|
|
Editor’s note —The Florida Tax and Budget Reform Commission convenes every
20 years and has the power to propose constitutional amendments for
consideration by voters. The 25 member commission is considering
educational choice in Florida.
Thank you Chairman Levine
and members of the Governmental Procedures and Instruction Committee. I do
appreciate Chairman Levine, Mr. Rouson and possibly a few other members of
the Florida Tax and Budget Reform Commission asking that I present our
perspective before your committee. For those of you who may not know, the
Florida Catholic Conference’s level of influence within the public policy
arena is actually more akin to offering analysis and perspective to help
decision makers arrive at what we consider just decisions. To that end, I
hope in the next 30 minutes or so I can delve into this perspective as
relating to our experiences within the school choice movement and share some
of our reflections and analyses over a protracted time that actually
predates the enactment of the Opportunity Scholarship Program and the A+
Plan. We actually were advocating for school choice well before legislation
was considered. We were not alone. I was hoping that John McKay, as a member
of the Commission, might attend this subcommittee meeting. Through the
years, we have worked closely with John McKay as a state senator and in
subsequent years on policy relating to school choice and disability-related
issues. I remember talking to then Senator McKay back in 1997-1998. As some
of you may know, he would file a disability related scholarship bill every
year and often the bills did not receive a committee hearing. Eventually his
legislation did receive its due attention and the rest is history. He
provided a model example as to how to stay the course in the spirit of
incremental progress. There is little doubt that his diligence within the
10-15 year period led to the establishment of the McKay Scholarship Program
for Students with Disabilities. Despite some negativity, more than 17,000
children are participating in the program.
As I think back over the
past 10-12 years, I would be less than candid if I did not talk about some
of our concerns. I remember when the A+ Plan was enacted in April 1999.and
talking to individuals such as Patrick Heffernan, John Kirtley and Brewser
Brown, who was then the chief of staff to Lt. Gov. Frank Brogan. We were
looking forward to the implementation of the A+ Plan because at that time,
each of us believed that the social justice aspects of school choice, --
families that do not the financial wherewithal to select schools for their
children as families with means can and do for their children – would
provide newfound opportunities for as many parents and children as possible.
Many of us viewed school choice as a new civil rights issue, which recently
led to a conversation with Darryl Rouson, who graduated from St. Petersburg
Catholic High School as I did. He contacted me a few months ago and told me
that the minority enrollment in Catholic schools is by and large the same
percentage today as it was 35 years ago when he graduated from high school.
He essentially indicated that he perceives school choice as a means to
create more opportunities for minority families. I told him that our impetus
for advocating for school choice was the social justice for working poor
families, including minorities, to have the opportunities to attend the
schools of their parents’ choice.
As I wrote in the talking
points that I believe each of you received in advance of this meeting, the
“devil is in the details” and I don’t mean to make that a pejorative issue.
There have been arguably mistakes in the school choice movement. One of the
mistakes from my perspective is that “out of gates so to speak,” we believed
that the 78 public schools that are defined as lower performing may lead to
thousands of public school students opting to enroll in private schools on
Opportunity Scholarships. As some of you know, the public school system went
to great ends to raise their school grades through student performance on
the FCAT. So, school choice really was not prolific as far as providing
school-choice opportunities for public school students to transition to
private schools. But the mentality remained in place that I consider the
“critical mass approach,” which is a quantity over quality approach to
create as many private school seats as possible. The Catholic schools were
approached about building new schools and creating schools almost
immediately by renting buildings in store-front type areas. The emphasis on
creating private school seats led to what some considered incentives to
establish private schools and indirectly receive state-sponsored
scholarships.
Our position is
establishing a school is a very complex dynamic and we still feel that way,
and it’s not something that can be created overnight. I am here today to
represent what I think was a mentality or perspective to create as many
nonpublic schools in the state to reach a critical mass of hundreds of
thousands of students. Obviously, that did not occur, but the way the
program laws were written, it was very laisez-faire or permissive to
encourage private schools to participate. Those of you who believe in the
free market entrepreneurial spirit, I
certainly do not want to say we have a license as Catholic schools to
participate in these programs and others do not. We are simply saying that
drafting a proposed constitutional amendment relating to school choice from
our perspective should be written clearly, tightly and succinctly. We do
not know who is going to be in office within the Florida Legislature in
five, ten, fifteen and 20 years from now. Obviously, there are people who
may want to provide the Legislature with carte blanche to create school
choice programs for conceivably any reason. If language were to be adopted
into the Florida Consitution that is not written tightly or precisely, it
could likely lead to providing the Legislature with the safeguards to create
school choice programs for any purpose. Suffice to say, we have concerns
about that.
