Posted on 02/03/2011 9:54:47 AM PST by Tribune7
Conservative columnist Chris Freind sent me a note in response to yesterday's item in which I took issue with his opposition to SB 1, the school choice bill recently introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate.
Chris sent me this link to a follow-up column, "Some School Choicers Have Defeatist Attitude" he wrote on his blog at The Philly Post to clarify his position. The Philly Post is affiliated with Philadelphia magazine.
The follow-up makes it clear that what Chris is advocating is that all Pennsylvania children should have access to vouchers, not just the poor as would be the case with SB 1 .
Chris wants to swing for the fence which is admirable but to swing for the fence one must be in the game and the only school choice player in the game right now is SB 1, and there is nothing wrong with bunting for a base hit either.
Those who have issues with SB 1 should, rather than attack it, find a legislator willing to introduce a competing bill.
Vouchers for all Pennsylvania children is a wonderfully radical idea. You won't find any objection to it here.
With that said, Pennsylvania would be much improved if SB 1 should pass and this includes the burden on suburban taxpayers.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.billlawrenceonline.com ...
ping
Chris Freind. Son of Steven?
But to this bill? Absolutely not. Tea Parties and other conservative groups were being pressured into supporting this bill, with no discussion or opportunity to voice or develop their own opinion. Therefore, Christopher Friends hardball approach was warranted and even necessary to generate debate and further thought regarding a bill which is extremely flawed. His piece is informative, powerful and persuasive. AND he 's been working on the issue for 18 years.
I agree with you that the race card should never be played on the right or the left, however.
This is a bad bill, that will help only a small percentage of PA students. That PA ranks 42 in SAT scores means the situation for children in PA is critical, and something must be done to help MOST of them NOW, especially when Republicans, AT THIS TIME, have the power to do it.
BTW, I’ve been informed, someone is working on a competing bill as we speak.
Amber so sorry. My response to you was meant for Tribune.
Please see reply #4. It was meant for you! : )
Politically universal vouchers is politically a bad move.
Look what happened in Utah when the legislature passed a voucher bill for all Utah students. The NEA immediately came in and organized the teachers and PTAs to gather signatures for a recall election on the voucher bill. The bill was shot down by the citizens of Utah in the recall election. Naturally citizens are wary of sudden and radical changes.
So?...Utah legislators then passed a very tiny voucher program aimed soley at children with disabilities. Reading disabilities qualified. ( Wink! Wink!)Soon there were long long waiting lists for these vouchers. Before long there were suburban parents who saw neighbor children attending private schools while their child had no choice whatsoever.
An active and powerful lobby of parents and private teachers in favor of expanding vouchers quickly formed.
Utah legislators used the same strategy for charters as well.
So?...A few movies like “Waiting for Superman” with pitiful scenes of children and parents in tears and long lines snaking around the block waiting to get into the lottery can indeed be very powerful.
Also...Starting small programs allows the ( justifiably) wary public to become comfortable with a new way of funding education.
Start small. Let the pressure build!
Saying no means nothing gets done.
If Chris or anybody can get a better bill introduced all the power to him.
But until that happens Let's go SB1.
That, btw, doesn't mean we can't read the bill and look to improve it over the course of the process.
No complaints about that.
Over the last decade, Pennsylvania has seen the establishment of charter schools, cyber charter schools, and an effective educational improvement tax credit program. I think the snowball is rolling.
Chris is Stephen’s son.
Opportunities:
** It immediately gives the child a chance to escape an abusive environment. There are collectivist government schools that are so vile that it would be better for the child **never** to step one foot inside. Hey! Illiterate and innumerate can be fixed. Dead can't be. And..If the child survives the experience, permanent psychological and emotional injury can't be fixed either.
** Vouchers can be the means to build the private infrastructure needed for complete privatization and complete shut down of the collectivist government system of K-12 schools.
Disadvantages:
** With vouchers often come government strings. Vouchers could be used as a means to turn private schools into government schools. Then **all** schooling would be government controlled.
** We could see the same thing with K-12 vouchers that we see with college and university government scholarships and loans. The very instant that government increases Pell Grants and loan limits, the colleges and universities raise their tuitions. It is a never ending upward spiral of college tuition increases.
Conclusion: If vouchers are designed so that parents will, over the next 10 to 20 year, take on the full responsibility of educating their own children, with charity educating the poor, then I support them.
If vouchers lead to government taking over the curriculum and policies of private schools and ever spiraling tuition increases then I don't support them.
That’s what I thought. I remember Stephen from the 80’s legislature.
Not the same AT ALL. National Groups and the PA Commonwealth Foundation, as well as the legislators and one or two "Tea Party Activists," wanted Tea Party and other conservative grassroots groups to rubber stamp SB1 with no discussion or objections, without even asking their opinion.
Friends column is a response to the above effort and has inspired further discourse and thought on the issue. He put the "pressure" where it rightfully belongs on Piccola and Williams, the legislators who are sponsoring this horrible bill. One or two groups supported Friends column by forwarding it to those in their Tea Party organization, hardly "pressure" and certainly not comparable to the efforts brought to bear on Tea Party and Conservative Organizations to rubberstamp SB1.
It is unwise for the Party to take small, incremental steps, and support the passage of a bad bill, when it is in a position to take larger steps and get a better one. REPUBLICANS in this state, were the overwhelming victors in November. And they'd better start acting like it.
Teri, I am extremely upset at your suggestion that the Commonwealth Foundation is “pressuring” any organization to support Senate Bill 1.
Our entire work to this point has been to educate folks about what SB 1 is and would do (to this point Chris Freind’s article was objectionable, in that it was factual inaccurate about what is in the bill), about the merits of greater school choice, about education spending in Pennsylvania, and about existing choice in Pennsylvania (like the EITC, about which there is a great deal of misinformation).
While we have been largely supportive of SB 1 as a step in the right direction, that does not mean we would not be supportive of a broader proposal. Indeed, when we testify on Senate Bill 1 at the public hearing on Feb 16, and in our detailed analysis of the legislation which will be forthcoming, we will be suggesting improvements to the bill.
I am flabbergasted that you think we are putting any pressure you to “rubber stamp” the bill with “no discussion.” We never expect your organization to rubber stamp any proposal, nor even agree with us on every issue - that is for you and your members to decide. Our role is to educate and to persuade on the merits of our position. And to that end we INVITE discussion of the legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.