DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 438 603 EA 030 237

AUTHOR Kozar, Ronald; Damask, James TITLE Giving Choice a Chance: Cleveland and the Future of School Reform. INSTITUTION Buckeye Inst. for Public Policy Solutions, Dayton, OH. PUB DATE 1998-09-00 NOTE 50p. AVAILABLE FROM Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, 4100 N. High St., Suite 200, Columbus, OH 45402 ($5). Tel: 614-262-1593; Fax: 614-262-1927; e-mail: buckeyeinstitute.org. For full text: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Change Strategies; Educational Change; Educational Policy; *Educational Vouchers; Elementary Secondary Education; *School Choice; *Strategic Planning IDENTIFIERS *Cleveland Public Schools OH; *Ohio (Cleveland)

ABSTRACT This report outlines the history and implementation of a voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio. It describes the difficulty educational reformers encounter when trying to place any public initiative on the ballot, and the importance of using the legislative process to implement a voucher system. The text describes the opposition to vouchers and how the support of the governor was essential in pushing voucher legislation through the legislature. Some of the key components of that success were: bipartisan support; a grassroots-support campaign organized by parents; the inclusion of vouchers as part of the overall budget rather than as a stand-alone bill; and the compromise in implementing the voucher system in one city rather than in the whole state. One of the unique features of the Cleveland voucher program was its inclusion of religious schools. It allocated $2,250 per student, and students below 200 percent of the poverty line qualified for the full 90 percent subsidy. Implementing the program proved challenging, and hiring an effective program administrator was essential to the program's initial success. Some of the hurdles that presented themselves were difficulties in sharing details of the program with a populace that largely did not read the newspaper, transporting students, and court challenges. (Contains 120 references and notes.)(RJM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ..1. Dia Yv

54.1 ucKeye U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION nstiffite Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND ...tgLUMN """ EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS CENTER (ERIC) BEEN GRANTED BY 1:9"(his document has been reproducedas received from the person or organization 131 N. Ludlow St. Suite 317 originating it. S. Sfa_lesk Dayton, OH 45402 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. (937) 224-8352 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) September 1998 official OERI position or policy. 1 1 BESTCOPYAVA1LABLE [ Giving Choice a Chance: Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Executive Summary

In June of 1994, Ohio Governor George Voinovich signed into law the country's first voucher program to include sectarian schools. Voucher programs allow student-recipi- ents and their parents to use government funds reserved for education to choose a public or private school.Ohio's program targeted several thousand low-income residents of Cleveland for eligibility. Bringing school choice to inner-city Cleveland was the result of the persistent legislative efforts of lawmakers, grassroots activists and school reformers statewide. In light of the growth of the nationwide movement for school choice, Ohio's experience offers key lessons for school reformers both in and outside of the Buckeye state.

Ohio's legislative success for school choice contrasts with ballot failure elsewhere.

Since most states prohibit ballot initiatives and most students, especially poor students, live in non-ballot states, the legislative route is often the only school choice option.

Legislative efforts in Ohio began slowly in the 1980s after policymakers took notice of deteriorating inner-city schools.

In 1992, the Governor's Commission on Educational Choice laid important ground- work for building popular and business community support for vouchers.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the Ohio General Assembly submitted various stand-alone voucher bills throughout the early 1990s.

Ultimate voucher victory was due to community-based appeal, inclusion in the overall budget bill, and the expense of political capital by a popular and newly re-elected governor.

Heading into its third year, the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program is a success with parents, students, teachers and the Cleveland community.

3 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is a public policy research and education Insti- tute, or think tank. As an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, its purpose is to provide Ohio's leaders and citizens with new ways of thinking about problems facing our state and local communities. By widely distributing and publicizing its ideas and research, the Institute encourages 54.1 more policymakers and opinion leaders to embrace new approaches to solving problems. The Institute's e work focuses on five primary areas: education, taxes and spending, privatization, regulatory issues and economic development, and health care. To maintain the highest level of integrity, the Institute nsti ute accepts no requests to conduct contract research or programs for businesses. All research projects and FOR PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTIONS programs are determined by the staff and Board of Research Advisors. The Institute receives no government funding for its activities. All funding comes from the generous contributions of many individuals and foundations, along with limited general support from businesses.

The Buckeye Institute gratefully acknowledges the following people for their contributions to this report.