We, the Florida Catholic
Conference, believe that our bishops are partners with the public
educational system. Those of you who are familiar with federal law
understand FAPE -- free and appropriate public school education. Public
schools are the bedrock of education in the state. Catholic Schools, other
non-public schools, homeschool programs and like I said in my talking
points, are alternatives. Alternatives for people to have a lot of choices,
but not to supplant the bedrock of education in the state, which is public
school education.
Now, there are also two
sides to this issue and people who are proponents and opponents of school
choice. If the language was written in a way that is overly broad,
subjective or subject to interpretation, there may be future legislators who
would draft a bill to take advantage of a situation to create pervasive
school choice that would be constitutionally safeguarded if in fact a
broadly proposed amendment were placed on the ballot and adopted. When
talking with people around the state for years about a proposal
constitutional amendment, and I sometimes buy into this, a proposal
constitional amendment is presented as a panacea to solve all of our
solutions in the school choice arena. As a representative of the Florida
Catholic Conference, obviously we believe it’s long overdue to have Blaine
language amended in the constitution under Article I, Section III. I’m sure
that each of you realize the origin of Blaine language. That is, Congressmen
Blaine originated anti Catholic language in his congressional legislation.
He was unsuccessful in his congressional legislation, but states basically
utilized some of that language to place in their constitutions.
I am here today as someone
who is attempting to articulate the pros and cons and help you as members of
your committee within the Commission to have that information to make an
informed- responsible decision. Also, it is relevant to point out that in
the Florida Supreme Court ruling in respect to the Opportunity Scholarship
Program, the court did not rule on the religious aspects of the programs. It
ruled on the uniformity issue, which is another reason why the religious
concerns relating to Blaine language will not solve all of the problems
within the scope of school-choice movement. I had a conversation years ago
with an attorney, who is elderly now, but I always thought that his advice
was very sage in response to my complaint to him about the conflicts in the
school choice arena as relating to religious schools teaching religion while
indirectly receiving governmental aid. He said to me, “Larry, we will always
have those issues, they’re never going to go away.” Even with a proposal
constitutional amendment, there will be situations in which people will look
at the Lemon Test and ask if the religious schools are within the proper
realm in accordance with Lemon. In trying to give a broad based
perspective, yes, there is no doubt a proposed constitutional amendment
would safeguard or insulate the programs and also lay a foundation for more
school choice programs to be created in the foreseeable future.
I would like to make a
statement about parents: I mentioned on the front end, our involvement in
school choice is based upon social justice. We believe that parents are
first and foremost educators of their children. Parents are in the best
situation to know which schools are best suited for their children. We have
rich documentation within the Catholic Church that eloquently conveys the
rights of parents to be imminently involved in their children’s education.
I believe that this Commission, as well as the Florida Legislature, could
play a pivotal role for parents. I mention this because a parent does not
determine the provisions within a bill that becomes law relating to school
choice. Parents do not determine whether or not teachers within private
schools should have degrees. Parents want to do what’s right for their
children; they want to look at options, including the public schools. In
the school choice arena, there are times in which parents choose a school
because they believe it has an outstanding reputation. In particular
instances where children have disabilities, there have been parents who
conveyed to me that they thought that a particular school would be able to
meet their child’s special education needs because the school had a good
reputation for educating children in general. Parents cannot force the
Legislature to require a minimum base line of standardlization for
accountability to protect the children from the flaws in a program. Some of
you may be thinking, “Parents can choose with their feet and go elsewhere,”
and that’s something that can be seriously considered.
As you consider this, I
think you have to look at it in a bifurcated way. It is a two-step process.
If you are in the process of drafting, you’re at one level, for a
constitutional amendment, I also recommend that you look at the possibility
of the amendment being adopted by voters and then to determine if the
language is written in a way that would limit unintended consequences down
the road in the Florida Legislature. As I stated earlier, we do not know who
will be in power in five, ten and 15 years and can’t assume that people in
the Legislature will frame something up that will be outstanding-good
policy. I think that’s something to take a look at.
