W ashington Watch
School Choice Conundrum School choice is the “civil rights issue” of the 21st century, says Pennsylvania state Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams (D., Philadelphia/Delaware). Williams and Republican Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (Dauphin/York) have authored Senate Bill 1 (SB1), Pennsylvania’s school choice legislation. The bill has become a flashpoint for education reform advocates, legislators, and thousands of parents. SB1 proposes two actions: First, “opportunity scholarships” will be available for low-income students (130 percent of federal poverty level) for three years. The bill identifies 144 “low-performing schools” that are the bottom 5 percent of public schools as measured by standardized test scores in reading and math. In the first year, all students in those schools who meet the income guidelines will be offered an opportunity scholarship (voucher) equal to the amount of the state contribution to their school. Parents can use the voucher to enroll their child in a public or private school of their choice. In year two, parents from the boundary area of that school will qualify, and in year three, all Pennsylvania parents who meet the income guidelines will qualify. Second, SB1 gives a funding increase to the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) program. Pennsylvania started EITC nine years ago and provides up to 90 percent in tax credits to qualifying businesses that contribute to a scholarship fund for low- and low/middleincome students in the state. Currently, $75 million in tax credits is available, and SB1 would increase that to $100 million.
36 PRISM Magazine
Proponents of SB1 say that parents of students in failing schools have waited long enough for education reform. There are successful private and charter school models that can build capacity if provided the funding for additional seats. Williams, himself raised in the West Philadelphia district he represents, says his constituency is pleading with him to provide better schools. He insists he can do that with SB1. Others insist that SB1 does nothing to guarantee that students will receive a better education at the school in which they choose to enroll. Detractors say that a charter or private school does not necessarily provide a better education. There must be accountability for the recipient school, they say. The largest obstacle SB1 may face is the constitutionality issue. Opponents of SB1 cite the Pennsylvania State Constitution, which states, “No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.” Williams and Piccola have two counter-arguments. First, Pennsylvania’s General Fund revenue, which will fund SB1, is not raised for the purposes of funding public education and therefore does not meet this definition. Further, federal funds and local property tax revenue designated for education will remain with local districts under SB1. Second, Pennsylvania General Fund dollars will go directly to parents rather than religious schools. Proponents cite the case of the Cleveland Scholarship Program heard by the US Supreme Court in 2002 that sets a precedent for the constitutionality of school vouchers. The majority opinion said that vouchers were constitutional because public money was directed to parents to choose a school rather than to religious schools. On the margins of the fray is newly elected Republican Governor Tom Corbett. His staff has said that the governor supports school choice, but he has not made any statements specifically supporting SB1. Because of Corbett’s 2011-2012 state budget proposal that cuts $1 billion in education funding, the School District
Christopher M. Petersen of Philadelphia (where two-thirds of the targeted 144 schools reside) is predicting a $629 million deficit. While it is likely that targeted schools will not lose all eligible students to vouchers, some parents will choose to take their children elsewhere. If that happens, individual schools will still be responsible to operate their schools, but they will have lost a portion of their operational funds to vouchers. Those losses plus state cuts could increase problems for the targeted schools. For those whose faith is at the center of all things—including politics, public dollars, and education—education must be a human rights matter. Caring for the poor and marginal is central to belief in God. Research on poor urban neighborhoods now suggests that failing schools are a cause of poverty. While there are examples of public school successes in urban neighborhoods, they are the exceptions. Improving education in high-poverty innercity neighborhoods must be a top priority for people of faith. Following the examples of Cleveland, Milwaukee, and DC, Williams and Piccola have put vouchers center stage in Pennsylvania. SB1 presents a valuable option for poor children in failing schools. However, for it to improve the educational climate, SB1 should require schools that receive voucher funds to perform at higher educational levels than the 144 low-performing schools. This will ensure children are moving to an improved school. Also, the authors of the bill need to consider how vouchers, because of decreased funding to individual schools, may lead to consolidations and closures. By demanding accountability and a long-term plan for failing schools, SB1 can become visionary legislation that creates a more equitable education for the poor in Pennsylvania and, by its example, inspires other states to do the same.
Christopher M. Petersen works as a fundraiser for a private school in Southwest Philadelphia, Pa.