Category: Education

Freind Provides More Details On No-Tony SB 1 Debate




Chris Freind has generously provided permission to publish his column regarding yesterday’s school choice debate hosted by The Independence Hall Tea Party Association.


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.

Questions were offered by Teri Adams, President of the Independence
Hall Tea Party, Sharon Cherubin, Executive Director of UNITE PA, a
grassroots organization based in Lancaster County, and the audience.

***

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 11th 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.



Amendments To SB 1 Expected In Pa. House


Today’s debate at the Independence Visitors Center in Philadelphia, hosted by the Independence Hall Tea Party Association wasn’t so much between supporters and opponents of SB 1 , the pending school choice legislation in Pennsylvania, but between the play-it-safers and the go-for-the-fencers.

And when the rather collegial affair ended, there seemed to be a consensus that the bill did have room for improvement.

The only disappointing facet of the afternoon was the failure of State Sen. Anthony Williams (D-8) to show up to defend the bill he authored, despite being on the playbill to do so.

Williams did appear long after the debate ended and was seen having an intense, quasi-private discussion with SB 1 critic Chris Freind

It would have been nice to put your cards on the table for all of us to see, Tony.

With regard to the debate, defending it as per the status quo were Rev. Joe Watkins, who is executive director of Students First, and WPHT 1210 AM radio host Dom Giordano, who had been scheduled to moderate but jumped in at the last minute to fill in for Williams. Tea Party activist Don Adams was drafted to  take Giordano’s place as moderator. Squaring off against them were Freind, who is a columnist and a former executive director of the school choice advocacy group REACH Alliance, and State Rep. Curt Schroder (R-155) of Downingtown.

All are strong supporters of school choice. Watkins best summed his side’s position by comparing public schools to a burning building and saying if one couldn’t rescue all the children one should at least rescue the ones they can.

Freind in his rebuttal compared the matter to a sale of a house and said one should never start negotiations with the lowest offer one would accept.

Freind wants a voucher program that would cover far more than just families whose incomes are at or below 130 percent of the
federal poverty level — $28,665 for a family of four — as per SB1 after three years.

He, true to his word, would not say what would be the “lowest offer” he would accept despite some needling from Giordano.

Freind and several others noted that middle class families often find their children trapped in inadequate schools.

He said SB 1, as is, would  let the teacher unions maintain almost all their power.

One point of discussion involved  whether there were enough votes to pass a broad school choice bill. Freind insisted yes because the last school choice attempt failed by just a handful of votes with the GOP having just a one-vote majority in the House and the Black Philadelphia Democrats being in opposition. He noted that many of the Black Democrats are now supporters and the Republicans have a 12-vote House majority.

Giordano and Watkins both insisted that the votes were not there.

Schroder, the insider on the stage, would not guess as to how the votes would fall and said nobody has counted them.

Schroder made the biggest news of the day when he said SB 1 would likely be amended in the House to something more palatable to Freind’s faction. Both Watkins and Giordano expressed approval.

So much for contention.

Freind noted that IBEW 98 President John Dougherty, whose union endorsed SB 1 , told him he would be quite happy if the number of students who would eligible for vouchers were increased.

Several interesting points were made during audience feedback time. A homeschool mom pointed out that homeschoolers saved the state’s taxpayers $286 million last year and asked if assistance to homeschoolers could be part any House amendments to SB 1.

Schroder said he was amenable to that.

Lisa Esler of the Delaware County Patriots passionately pointed out that it was not just about test scores but saving children from being indoctrinated into values their parents believe to be wrong.

A woman who described herself as a former Philadelphia School District principal said she began a charter school after retirement whose students now show a 70 percent competency compared to 30 percent in the competing public schools.

Freind noted that school choice is not necessarily a panacea for non-public schools. He said many of the Catholic schools closing are not doing so because of demographics but simply because they are bad schools.

Freind made it clear that critics of the bill must shun the racist opponents of it, who he recognized existed.

The questioners for the debaters were Sharon Cherubin, executive director of Unite PA and Teri Adams, president of the Independence Hall Tea Party Association.


Electricians Union Backs School Choice Bill

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 has again showed its willingness to break ranks with the publicly funded leeches in the PSEA by endorsing a school choice bill.

Activist Bob Guzzardi is reporting that IBEW 98, which covers Philadelphia, has given its blessing to SB1 which was reported out of the State Senate Education Committee, Tuesday,  in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

The bill, if it should become law, would eventually allow the parents of any needy child in the state to take the state subsidy — about $9,000 — that would have gone to their home school district and apply to the public, private or parochial school of their choice.