I believe school choice in
principle is a fundamental issue. Some parents do not have financial ability
to choose the schools they believe are best for their children. The core
value of school choice is a civil right to liberate all families to be
empowered with the freedom to engage in school-choice options. But the
entrepreneurial and
political facets of schools choice at times do not mesh well with the
educational priorities. I believe that there is considerable
fragmentation among the educational, political and entrepreneurial interests
in school choice. As I stated in my talking points, consensus is achieved
through broad-based concept. When you talk to people who represent private
schools and talk to parents, they are on board with the concept of school
choice. The devil is in the details – how it is written. I can tell you that
some of the most tense discussions have been working with my fellow
colleagues in the private school community as to how a bill should be
written in respect to accountability for schools participating in
school-choice programs.
In my opinion, there is
something that should be considered that is another facet to school choice
as it relates to the proposed amendment process, which is the public
relation side. It is my understanding, although school choice is near and
dear to many of us, through poling surveys, most of the 17 million voters in
Florida, do not prioritize school choice in their frontal lobe of thinking.
Many of them are more concerned about property taxes, insurance, Medicaid
and other issues. School choice is not ranked at the top as the issue that
Floridians are most concerned about. Where school choice fits within the
tapestry within other potential constitutional amendments is probably
somewhat speculative.
There is also a concern
that if there are many proposed constitutional amendments, at some point
through public relations and public sentiment, there will be support for
some and others will fall by the wayside or may be sacrificed. That is not
to discourage you. I wanted to make another point, but I may have already
covered it.
If there is time, I would
be more than happy to answer any questions.
Question #1 :
Mr. Keough, I graduated from St. Mary’s Academy in New Orleans. My mother
graduated from the same Catholic high school and had it not been for that
school, the opportunity that she had would not have been there for her. The
Catholic Church in their system of schools, I think it has been a tremendous
difference in the minority community and I was excited about you coming
today. I am concerned that funding private institutions with public money
will hurt the public school system. My mother was sent to a Catholic
because the public school was going through integration and she did not want
me in the middle of the mix on integration issues. She sent me to a private
school because she did not want me to be a part of the riots. I am
concerned that, “yes, there are poor public schools,“ but there are public
schools that are there as the safety net and that we need to strengthen the
safety net and those people that have the opportunity to go the private
institutions can afford to put that money out. If they can’t afford it,
they are private scholarship, faith-based organizations, and education
services for the social justice issues. The need for public dollars needs
to be building a system for public schools that provide a quality education
for all students. I am very interested in some of your thoughts processes
on that issue:
Response: The public school education is
the bedrock of education. I also mentioned the politics of school choice.
There are legislators and staff whom I have talked to over the past 10-11
years who basically wanted to create school choice that would lead to a
constituency base of hundreds of thousands of parents whose children are in
private schools on scholarships. When you look at that, think about the
consequences to the public educational system. Funding would be impacted
and then look at the policy perspective for children who stay behind in the
public educational system, given that an exodus from the public educational
system occurs. Not only is the public school system impacted, but also do
the private schools have the seats to accommodate tens of thousands of
children? What we have found is the established private schools do not.
That leads to another question, Who is going to be creating the new
schools? I do understand the free market concept and if you provide an
opportunity people may what to create private schools. Maybe they believe in
it. Maybe they believe that it’s their mission in life to reach out to the
children on scholarships. So, I am not saying that every time a private
school is created that there is a devious motivation, but in order for the
supply to meet the demand, a lot of private schools would have to be
created. We know when schools are created quickly, a lot of times
accountability suffers. You mentioned religion. I thought that was also a
good point. I am concerned that the religious mission of Catholic Schools
at some point will be diluted. Every time a school choice bill is enacted,
there are provisions that the primary benefit of the program is to be
secular and the secular motivation has to supersede the religious benefit or
else the program is unconstutional. The programs are not to primarily
benefit religion within the context of governmental aid indirectly received
by participating religious schools. But what happens when religious schools
become dependent on the governmental aid and continual
regulation encroaches on the religious
mission of these schools? When religious schools become dependent upon
governmental funding, then they are willing to accommodate changes in the
law through a glitch bill that potentially comprises their very existence.
The bottom line is the religious mission of the school is conceivably
de-prioritized.
The Catholic
Schools were established because they’re Catholic. There are a lot people
in the state who can provide a very good academic program. We have some
very fine public schools, great IB programs, fine charter schools and
obviously, if the mission of Catholic schools were simply providing a
quality academic education, you would possibly say others could do that as
well. I ask myself are we involved with something that compromises the core
of what we are about? So in summary, I thought your question was excellent.
