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.