Project Supervisor:Richard Leonardi Primary Reseacher:Jeffrey Williams Writers:Ronald Kozar, James Damask Editors:Samuel Staley, Richard Leonardi Research Assistant:Mark Sheffler

Board of Research Advisors:

Dr. Douglas K. Adie, Department of Economics, Ohio University Dr. David Mayer, Law and Graduate Center, Capital University Dr. Mark Altieri, Department of Accounting, Kent State University Dr. Abraham Miller, Department of Political Science, University of Dr. Robert Baird, Department of Economics, Case Western Reserve Cincinnati University Dr. Dennis Miller, Department of Economics, Baldwin Wallace College Mr. Tom Bell, School of Law, University of Dayton, Dr. Henry Moon, Department of Geography and Planning, University

Dr. William Bogart, Department of Economics, Case Western Reserve of Toledo . University Dr. Andrew Morriss, School of Law, Case Western Reserve University Dr. Michael Bond, Department of Finance, Cleveland State University Mr. Dorien Nunez, Management Advantage Corp., Cincinnati, Ohio Mr. Jim Coons, Huntington National Bank, Columbus, OH Ms. Deborah Owens, College of Business Administration, University of Dr. Gregory Delemeester, Department of Economics, Marietta College Akron Dr. James Child, Department of Philosophy, Bowling Green State Dr. William Peirce, Department of Economics, Case Western Reserve University University Dr. Gina Dow, Department of Psychology, Denison University Dr. Robert Premus, Department of Economics, Wright State University Dr. Michael Ellis, Department of Economics, Kent State University Dr. Henry Rennie, Department of Economics, Heidelberg College Dr. David Forte, Marshall School of Law, Cleveland State University Fr. John Putka, Department of Political Science, University of Dayton Dr. Ralph Frasca, Department of Economics, University of Dayton Dr. John Rapp, Department of Economics, University of Dayton Dr. Janice Gabbert, Department of Classics, Wright State University Mr. Bradley Smith, Law & Graduate Center, Capital University Dr. Lowell Gallaway, Department of Economics, Ohio University Mr. Michael Solimine, College of Law, University of Cincinnati Dr. James Gaston, Department of History, Franciscan University of Dr. John Soper, Department of Economics, John Carroll University Steubenville Dr. Samuel R. Staley, The Buckeye Institute Dr. Melvin Greenball, Department of Accounting, The Ohio State Dr. Anthony Stocks, Department of Economics, Youngstown.State University University Dr. William Irvine, Department of Philosophy, Wright State University Dr. Bradley Thompson, Department of Political Science, Ashland Dr. John Kelley, Department of History, Shawnee State University University Dr. Robert A. Kohl, Department of EconoMics, Defiance College Dr. Richard Vedder, Department of Economics, Ohio University Dr. Robert Lawson, Department of Economics, Capital University Mr. Joseph Zoric, Department of Business Administration, Franciscan Dr. Brad Martin, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Findlay University of Steubenville

For more information on the Buckeye Institute, please contact:

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 131 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 317 Dayton, OH 45402 (937) 224-8352 Fax: (937) 224-8457 www.buckeyeinstitute.org 4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Table of Contents

Title Page

Introduction 1

Pilots and crusades 2

Laying the groundwork 4

False starts 7

Lobbyists for the status quo 9

The push for vouchers 11

The Governor leads 13

Details of the program 15

Inventing the wheel 18

Transportation headaches 20

The HOPE academies 23

The results 26

Challenge in the courts 29

The future 32

Appendix: Addressing the findings of the Indiana University study 34

References and notes 38

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 5 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Introduction

