2009) than a statewide school choice program. 

And not to be critical of the EITC, but if it has been so successful, why have so many schools closed since its inception a decade ago?

One aspect of SB 1 is very appealing: rather than just a voucher, the state subsidy that would have been directed to a student’s home school district could be applied to the public, private or parochial school of their choice, not to exceed the cost of tuition.   In some districts, that number could be as high as $10,000.  Since the average total cost to educate a student per year is $14,000, a statewide choice program could provide a very significant cost savings. (As a comparison, the average EITC scholarship is just above $1000).

With school choice, parents receive some of their tax money back to choose their child’s school; with the EITC, they don't get any money back directly (the scholarship entity controls it), and are more limited in the schools from which to choose.

Arguing that the EITC is the savior to middle class families simply has no merit.

*****

The mentality that school choice must be obtained “one slice at a time” versus going for the “whole loaf” is a flawed one.  The votes should be there to pass statewide school choice now, but the political reality is such that most legislators will only give choice one vote.  There is nothing attractive about facing the wrath of the well-funded teachers’ unions year after year until full choice can be implemented, especially in light of all the other tough votes they will have to make.

With increasing public sentiment advocating school choice, favorable and diverse majorities in the House and Senate, and a committed Governor, the time for meaningful reform is upon us.

Thinking back to the quote that started this column, it’s now or never, so let’s do it right.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

PA School Choice Bill Doesn’t Offer True Choice

Pandering To Inner City Reps Could Doom Passage

                                 

And so it begins.  The first challenge to Governor Tom Corbett is upon him.  Surprisingly, it’s not from public sector unions, trial lawyers or natural gas opponents, but from within his own Party. 

It’s a challenge that, if handled the right way, would send a message that the Corbett Administration will turn Business As Usual on its head.  If not, the GOP caucus could factionalize, in turn jeopardizing a host of other tough issues on the Governor’s agenda.

And it all revolves around misguided school choice legislation that would do more harm than good.

*****

This being School Choice Week, it’s ironic that the Pennsylvania Senate choice bill --- introduced with much hoopla ---  would neither improve schools nor offer true choice.  Instead, it is legislation stuck in the past, once again pandering to the wrong crowd --- the Black Caucus. These are the folks that some choice advocates still naively believe are necessary to court in order to achieve even a modest school choice victory.

They were wrong fifteen years ago, and they’re wrong now.  In fact, not only is Senate Bill 1 a bad bill, but one that will have a difficult time passing.

At issue is the program being limited to low income families, defined as those whose income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level – a family of four would qualify at $28,000 household income.  And that’s after a three-year phase-in. 

Left out of the equation is….everybody else. 

Pennsylvania’s students are subpar across the board --- inner city, suburb and rural.  Not only can they not effectively compete with their counterparts in other states (they are 42nd in SAT scores), but, as a whole, are part of our nation’s systemic educational failure.  America’s students consistently rank near the bottom in math, science and literacy when compared to their global competitors.  And since this is an ever-increasing world economy, that’s a recipe for disaster.

The days of competing with Seattle and San Francisco are over; our best and brightest can barely keep up with average students in Singapore, Stockholm and Sydney.

And yet we’re supposed to believe that an extremely limited school choice program for relatively few inner city students is going to be the panacea? 

Give us a break.

One of the bill’s prime sponsors, mid-state Republican Jeff Piccola, should know better.  A longtime champion of education choice, Piccola has nonetheless dropped the ball on this bill, buying into the politically-correct hype that having at least one black legislator on board is the only way to assure passage.  So he allied himself with Democratic Senator Anthony Williams from Philadelphia.

Williams, you may recall, threw himself into last year’s governor’s race late in the game, backed by a few wealthy supporters who pumped more than $5 million into his campaign.  One of Williams’ major issues was school choice.

Fine.  The fact that Williams, up to that point, had never been a leader on school choice raised a few questions, but give him the benefit of the doubt that he is now a choice advocate. But to what level?

True believers realize that school choice will only work if the vast majority of students participate, something impossible with the Piccola-Williams bill.

Why should Williams care?  His constituents will benefit, but the other 99% of Pennsylvania families will be left out in the cold.  Not a tough choice for Tony.

But for the majority of legislators who will be asked to make a tough vote, look for them to start pushing back, countering with a simple message to the bill’s prime sponsors and the Governor:  do it right, or not at all.

*****

The reason this bill is doomed is simple.  As it stands now, suburban and rural legislators will be asked to incur the wrath of the teachers’ unions (who stand adamantly opposed to the accountability that school choice legislation would bring), while their constituents would not benefit in the least. 

And make no mistake about the teachers’ unions.  While they spent millions in last year’s election cycle, and were soundly defeated, their forced union dues make their campaign war chests virtually unlimited.   Being a presidential election year, 2012 should prove more favorable to them, and they will be unleashing their fury with a vengeance.

So the suburban and rural legislators would make a difficult vote --- and get the worst of both worlds.  Not only would some face tough, union-backed opponents in primary and general elections, but would also feel the anger of constituents who still wouldn’t have a choice where to educate their children. 

But here’s the biggest irony.  The Black Caucus, all Democrats, would almost unanimously vote against the choice bill to avoid union anger.  With a sly smile, they would cast that vote full-well knowing that their constituents would be the beneficiaries.

How’s that for political cowardice?  But it’s what we’ve come to expect from the Black Caucus. 

This is politics at its worst. Vote against a bill that would help the people in your district while hanging your selfless colleagues out to dry, undoubtedly thinning the GOP ranks in the process.

For the Republicans to agree would be an act of monumental stupidity.

There’s another reality that makes this bill almost obsolete, even if it does pass.  Because comprehensive school choice wasn’t passed in 1995, a number of nonpublic schools have since closed, making the options for the low income families that much more limited.  So we would blow another three years on a worthless bill that would realize no significant gains in educational improvement.

Here’s a newsflash for those not familiar with Pennsylvania’s precipitous decline : we can’t afford to twiddle our thumbs for three more years, pretending that the inner city schools are improving, while in reality we fall that much further behind the competition.

The Black Caucus isn’t needed to pass statewide school choice; political will is.  While the education of our children should never be a partisan issue, if you can’t pass school choice with sizable Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a friendly Governor, you’re never going to.

No matter how principled a lawmaker, there are virtually none who should make this vote in the name of Party unity with the upside so small and the downside so large --- potentially large enough to cost them their seat and hurt all Pennsylvanians.

Undeniably, the current system has failed. But the good news is that school choice works. The tragedy will be if we punt away the best opportunity in Pennsylvania history to turn the state around.  If we do, you might as well start converting your dollars into Chinese yuan.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com