[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 69 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S5204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                     COMMON SENSE ON SCHOOL CHOICE

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in today's 
Record an unusually clear article on the complex subject of school 
vouchers. Ms. Claudia Smith Brinson at the State newspaper in Columbia, 
SC, has made the case eloquently that the choice of taxpayer funding 
for private and religious schools is a bad one. Specifically, she 
points out its history as a means of minimizing desegregation, its lack 
of results, and its lack of promise compared to other proven education 
reforms. I commend her for her eloquence and hope my colleagues will 
benefit from her column.
  The column follows:

                     [From the State, May 15, 1996]

          Let's Decide Just Exactly What School Choice' Means

                       (By Claudia Smith Brinson)

       The concept of school choice has been around a long time. 
     In the '60s, it was promoted in the South as a means of 
     minimizing court-ordered desegregation. In the '70s, 
     economist Milton Friedman talked up what he called the 
     ``free-choice'' model. In the '80s and early '90s, as 
     dissatisfaction with public schools grew, experimentation 
     kicked in.
       School choice covers an enormous range. At its most basic, 
     parents exercise choice when they buy a house in a certain 
     neighborhood. When a school provides school-within-a-school 
     options, choice is offered. When a school district provides 
     alternative or magnet schools, choice is offered. Some 
     districts allow parents with a need for flexibility regarding 
     work or child care to use intra-district choice.
       While, in this state, we have few magnet schools, half of 
     our school districts offer alternative schools or second-
     chance programs; more than half allow high-school students to 
     take college courses; almost two-thirds permit inter-district 
     transfers. Our governor's schools for arts and mathematics 
     and science increase choice statewide for our brightest 
     students.
       Nationwide, choice is often employed to help with the urban 
     suburban desegregation issue. In St. Louis, Mo., inner-city 
     children can apply to attend mostly white suburban schools. 
     To improve schooling for Hispanic students in San Antonio, 
     the Multilingual Program provides a language and cultural 
     focus for academically successful students. In Montgomery 
     County, Md., a magnet school program was introduced to 
     improve integration. In Moniclair, N.J., all schools are 
     magnet schools, and transportation is provided.
       In Cambridge, Mass., parents can choose, with the help of 
     an information center, any public school in the district. 
     In Minnesota, the whole state allows open enrollment, 
     although students must supply transportation.
       Charter schools, in which parents and teachers contract 
     with the state to provide a particular kind of education, are 
     another option. Just over 100 charter schools are in 
     operation nationwide. Here, the House has passed legislation 
     allowing charter schools; a Senate subcommittee is discussing 
     it.
       Vouchers are rare. In Milwaukee, to desegregate schools and 
     improve urban children's schooling, low-income parents were 
     invited to apply for public funds to send their children to 
     private or public suburban schools. An attempt to add church 
     schools is on hold because the state Supreme Court deadlocked 
     on its constitutionality. In Boston, private money is used to 
     send low-income children to parochial schools. In San Antonio 
     and Indianapolis, private businesses pay low-income students' 
     tuition at private schools.
       The favorite arguments for using vouchers (sending public 
     money through parents) for private schools rest on three 
     faulty premises. The first is that children make great 
     academic strides in private and parochial schools. When you 
     take out those oh-so-important factors such as parents' 
     income and education, what remains is a very small advantage 
     in scores for parochial and private school students.
       The second faulty premise is that education can be compared 
     to car-making. The premise goes like this: Education is just 
     another manufacturing process; vouchers will create 
     competition; competition will automatically improve product 
     quality. But children and learning are far more complicated 
     than autos and welding. Education is a service, and public 
     education is a service with important democratic goals, such 
     as preparing children for full citizenship, minimizing social 
     inequities and promoting cultural unity.
       It's not much better an analogy, but compare education, 
     instead, to a service like public hospitals. No one in need 
     is turned away, and yes, those who can afford to do so shop 
     around. However, the patient (both consumer and product, like 
     our students) cannot be cured at any location if destructive 
     behaviors persist. Even with some of the magical pills our 
     technology has created, radical changes in lifestyle are 
     often required. Likewise, poverty, parental disengagement, 
     behavior or discipline problems that many of our children 
     bring into the schoolhouse cannot be quickly and 
     permanently cured by shifting locale. (In Milwaukee, where 
     vouchers are being tried, academic scores haven't improved 
     and attrition remains high.)
       So vouchers are not a miracle cure. And that is the third 
     faulty premise, that any one new step, such as increased 
     choice or vouchers, will suddenly remake education. The 
     funding equity issue, raised by 40 of our districts, has yet 
     to be ruled on in court. How much good would intra-district 
     choice currently serve in some of the suing, impoverished 
     counties such as Clarendon, Lee, Williamsburg or Jasper? How 
     much help is a $1,700 voucher to an impoverished family in a 
     rural community without transportation or in an urban 
     community where private schools cost $6,000-plus a year? What 
     happens then is not that parents are offered more choice, but 
     that private schools are.
       If our community, and our Legislature, want to consider 
     choice, first the conversation has to get honest. It can be a 
     legitimate discussion given public dissatisfaction with 
     public schools and a universal desire by parents to do the 
     best possible for their children.
       But if we're going to talk about choice, what are we 
     talking about? Increasing variety? Or resegregating? If our 
     state and national constitutions forbid public money 
     supporting church schools, why on Earth is our conversation 
     about choice starting in forbidden territory?
       In a state with limited funds, why begin with vouchers when 
     encouragement for more magnet schools, school-within-a school 
     programs and inter- and intra-district transfers would offer 
     more choices to more children at no extra cost? With limited 
     funds, why not start small and emulate programs that work, 
     like the language option in San Antonio or the controlled-
     choice program in Cambridge? Why take giant, expensive leaps 
     into ideas, such as vouchers, that have barely been tested 
     anywhere?
       We have a summer to think this out.

                          ____________________