Schools, even public ones, would not be required to accept voucher students or change traditional entry requirements.

IBEW 98 supported the school choice bill, Senate Bill 1405, in the last session.

Electricians Union Backs School Choice Bill

Electricians Union Backs School Choice Bill

Chris Freind’s View On SB 1


Chris Freind was the speaker at last night’s screening of The Cartel by The Delaware County Patriots . Chris is a strong supporter of school choice while at the same time being a harsh critic of SB 1 which is the pending school choice legislation in Pennsylvania.

He has given permission to run his column explaining his reasoning and it appears below.

My view is that you have to deal with the cards on the table and  the only thing on the table regarding choice is SB1, and since Daylin Leach and the PSEA are both against it, it is certainly far more good than bad.

Anyway, Chris’s column:

WHAT’S WRONG WITH PENNSYLVANIA’S SCHOOL CHOICE BILL?

Pretty much everything. Here’s how to fix it—and get it passed

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 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. [SIGNUPS]
Here are the facts that show why statewide school choice is needed, and suggestions on how to accomplish that goal:
1) Pennsylvania students are 42nd in SAT scores, and rank low in literacy, graduation rates and rates of students continuing to college. Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved. And most startling, nearly half of all 11th graders are not proficient in math and reading. This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is a 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 10 years, the public school system had added 33,000 employees in that time. Therefore, by definition, increased funding, added personnel and decreased class size have 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 1 were derived during a prior legislative session with a Democratic House and an anti-school choice governor (Rendell). But the current legislature has 13 more House Republicans than last session, giving the GOP a 10-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 rewritten 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.
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.
UPDATE: 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.

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.

Education Expose Screened By Delco Patriots


The March 1 screening of The Cartel by the Delaware County (Pa) Patriots was followed by a question and answer session with Chris Freind on matters regarding school choice in Pennsylvania. This was especially relevant as S.B. 1 , the first significant school choice legislation to be considered in the state in 15 years, was  reported out of the Senate Education Committee that afternoon on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

The three-hour event held at the Marple Public Library started at 6:30 and drew a crowd of about 80.

The Cartel is a 2009 expose by Bob Bowdon of the plight of students in New Jersey public schools. It describes the corruption, incompetence and blinding greed of those charged with running them that would be inconceivable to those who attended them a generation ago. It also describes how school vouchers would help set things right.

Freind, now a popular columnist, helped lead the unsuccessful fight for vouchers in the 1990s. He is, however, a harsh critic of S.B. 1 , albeit he did end up defending aspects of it in the face of some hostile questions such as his belief that it would be ultimately found to be constitutional if it should become law; that the expansion of the state’s Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program provided by the bill would be of great benefit; and that S.B. 1 could  very well end up saving tax dollars.

Freind’s biggest objection is that S.B. 1 does not help enough children and that not pushing for a more comprehensive choice bill at this time would be a tragically lost opportunity.

And he’s right.

The point that must not be overlooked, however, is that S.B. 1, as of now, is the only girl at the dance and that regardless of its flaws the status quo would still be improved if it should pass.


SB 1 Clears Committee With Strong Bipartisan Vote


S.B.1, the proposed law that would give hope for thousands of children suffering in horrific schools, was reported out of the Pennsylvania Senate Education Committee this afternoon with only two dissenting votes — Democrats Jim Ferlo of the 38th District and Daylin Leach of the 17th District which includes Radnor and Haverford townships in Delaware County.

Those voting for it, however, included Democrats Andy Dinniman of the 19th District and Anthony Williams, whose 8th District includes 12 towns and boroughs in southeast Delaware County.

All Republicans voted for the bill.

A ray of light just got a little brighter for education in this state.

Hat tip Bob Guzzardi.

The SB 1 Stand At The School House Door


Montco Tea Party activist Bob Guzzardi has pointed out a Delaware County school board member actually — hopefully unwittingly — invoked the imagery of Democrat segregationist George Wallace in her opposition to SB 1, the school choice bill pending in the Pennsylvania legislature.

Charlotte Hummel, who is the president of the William Penn School Board, told the Philadelphia Inquirer, yesterday, that “I will be standing in the schoolhouse door “ if vouchers were enacted.

William Penn hosts two schools — Park Lane Elementary School and Aldan School — that are considered failing by the state and whose students would be instantly eligible for vouchers if the bill should pass.