"We're in a fight.If you let it 14 to 25 schools were "beyond repair" happen here, it can happen and should be abandoned.' In one de- anywhere else in the nation. crepit building, Audubon Middle The whole nation is watching School, a ceiling collapsed on a social us to see if we allow it." ' studies classroom.' More than 600 build- ing and fire code violations in schools U .S . Congressman Louis Stokes were on file at City Hall, some of them at an April 1995 anti-voucher rally more than 10 years old. By March 1995, the Cleveland public schools hadex- On January 8, 1996, Ohio held a lot- hausted their annual budget of $500 "The public tery unlike any that was ever seen. The million and were $125 million in debt. schools," one reward would not be money, toys, or The entrenched bureaucracy managing other material prizes. For the first time the system was hostile to reform. A Cleveland mother in the Buckeye state's history, poor chil- federal judge put the schools into re- dren would be given the opportunity to ceivership.'According to Mike Fox, said, "are prepar- attend the schools of their choice. the former Chairman of the Ohio House ing black children These children were slated to start Education Committee, there was "pretty school later that year in the worst pub- much no contest that Cleveland was the for prison, the lic school system in the state, the Cleve- worst system in the state."7 "The pub- welfare office or land City School District. lic schools," one Cleveland mother added, "are preparing black children for the graveyard." The prospect of sending a child into the prison, the welfare office or the grave- Cleveland public schools was a grim one. yard."' Test scores were among the lowest in the state. Only one in fourteen eighth- But, for thousands of Cleveland chil- graders graduated on time from high dren that cold day in January, school school with senior-level academic pro- choice offered an alternative; one de- ficiency2 the same proportion who veloped through the persistent legisla- were victimized by crime every year in tive efforts of lawmakers, grassroots ac- those schools.' One analysis found that tivists, and school reformers statewide.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 1

6 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Pilots and crusades

Voucher proponents' success in moving Furthermore, a majority of the country's the program through the Ohio legisla- children, including most poor children, ture contrasts with failure in states that live in states without citizen initiatives.'4 have attempted ballot initiatives and referenda. In every state in which they The odds of winning any ballot initia- have been tried, including Oregon, tive are slim. Of 519 petition efforts in Colorado, and California, vested inter- 22 states in 1994, only 76 actually were ests have defeated ballot initiatives for placed on ballots that year, and only 25 school choice.In California, the passed. An estimated $140 million was voucher referendum failed when oppo- spent on those 25 campaigns an av- nents, primarily the California Teach- erage of $5.6 million per campaign, with ers Association,9 were able to convince a success rate of less than 5 percent". A majority of the suburban Republicans that such a mea- sure would ruin neighborhood schools.'° This assumes that school choice advo- country's children, Public disinformation and demagoguery cates could even get their initiative on including most knew few bounds in California, as unions the ballot. Just to have an opportunity and other special interests spread rumors to approve school choice, initiative sup- poor children, live and outright falsehoods in a $12 mil- porters must first obtain a large number lion campaign against school choice." of signatures of registered voters on pe- in states without titions.In Oklahoma, for instance, citizen initiatives. Crude appeals to sensationalism and school choice advocates would need voter manipulation may work in states over 181,000 valid signatures in just 90 where vouchers are placed before vot- days for a constitutional amendment. ers statewide, but they ultimately proved Massachusetts advocates would have just to be ineffective in the Ohio legisla- 64 days to collect over 64,000 valid sig- ture. natures for a constitutional amend- ment.16 The amount of volunteers' time While the efforts of ballot crusaders are to gather these signatures or, alter-. unquestionably laudable, the ballot ini- nately, the amount of money needed for tiative is simply not an option in most a specialty firm to do the same is an states.Twenty-six states, in fact, pro- enormous hurdle for school reformers. hibit citizen initiatives.'2 A majority of Clearly, the initiative route requires a Americans 138.7 million, or 52 per- tremendous amount of time, energy, and cent do not have the option of a money with a slim chance of success citizen initiative for school choice.'3 at the end of the process.