It has a consequence to the public and private schools, the overall movement
and the religious mission of Catholic schools as well as other religious
schools.
Comment: I appreciate your comments on
social justice and that moves many of the commissioners and us in other
aspects. We in fact have saved money on the corporate income tax programs.
The scholarship program also provides the same type of physical savings in
addition to the social aspects of providing the best education and fits the
students’ needs.
Question#2:
You mentioned the Blaine amendment earlier, does that have any barriers and
other aspects of what’s provided by the state? Are there other potential
affects on the Blaine Amendment on religious run, hospital, nursing homes or
institution?
Response: Obviously, I am here to speak
on education related dynamics as it relates to school choice. We have
considerations beyond education as to our perspective relating to a proposed
constitutional amendment. The Blaine language is a concern relating to
Catholic and other religious hospitals, Catholic Charities, and soup
kitchens providing shelter for the homeless etc. As the overall commission
looks at this issue from a more pervasive perspective, you may want to
consider inviting my boss who is the Executive Director of the Florida
Catholic Conference, Dr. Michael McCarron, who could speak beyond the
education issues.
One of the interesting
subplots in the school choice movement is even though Blaine language is in
the Constitution; there is a hue and cry when funds are provided indirectly
to K-12 religious schools. A couple of years ago when a proposed
constitutional amendment was drafted to address the Blaine language as
relating to school choice, several of us were perusing the dozens of
programs in which governmental aid is indirectly received at private and
religious institutions. When faith-based early childhood programs receive
childcare block grants, or when post secondary students are receiving ABLE,
FRAG or minority scholarships there is little or no controversy. The
controversy is within the K-12 arena involving state-sponsored scholarships
and tax credits that are indirectly received by religious and other private
schools. With that stated, in the late 1990s the word “voucher” was a loaded
term. I was told by other school choice proponents not to use the word
voucher. Today, when I talk to people in the public education system, as
well as Republicans and Democrats, there seems to be more receptivity to the
concept of school choice that was not evident a mere 10 years ago. It is my
great hope as we move forward in future years, there will be less resistance
within the K-12 scope of governmental aid to private schools.
Comment:
I recognize the concerns the Commissioner Mathis has about the safety net of
level of funding for all students in all schools. That’s part of the beauty
of the A + plan to give them some sort of analysis to grade. It’s
interesting since the A + plan been in effect, if you look at the pupil
expenditures based on the grades of the schools, it’s the F schools that
received greater pupil than the other grades out there. It is the lower
performing schools that are getting more money across the state.
Question#3:
Do you have any proposed language fixed or has
the conference endorsed language over the past few years as the legislator
met that would addressed the Blaine amendment or any other aspects of the
education system that is important to fix?
Response:
Thank you. It’s my recollection that two years
ago when draft language was being proposed before the Senate voted down a
proposed amendment our legal council reviewed language and preferred one
particular draft over others. I can tell you that I look at concept in the
big picture and I really don’t know where the commission is as far as
drafting language and how far you may be along. I am hesitant to offer
language because we have a process for our recommendations to be processed
before we would be in a posture to promulgate it. I think the language
should be very carefully crafted and I certainly didn’t want to come here
today without the language being carefully thought out. If the Commission
through this Subcommittee would like us to do that, we would begin to work
on it.
Question#4:
My first year out of college, I taught at a
Baptist Christian School, that particular school was associated with one
church. The board directors voted to pay salaries that were equal to Duval
School Board salaries for starting teachers. Are Catholic school teachers
paid about the same as public school teachers, more or less?
Response:
No, they are not. Many of our teachers approach
their work as a ministry to teach children in their faith. They are
employed in the Catholic school system. We attempt to set a benchmark for
teachers’ salary at 80 percent of what a beginning public school teacher
would earn in the applicable school district. Candidly, we do not always
meet the threshold of 80 percent. We lose teachers to the public educational
system. We realize that teachers have car payments, mortgages. Some are
single parents. In fact, sometimes-Catholic schoolteachers are in a
dilemma. They can remain in the Catholic schools, but can’t afford to send
their children to the school where they teach, or they can teach in a public
school and send their children to a Catholic school.
We have rich Church
documentation on Catholic social teaching, which relates to a fair and just
wage. This is something that we are very concerned about that we must find
a way to pay our teachers a fair and just wage in all instances. Many of
them are receiving a fair and just wage, but beyond that, we hope to be more
competitive with the public education system.
