|
|
July 18, 2003/Tamuz 18 5763, Vol. 55, No. 47
AZ reps back D.C. vouchers
BARRY COHEN
Editor
Four Arizona congressmen have taken the lead on an education voucher issue far from home.
In an effort to provide parents with increased choice and greater control in how they educate their children, four members of the Arizona delegation to the House of Representatives are co-sponsoring a bill to implement vouchers in the Washington, D.C., school system.
Co-sponsor Rep. Jeff Flake (R-6th District) sees the passage of the voucher legislation as a model for school systems across the nation.
"If we can show the voucher system works in D.C., then other school districts will be able to follow their lead," he said.
Some observers said chances are slim the legislation could serve as a model to implement a voucher system in Arizona.
The D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (H.R. 2556) would provide low-income parents with children in primary or secondary schools in the District of Columbia school system with scholarships to attend higher performing schools, including private religious institutions.
The bill, which squeaked through a House committee 22-21 on July 10 and will be heard on the House of Representatives floor at a yet-to-be-determined date, would provide parents with up to $7,500 per student per academic year to cover tuition, fees and transportation expenses. Total cost to U.S. taxpayers is projected at $15 million in 2004 and "such sums as may be necessary for each of the four succeeding financial years."
Representatives Trent Franks (R-2nd District), Jim Kolbe (R-8th District) and John Shadegg (R-3rd District) are among the 23 co-sponsors of the legislation, in addition to Flake. A spokesman for Ed Pastor (D-4th District) said the congressman opposes the legislation.
Arizona's proponents of the legislation said the voucher plan would empower parents with the ability to make choices in how their children are educated.
Parents need more control over their children's education, said Kolbe in a statement. Vouchers would allow choice parents to send their children to private schools that in the past they could not afford, he added.
Choice is vital to the success of "how we are able to educate and inculcate values that are American into the hearts and souls of our children," said Franks. "Vouchers would enable parents to send their children to a school "that reflects their value and faith."
The D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003 most likely would not serve as a model for Arizona, said Tom Horne, state Superinten-dent of Public Instruction.
The Arizona constitution is clear that "no public money can be used for religious or private schools," he said.
Because charter schools are vibrant in Arizona, vouchers are not needed; Arizona has only 2 percent of the nation's population but 20 percent of the country's charter schools, Horne added.
Further, Arizona's open enrollment system allows parents to send their children to the public school of their choice, he said.
On Feb. 11, Flake introduced a District of Columbia Student Oppor-tunity Scholarship Act of 2003 (H.R. 684). The Government Reform Com-mittee then decided to move forward on the similarly structured D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003, introduced by the com-mittee's chairman, Tom Davis (R-Va.).
"With our bill, the scholarship could have been used at private or public schools in counties adjacent" to Washington, D.C., said Matt Specht, Flake's press secretary. The current measure would limit scholarships for schools in the District of Columbia.
Congress is considering legislation impacting the Washington, D.C., school system because the District of Columbia lacks a state legislature, said Flake.
Opponents of the D.C. parental choice measure cite a variety of reasons.
The Religious Action Center of the Reform Jewish Movement believes funding for the bill would divert money intended for public schools, said Mark Pelavin, RAC associate director, in a statement. Congress already is "proposing to appropriate $6.1 billion less than it authorized ... to help educate children living in poverty," he said. The bill would divert $75 million over five years from the already under-funded public school systems, he noted.
In addition, vouchers jeopardize religious liberty by forcing parents to send their children to religious schools, noted Pelavin. Of private schools in the District of Columbia system with tuition below $5,000, 25 of 32 are parochial, he explained.
Like the RAC, the Anti-Defamation League is opposed to vouchers.
"Many want to see the public education system crumble," said Bill Straus, Phoenix-based ADL region-al director. "Nothing will hasten that more than vouchers."
Straus said money avail-able for education is a "zero-sum game." Vouch-ers drain money from the public school system, causing programming to be eliminated, said Straus, such as programs for special needs students. Vouchers lower the quality of education for students who depend upon public schools, he added.
Eleanor Eisenberg, exe-cutive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, said advocates of the legislation may argue it is worthy because it would allow parents to better direct their children's education, but in reality it would be using public money to fund private schools.
The AzCLU opposes not only vouchers but also Arizona's school tuition tax credit that enables households voluntarily to receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit for certain contributions to student tuition organizations.
The STO structure creates "a legal fiction," she said. "It is disingenuous for the state to say that money you would pay (to the government) is not being shifted by the state through parents" to fund private and religious education.
Congressman Franks said he favors Arizona's school tuition tax credit to any voucher system but is supporting the D.C. voucher legislation because the education and values taught to children are "of the profoundest importance ... and parents are the best suited with the right to make these decisions," he said.
Contact the writer at barry_cohen@jewishaz.com.
|