2 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

As Jeanne Allen of the Center for Edu- bill in 1997 that would offer freedom of cation Reform points out: "When you chOice to many Texas students.The look at initiatives and not just on bill narrowly failed in the legislature the voucher issue a rule of thirds with a 68-68 tie. Texas Republican state applies.You have one-third of voters representative Mike Krusee states that with strong sentiments in favor of an the Cleveland victory "boosted morale initiative, another third strongly against, for everyone across the country, espe- and a swing group in the middle. While cially here in Texas. Cleveland showed this creates the impression of an even that Milwaukee wasn't an anomaly."'8 split between 'yes' and 'no' votes, this impression turns out to be an illusion." Other states have also followed with leg- Allen continues by arguing that "ini- islative efforts. Pennsylvania Democrat tiatives aren't necessarily like other cam- state representative Dwight Evans has paigns. People tend in initiatives to put sponsored a bill to offer vouchers to stu- the burden on the 'yes' side. If you don't dents in Philadelphia's low-performing Of 519 petition have a strong belief that the initiative public schools.In New Mexico, Re- efforts in 22 is a good idea, you vote 'no'. Thai's the publican Governor Gary E. Johnson responsible thirig to do."17 Voucher ini- unveiled a school reform plan that in- states in 1994 tiatives, therefore, cluster around 33 cluded vouchers. Indiana has unveiled only 76 actually percent of the vote: Oregon (1990), 33 a tax credit proposal for school choice percent; Colorado (1992), 33 percent; and Arizona and Minnesota have al- got on ballots that California (1993), 30 percent; and ready passed them.'9It is no coinci- Washington state (1996), 36 percent. dence that the strongest school choice year and only 25 measures in the country Cleveland, passed. The lesson learned from Ohio's success Milwaukee, and most recently both Ari- is clear: the legislative process, not the zona and Minnesota have come 1111111EllMill ballot-initiative process, is likely to be through successful legislative efforts. the most effective way for school choice efforts to triumph.Following Ohio's Regardless of the form school choice lead, and Wisconsin's earlier victory for takes, Ohio's success provides crucial les.- the Milwaukee pilot program, Texas leg- sons for other states, especially those for islators with no initiative process whom the legislative process is the only available proposed a school voucher option.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 8 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Laying the groundwork Educational vouchers have been dis- policy alternatives in the Ohio General cussed for more than two centuries. Assembly. Adam Smith explored the concept in The Wealth of Nations. Thomas Paine Patrick Sweeney, a Democratic mem- discussed it in The Rights of Man. The ber of the House of Representatives, had idea appeared in the Virginia school bill offered a bill in the late 1970s propos- ing vouchers.Legislators viewed the proposal as an in- triguing thinkpiece, but it re- A convert to vouchers: Cooper Snyder ceived little serious attention. Another proposal involving Before retiring in March 1996, Republican Cooper Snyder had more vouchers appeared in a bill of- than 30 years experience in public schooleducation: 13 years as school fered in 1989 by Cooper Snyder, board member, nine years Ohio Senate Education Committee member, a Republican state senator. and finally eight years as chairman of the Ohio Senate Education Com- Chairman of the Senate Edu- mittee. By the late 1980s, he was a voucher supporter. cation Committee, he based the "Try as you will," he says, "you cannot make the government schools bill on the recommendations of do the job. The only way to deal with it is to introduce innovation then-Governor Richard F. through parental choice." Celeste's "2000 Commission." "Money won't do it," he adds. "One of the last things I did was have That commission had reviewed the Legislative Budget Office put together a sheet that rates every school problems with numerous aspects district on proficiency and everything you can think of, and nothing of the public education system, correlated with spending." and the 1989 bill sought to ad- dress the problems identified by the commission.

of 1779 authored by Thomas Jefferson, Senator Snyder recognized that there viewed by many as the father of public was "no way politically we could bring education in the United States.2° But vouchers into the reform" in the late despite this initial burst of attention, 1980s.2' At one appearance, a hostile vouchers were seldom considered by teachers union audience booed him off policymakers. the stage.22 But the inclusion of vouch- ers in his 1989 bill provided important This began to change in the late 1970s. leverage to accomplish other, more lim- Not until then years after scholars ited and politically plausible reforms, like began noting serious signs of educational interdistrict open enrollment, expansion failure in public schools did vouch- of opportunities for noncertified instruc- ers become a part of the discussion of tors, and proficiency standards.

