AZ Court Kills School Vouchers for Disabled, Foster Kids

From the Cato @ Liberty website:

"An Arizona appellate court struck down two school voucher programs yesterday, finding that they violate a state constitutional prohibition against using public money to aid private or religious schools. The programs, serving disabled children and those in foster care, were unanimously ruled unconstitutional by a three-judge panel of Arizona’s Division Two Court of Appeals."

Click the title of this post to read the rest of the article.

AZ School Voucher Programs Unconstitutional

Bad news for two new voucher programs...

Arizona Rates an "A"

From the desk of Harriette Johnson, Media Relations Manager hjohnson@heartland.org

Choice and Education: Arizona Rates an A

A new state-by-state analysis reveals how willing states are to give

parents control of their children's educations

(Chicago, Illinois - April 28, 2008) Parents hoping to wrest control of their children's futures away from education bureaucrats and politicians should consider moving to Arizona, a new "report card" from The Heartland Institute suggests. They should avoid Montana or Washington State.

Choice & Education Across the States ranks state efforts to increase accountability and improve student achievement with four kinds of school choice: vouchers, charters, tax credits, and public school choice.

"School choice programs give parents the power to decide where their children are schooled," notes author Michael Van Winkle. "School choice is accountability. When parents have the power to remove their children from a school that is failing them, without financial penalty, they and their children are better served."

With 23 being the highest possible score on Van Winkle's evaluation, the median score totaled just five points. Arizona and Florida achieved scores of 15 and 14, respectively--grades of A in Van Winkle's curved grading system--while Washington and Montana scored just one point each.

Arizona offers parents strong voucher, charter school, and scholarship tax-credit programs. Florida offers similar benefits, but short of Arizona's commitment. All of the other top-ranking states--Wisconsin, Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, and Georgia--offer vouchers and charters, but none offers scholarship tax credits as well.

The lowest-ranking states offer only public school choice, generally in the form of magnet schools or open enrollment across school districts. Of the eight lowest-ranking states--Montana, Washington, Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia--only Oklahoma offers any form of choice other than public school choice. Oklahoma has a charter school program.

Trevor Martin, vice president of government affairs for The Heartland Institute, explained the report card "aims to provide a roadmap for state legislators seeking to improve student achievement through school choice."

"Many states are experimenting with choice as a way to provide a quality public education," Van Winkle added. "A few states, like Arizona and Florida, are innovating at an impressive pace, willing to try new and better ways to educate children. Other states are not keeping pace and seem committed to preserving the largely choice-free status quo."

Editors: Michael Van Winkle was The Heartland Institute's legislative specialist for education policy at the time this report was written. He has since been named vice president for the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance. Robert Holland, Heartland's senior fellow for education policy, is available for comment on this study. To communicate with him, contact Harriette Johnson, Heartland's media relations manager, at 312/377-4000 or by email at hjohnson@heartland.org.

The Heartland Institute is a 24-year-old national nonprofit organization based in Chicago, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Nothing in this news release or the report it describes is intended to influence the passage of pending legislation.

All Aboard!

All Aboard!
Democrats boarding the school choice train

by Clint Bolick
June 23, 2006

The Arizona legislature’s 2006 session set a record for school choice legislation by enacting four new or expanded programs allowing disadvantaged children to attend private schools. Even more remarkable: The programs were enacted with a Democratic governor.

School choice has experienced unprecedented legislative success over the past two years for a few underlying reasons. First and foremost, the school choice movement is acting smarter. Advocates are pursuing small programs addressing specific problems that are difficult for politicians to oppose.

Another factor inducing a more tolerant attitude toward school choice among Democrats is that they are running out of viable alternatives. The U.S. Department of Education reported recently that three million children are attending schools that have failed to satisfy minimal state standards for at least six consecutive years.

For Democrats who truly believe in social justice, that presents a terrible dilemma: Either forcing children to remain in schools where they have little prospect for a bright future, or enlisting private schools in a rescue mission. Democrats are increasingly unwilling to forsake the neediest children.

Arizona is evidence of the possible. Although she could have allowed them to become law without her signature, as she did with the corporate scholarship tax credits, Gov. Napolitano yesterday became the first Democrat to sign new voucher programs into law. For children with disabilities or in foster care, how the bill became law is of little moment; but by affixing her imprimatur, Ms. Napolitano conveyed powerful symbolic evidence that the future for school choice is bright.


Clint Bolick is president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice and a Goldwater Institute senior fellow. A version of this article appeared in the Wall Street Journal

School Choice-Goldwater Institute

Unions or Children First?
Democratic officials are increasingly embracing school choice
by Dan Lips
January 30, 2006
If the legislature passes corporate tuition tax credits for a third time, Governor Napolitano will have a choice to honor her promise or, once again, veto this popular program.

This isn't the easy calculation it might seem to be. Napolitano and Democratic officials across the nation face a similar dilemma—school choice legislation forces them to choose between core constituencies.

The families who benefit most from school choice are the most undeserved by the current public school system: low-income and often minority. But those most opposed to school choice are another core Democratic constituency: the teachers unions that provide campaign funding and grassroots manpower for Democratic campaigns.

Many democrats are beginning to part ways with the unions. Democratic Mayor Anthony Williams and Senators Robert Byrd, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman all provided critical support for the new Washington, D.C., voucher program. Last year, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell expanded the state's private school scholarship program. And Democratic state legislators in New Jersey are pushing a school voucher program to help inner-city children.
Governor Napolitano must strike a balance between the demands of the 30,000-member Arizona Education Association and the needs of Arizona's children. Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor Jim Doyle faces a similar quandary. Milwaukee’s voucher program has proven so popular that more families apply for scholarships than are available. But Gov. Doyle has vetoed several proposals to raise the cap on enrollment. Because of these vetoes, thousands of inner-city children may be sent back to public schools this fall.

What will it take to change these Democratic governors' political calculus? As more parents recognize that school choice can improve their children's lives, a growing number of Democratic leaders will be forced to choose whether to stand with the teachers unions or with underprivileged children.

Dan Lips is Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute.