May 1, 2001

TO:
 JCPA Member Agencies
FROM:

Karen Senter, Co-Director for Domestic Concerns
Reva Price, Washington Representative
RE:
 Action Needed on Public Education

 

ACTION SUMMARY

This week, debate begins on "S.1" (the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act - BEST), the Senate legislative vehicle for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In the House, the Education and Workforce Committee begins tomorrow to mark up its version of the bill, "H-1". A primary stumbling block in moving legislation forward is continuing disagreement about how much money to authorize for ESEA programs (currently funded at about $17.5 billion). In addition, a central component of the Administration’s plan requiring testing every year from 3rd-8th grade with consequences for low performing schools contains provisions that could allow for school vouchers. Proposals to block grant federal education funds to states could also undermine the federal policy of targeting these funds for disadvantaged children. Finally, measures in both the House and Senate versions would inject a "charitable choice" component into some ESEA programs.

ACTION: As debate continues, ask legislators in both Houses to support and fund sound programs that strengthen public schools, to ensure that all students have access to quality teachers, smaller classrooms and sound school buildings. Urge them to oppose block grants, which allow the diversion of funds from poor children, to reject taxpayer-funded vouchers and voucher-like "portability" plans that drain resources from public schools, and to oppose "charitable choice" provisions that provide federal dollars to religious organizations for the provision of education services, without safeguards against discrimination and proselytization.

 

BACKGROUND

· ESEA Reauthorization: The ESEA, first enacted in 1965, is our government’s single largest investment in elementary and secondary education. It provides targeted resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students have access to a quality public education. Over the years, its programs have evolved to reflect the most current thinking about what works in education, encompassing 40 plus programs that frame our national education effort. The largest portion of the bill, Title I, which targets disadvantaged students, funds reading and math programs, promotes parental involvement, and professional development opportunities. Yet, Title I has never been fully funded. Current funding is sufficient for only one-third of the 11 million eligible children. Legislators should be urged to support increased ESEA funding levels.

· Vouchers and other portability proposals: With testing and accountability as a centerpiece in the current reauthorization effort, low-performing schools in poor neighborhoods could lose a portion of their federal Title I funds. Under the Administration’s plan, districts with schools that fail to improve would be required to set aside and make available to parents a per-pupil portion of their federal funds, which could be used to pay for private school tuition. In the Senate, a proposed supplemental services compromise would allow funds to be used instead to purchase supplemental educational services. Despite guidelines and restrictions on the use of funds, however, the compromise proposal requires little accountability for the quality of services provided, increases the bureaucratic burden to state education agencies, and diverts money from schools that need it most. Moreover, it is expected an amendment will be offered during debate to expand the sources of funding and allowable uses to include private school tuition. Legislators should be urged to oppose voucher proposals, including the Senate supplemental services compromise, and all amendments to expand it.

· Block Grants: The original Administration bill includes a "Straight A’s" (Academic Achievement for All) or "charter states" proposal to send federal education funds to the states as block grants to be used for any educational purpose as long as states achieve better results. A Senate compromise in S. 1 authorizes a "Straight A’s" demonstration project allowing 25 districts and 7 states to block grant several federal programs, including Title I. Participating states and school districts could use the block-granted federal funds for any elementary and secondary educational purpose permitted under the law of the participating state, including vouchers in those states that currently have voucher programs, and would also serve as an incentive to enact voucher programs in other states. The proposal also undermines the targeting currently achieved in the distribution of federal funds, and diminishes accountability. Urge legislators to oppose the "Straight A’s" block grant proposal, whether available nationally or only as a demonstration project.

· School modernization and class size reduction: Important provisions that would improve public education, including measures to reduce class size and repair crumbling buildings, are missing from the Senate bill and may not be included in the House committee markup. Studies have demonstrated the positive impact of class size reduction on teaching and learning and Congress has supported class size reduction on a bipartisan basis for the past three years. In addition, a bipartisan agreement last year would provide resources for urgent school repair needs, to address such problems as crumbling roofs and unsafe electrical systems. In the Senate, attempts will be made to add these measures as amendments during floor debate. Legislators in both Houses should be urged to support proposals that would retain the class size reduction program and restore the grant program for urgent school repairs.

· After-school programs and charitable choice: Under current law, faith-based organizations can partner with local education agencies (LEAs) to provide after-school services. Among other services, these programs provide extended learning opportunities for students in low-performing schools. The LEAs are responsible for the funds and for ensuring that the services are provided in accordance with constitutional and educational requirements. However, under charitable choice provisions, federal funds would flow directly to community-based organizations, including those that are pervasively sectarian, which could be free from reporting requirements, not subject to monitoring, and may be exempted from many civil rights, certification, and professional training requirements. Legislators should be urged to reject these provisions, which do not contain safeguards against discrimination in hiring or to prevent proselytization.

JCPA POLICY ON CHARITABLE CHOICE

The JCPA opposes charitable choice legislation that does not contain meaningful and effective First Amendment safeguards such as those that prevent proselytization, coercion or indoctrination and that safeguard clients and service provider employees against religiously-based discrimination.

VOUCHERS

As the Congress discusses the enormous needs of public education, vouchers continue to be seen by some as an "easy fix." In fact nothing could be further from the truth.

  1. Vouchers undermine public school reform efforts by shifting scarce resources away from public schools. For example the National Education Association reports that in order to pay for Cleveland’s voucher program, Ohio transferred $5.25 million from the public schools’ share of the state’s Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid program. The voucher program in Milwaukee is shifting $25 million away from public schools, which could have been used to expand the program to reduce class size.

  1. Vouchers do not ensure parental "choice." Private school admissions offices make the choice of which students to admit or reject regardless of whether a student holds a voucher. By definition, private schools are selective, using a variety of criteria to weed out applicants. Further, most private and religious school costs would not be covered by the value of the voucher. Also, some voucher-eligible students would find that the voucher is an illusion of choice, because no openings are available to them.

  2. Vouchers raise serious constitutional problems by allowing the federal government to fund religious schools. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Cleveland’s private religious school voucher program in December 2000, holding that tax aid to religious schools violates the constitutional separation of church and state. This decision came just a month after voters in Michigan and California overwhelmingly defeated voucher ballot initiatives.

JCPA EDUCATION AND VOUCHER POLICY

The JCPA supports sound, innovative educational programs that improve public school education without compromising essential constitutional freedoms; opposes block grants which could allow the diversion of funds from poor children; opposes publicly financed vouchers for non-public school education, because such voucher programs would undermine public education and also would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and strongly supports non-governmental efforts to provide additional financial resources for Jewish day schools and other forms of Jewish education, emphasizing that the responsibility for funding Jewish education lies first and foremost with the Jewish community.

 

Finally, ESEA reauthorization will likely take several weeks to complete and will involve numerous legislative changes and revised proposals. The JCPA will continue to provide updates as needed as the debate continues. Please feel free to contact us with suggestions, questions, or requests for additional information.