4 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

9 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The minor reforms accomplished weren't there to debate through these and other means in the whether there should 1980s and early 1990s did little to alle- besuchaplan," viate the worsening crisis in public Brennan later said. Members of the Governor's schools. As the need for more funda- "We weren't there to Commission on mental reforms became evident in the debate whether the Educational Choice early 1990s, vouchers received more at- idea was good or bad. tention.When Republican George We were there to de- The mission of the Commission Voinovich ran for Governor in 1990, bate, having accepted was to provide a practical frame- he spoke out in favor of educational that something should work for a program of school vouchers.Although vouchers never be done, what should choice.Its members were: became an election issue in 1990, this be?"23 Voinovich was elected by a convincing David L. Brennan (Chair), Akron margin over Democrat Anthony The Commission hired Sharon Bennett, Fremont Celebrezze, who opposed them. four staff assistants to John W. Berry, Dayton help with the research, Ron Budzik, Dayton It became clear during his first guber- and requested input L. Clifford Craig, Cincinnati natorial term that Voinovich did not from 16 outside ex- Jean R. Droste, Columbus view vouchers as just a campaign slo- perts.Commission Bruce Feldman, Dayton gan.He took the idea seriously.In members traveled to Dr. Lucille G. Ford, Ashland 1992, he established a "Commission on Milwaukee to see first- Rev. Ronald J. Fowler, Akron Educational Choice" to explore the is- hand the pilot voucher Dr. Stephen T. House, Dayton sue.The Governor anticipated that program underway Arthur Kobacker, Columbus most legislators would react to any pos- there, and to meet Allan Krulak, Cleveland sible voucher proposal with skepticism. Annette "Polly" Will- William G. Lyden, Youngstown The commission's role, therefore, would iams, the inner-city Robert W Mahoney, North Canton be to accustom legislators to the idea, Democratic legislator John McConnell, Columbus to advise them about the specific form who led the push for Harold McMaster, Perrysburg that a voucher program might take, and that program.They Samuel Miller, Cleveland to act as a source of information to al- heard testimony from Dennis Minshall, Columbus lay legislators' fears. members of the Ohio Pat Mitchell, Cuyahoga Falls Senate's Education Thomas Noe, Sylvania The Commission on Educational Choice Committee, from one Jack Partridge, Cincinnati began its work in April 1992, with David of the House sponsors Joseph A. Pichler, Cincinnati Brennan, an Akron businessman and of the 1992 voucher Bumell Roberts, Dayton outspoken proponent of vouchers, chair- proposal, and from Tim Dr. Richard Ross, Reynoldsburg ing it. Brennan was not reluctant to let Ehrgott, the director of Ralph Schey, Westlake his own enthusiasm for vouchers, which an Indianapolis-based Dr. Steve Scovic, Fairbom most of his colleagues shared, affect the private trust that dis- Stan Sobel, Belmont Commission's deliberations."We pensed need-based Charles Taylor, Cleveland Harry Winch, Minster

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 5 10 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

scholarships to low-income students for be $2,215, with the amount for high use at private elementary schools. The school students at $3,971.25 The report commission retained a consulting firm, projected that such vouchers might mo- A.T. Kearney, to determine the possible tivate as many as 45 percent of public cost and impact of a pilot voucher pro- school students to switch to private gram in Ohio. schools.' New private schools could be established by private educators to The Kearney report, analyzing data from accommodate the large number of the Akron public schools, found that voucher students seeking private alter- the average cost of educating a public natives.27 The total statewide savings, school student in 1992 was $5,390.24 An according to the Kearney report, could appropriate amount of a voucher for lev- be as much as $600 million a year." els K through 8, the report said, would The total savings from a statewide voucher program, according to the Kearney report, could be as much as $600 million a year.

6 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

11 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

False starts As the Commission on Educational Choice began its work, Governor The support of Democrats was especially Voinovich gave his support to a bill to crucial, since they controlled the House. institute a pilot voucher program in But in 1992, top Democratic leadership eight of Ohio's largest and most educa- was uniformly hostile to vouchers. Fox tionally-deficient cities. hoped to soften their hostility by en- listing co-sponsorship from Sweeney and The 1992 bill's Senate sponsor was Coo- Troy. Democratic leaders responded by per Snyder. In the House, the bill had taking extraordinary steps to bring re- three co-sponsors: Republican Michael formers back into the party's anti- Fox and Democrats Patrick Sweeney and voucher discipline. When he co-spon- Daniel Troy. The bill called for a pilot sored the bill, Sweeney was the chair of voucher program involving 3,000 chil- the House Finance Committee. When dren, of whom 2,000 were to be from he refused to compromise his commit- Ohio's eight biggest cities Cleveland, ment to educational choice, he was Cincinnati, Columbus, Akron, Toledo, eventually stripped of his position in the "I'm for kids, Dayton, Youngstown, and Canton.29 Democratic Caucus in the House and ostracized by party leaders. He none- not educational Fox, one of the most energetic House theless remained steadfast in his sup- co-sponsors, had tried before to insti- port for vouchers."I'm for kids, not institutions." tute voucher programs through what he educational institutions," Sweeney termed "legislative guerrilla tactics."30 said. 34 - Patrick Sweeney, Once, for example, he had proposed a Ohio legislator voucher program that would allow deaf The 1992 bill eventually died in com- students to attend a well-regarded pri- mittee, with no hearing and no vote in vate school for the deaf in the Cincin- either chamber of the General Assem- nati area.But that proposal, like his bly. But reformers in the House did not others, failed.31"In budget after bud- give up. In early 1993, soon after the get," he recalled, "I tried to get amend- Governor's Commission issued its final ments, and they didn't even get consid- report in favor of vouchers, Fox spon- eration. They'd be laid on the table."32 sored H.B. 564.It incorporated many of the same features of the 1992 bill, In promoting the 1992 bill, Fox empha- but in more detail. H.B. 564 would give sized the fact-finding, pilot nature of the school districts the ability to opt into program. "This is a study," he said. "It the program if they wished, and would is not an attack on the public system. give special preference to children from It's an opportunity to strengthen and low-income families or families in prob- improve the public system."33 lem districts.It would exclude private