The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door was famous incident during the Civil Rights Movement in which Wallace as Alabama governor attempted to keep two black students from entering the University of Alabama.

Ms. Hummel is also a Democrat. Some things never change.


Teachers Union Hikes Dues To Fight Choice


The Pennsylvania State Education Association — the union which represents public school teachers, school nurses, guidance counselors, librarians and such — has announced it will raise the dues of its 190,000 members by 11 percent according to Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania . 

The new revenue is apparently aimed at fighting the pending school choice legislation .

The PSEA already gets about $90 million from dues which it uses to pay for 230 employees, including eight full-time lobbyists who make about $150,000 a year apiece.

The dues hike is expected to bring in about $9 million more.

All public school teachers (librarians, nurses etc.) must contribute to this very anti-child union whether they want to or not. The money ultimately comes from the taxpayer anyway.

Hat tip Bob Guzzardi.


 

Would SB 1 Have Helped Nadin Khoury?


A nationally publicized incident of teenage cruelty in Upper Darby, Pa. has driven the 13-year-old victim from the public schools and placed the unplanned burden of home school on his parents.

Seven gangsta wannabees brutalized the slight Nadin Khoury Jan. 11 outside the school district’s “Opportunity Center” which is the school district’s facility for behavioral problems.

Nadin said he was targeted because he was small and his mother was from Africa. One of the wannabees posted a video of the attack on YouTube.

Six of the attackers were arrested Jan. 31 with the seventh being brought in the next day They are charged with kidnapping, criminal restraint, recklessly endangering another person,
aggravated assault conspiracy and making terroristic threats.


Despite the arrests, Nadin was terrified of returning to class fearing retaliation from the wannabees’ friends hence the home schooling.

Would the recently introduced school choice bill, SB 1 , help Nadin if it were to become law?  Maybe not, and certainly not with regard to the first two years it would take effect. Leaving aside the financial circumstance of Nadin’s family, the only Upper Darby school that  falls into the category of  “persistently lowest achieving school” as per eligibility for vouchers for years 1 and 2 is Charles Kelly Elementary School , which Nadin does not attend.

SB 1 is a good bill and if it should pass it would one day  deliver thousands of Pennsylvania children from the despair and terror of corrupt and unaccountable failed institutions.

But school choice is a good idea for suburban middle class parents too. Parents who are as happy as clams with their school district until they find their child assigned to crazy Ms. X for a year would be a bit grateful to have a voucher as a parachute. Vouchers would have the additional benefit of communicating to the educational powers-that-be that Ms. X shouldn’t be teaching as parent after parent bailed out on her.

Regardless, for those wishing to expand the benefits of SB 1 to more students more quickly, Nadin’s story makes a compelling case.


Freind Wants To Swing For The Fence On Vouchers


Conservative columnist Chris Freind sent me a note in response to yesterday’s item in which I took issue with his opposition to SB 1, the school choice bill recently introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate.

Chris sent me this link to a follow-up column, “Some School Choicers Have Defeatist  Attitude” he wrote on his blog at The Philly Post to clarify his position. The Philly Post is  affiliated with Philadelphia magazine.

The follow-up makes it clear that what Chris is advocating is that all Pennsylvania children should have access to vouchers, not just the poor as would be the case with SB 1 .

Chris wants to swing for the fence which is admirable but to swing for the fence one must be in the game and the only school choice player in the game right now is SB 1, and there is nothing wrong with bunting for a base hit either.

Those who have issues with SB 1 should, rather than attack it, find a legislator willing to introduce a competing bill.

Vouchers for all Pennsylvania children is a wonderfully radical idea. You won’t find any objection to it here.

With that said, Pennsylvania would be much improved if SB 1 should pass and this includes the burden on suburban taxpayers. Not only would less of their money be wasted in incompetent pits of corruption like The School District of Philadelphia, they might actually find an unexpected windfall when the refugees — most of whom would come from loving families eager for them to learn — flock to vacancies in their successful districts carrying that $9,000 in state money with them. Note, vacancy  means no new teachers to hire and no new classrooms to build.

In other words it means found money.

So those with concerns about SB 1, please be careful about attacking it. Be especially careful about giving ammunition to the self-proclaimed “liberal, tolerant, caring, sensitive” crowd who will certainly play the race card in mounting opposition to the bill.

Further, one would not want to alienate allies like state senators Anthony H. Williams and  LeAnna Washington as we do seek to expand choice to all children.