Question#5:
What does it cost for the Catholic Church
in Florida to education a student K-12 on an average per year?
Response:
On the average, you have to basically
compartmentalize from early childhood, K-8 and high school. Before I answer
the entire question, let me say that for years we would post our tuition,
and parents would perceive that tuition to be the total educational cost.
However, tuition is the just a partial costs relative to the overall pupil
expenditure. I would say the average would be for k-8 education, somewhere
in the neighborhood of 6,500 and obviously, a higher cost is in South
Florida, and lower cost is in this area of the state. At the secondary
level as you can imagine it would probably be a range in total per pupil
expenditure from $12,000 to $14,000. If you would like specific figures, I
can provide those to each of you upon request.
Question#6:
When you thinking about the next 20 years, and
you are drafting standards, they are based on your knowledge in today’s
environment; this could be very different in how things exist today. How do
you do that?
Response:
I think it really comes down to scope. You are
absolutely correct because we don’t know what things are going to look like
within the next 20 years. I don’t think you want to draft language that
would provide the Legislature with cart blanche authority to create school
choice under any circumstances which I do believe would undermine the public
educational system. Also, we don’t want to create fear that every time a
legislator has a good idea to create future school choice programs, the
programs will not be insulated or safeguarded from constitutional scrutiny.
There is a balance to place parameters on the Legislature to sponsor
legislation that is good public policy by providing new opportunities for
children, but at the same time crafting responsibly so it does not
undermine the public school system.
Question#7:
Why is that bad? It seems to me that, “the more
we try to limit in the constitution,” the more we are limiting the
Legislature from being able to adapt to that environment. How do you
explain this?
Response: Over the
last 200 plus years in the nation of ours, when we attempt to forecast the
foreseeable future, there is one concept; the public educational system,
which is codified in federal law. Federal dollars comes down to the states
for purpose of providing educational services in public schools. Through
FAPE, we have laws at the federal level that will be constant in the years
ahead. I can’t image a scenario even with alternative education in which
this state of ours would come to a realization that public school education
is not the foundation to educate our populace. Fundamentally from the
conceptual perspective, we don’t want to do anything that will create
unintended consequences for the public education system.
Question#8:
Forgive me for missing some of your opening
remarks, I appreciate all of the cautions you have given us, but let me ask
you a question. Do you think there should or should not some need for
clarifications on the school choice issues? Is that a yes or no?
Response: Yes, if I hadn’t been clear,
thank you for clarifying that for me. We believe the Blaine language should
have been addressed a long time ago. Sometimes we don’t have clear
recommendations with all the pros and cons. We have poor families in
Catholic schools, whose parents are earning less than 35,000 in their
household income. They work two jobs, both moms and dads in order to send
their children to Catholic schools. Obviously, for those of you who
remember, we advocated for scholarship eligibility to be based on need, not
what school system a student attends. To this day, parents who enroll their
children in a Catholic school and either meet the poverty threshold of the
Corporate Tax Scholarship Program or whose children are in need of special
education services, can’t benefit from Florida’s two pending statewide
scholarship programs. Many of these parents are working poor families, lower
middle income. I can tell you that this is a bitter pill to swallow for our
parents. We would like to see some language crafted and though I may be
asking for the impossible, to do so in a manner not to dismantle the public
educational system while at the same time to safeguard the programs and base
eligibility on need.
Question#11:
I’ve heard this saying once before about the
dismantling the public education system. We have experienced children in
the school system that had chosen to opt out to participate in the
Opportunity Scholarship voucher program. Is there any evidence that public
school funding has been diminished by voucher school programs?
Response:
That’s a good question for clarification and the
answer is no. But, there are a total of 700 and some odd number of students
who were on Opportunity scholarships. On the average, they were receiving
$3,500.per scholarship, which is less than the pupil expenditures in those
counties. My concern that I raised is creating a constitutional amendment
that would give the Legislature carte blanche authority. They wouldn’t have
to be concerned with the Florida Constitution and thereby create any type of
school choice for any reason or purpose. I think that’s a slippery slope,
if that were to occur. As I said earlier, I represent to you, I’ve been in
meetings with dignitaries who are very influential and we had conversations
about creating a critical mass of hundreds of thousands of scholarship
students. When you reach that type of level, then I think you seriously
begin to undermine the public educational system.
Chair Levine:
Thank you very much Larry, your presentation was
very helpful.
Response:
Thank you for inviting me! |
|