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 12 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

schools run by irresponsible or anti-so- ceive more favorable treatment. cial groups, and would permit private Sweeney could be expected to shepherd schools to adhere to long-standing poli- the bill through the committee and then cies favoring admission of current stu- force a vote. But House Speaker Vern dents and their siblings. Riffe, a master of machine politics, routed the bill instead to the Education Governor Voinovich gave his backing Committee, chaired by school choice to H.B. 564, as he had done with the opponent Ronald Gerberry.The bill similar 1992 bill. Hostile interest groups, died in Gerberry's committee without a particularly teachers unions, sensed the vote. momentum building for vouchers. They "If the governor accordingly made opposition to vouch- The cumulative impact of the ers a higher priority.Unions threat- Governor's Committee, the Kearney does support ened to withdraw their backing for Gov- Report, and the 1992 and 1993 bills ernor Voinovich despite their past bless- began to influence the direction of leg- vouchers, I expect ing."If the governor does support islative efforts for vouchers. Because of we would no vouchers," said the president of the Cin- the activities of Governor Voinovich, cinnati Federation of Teachers, "I ex- David Brennan of the Commission on longer be able to pect we would no longer be able to sup- Educational Choice, Cooper Snyder, support him." port him for re-election next year."35 Michael Fox, Patrick Sweeney, and other educational reformers, vouchers were beginning to be taken seriously. Impor- - Tom Mooney, House Democratic leadership was able president, Cincinnati to kill H.B. 564, as they had the 1992 tant groundwork for future educational Federation of Teachers bill, by letting it die in committee. Pro- change had been laid. ponents had hoped the bill would be routed through Patrick Sweeney's Fi- But the toughest obstacles still lay ahead. nance Committee where it would re-

8 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 13 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Lobbyists for the statusquo

The toughest obstacle was an en- in diverting money away from the pub- trenched, politically powerful education lic school trough at which they fed. To establishment. them, the public schools' monopoly on public school children was inviolable. The leading players were the teachers' The only "reforms" to receive the unions.In Cleveland, that union was unions' blessing were those which sim- the 6,500-member Cleveland Teachers ply sent more money to the union-domi- Union Local #279, an affiliate of the nated public school system. As one leg- Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT)." islator put it, "These Elsewhere in Ohio, it was the Ohio people would die on the Education Association (OEA).Like barricades to prevent their national counterparts, the OFT competition."'" Although the average teacher in and the OEA were visibly opposed to Ohio earned $49,354 in cash any form of vouchers. As public choice Other special interests compensation and benefits dur- theorists in economics have observed, adopted the union's posi- ing 1997, the average OEA staff special interests like the OEA and OFT tion. The State Board of member earned $91,670, with are beneficiaries of concentrated ben- Education came out 28 staff members earning over efits and diffused costs. They therefore against the 1992 voucher have an incentive to use the political $100,000 and nine earning over plan, alleging that it $140,000. process to secure advantage over their would "direct millions of *see endnote 39. fellow citizens."' dollars from an underfunded public school The unions used membership dues to system."43Board Presi- pay a seasoned corps of professional staff, dent Oliver Ocasek proclaimed, "This lobbyists, and political organizers to plan is the greatest threat to public monitor reform efforts and to keep leg- schools we have ever faced. "44 The AFL- islators and local school districts in CIO, the Ohio PTA, and the Ohio line." During 1997, the OEA collected School Boards Association also adopted $27.4 million in dues, with $22.3 the union argument. In February 1994, million(over 81 percent) going toward they and the OEA formed a new lobby cash compensation and benefits of staff organization that they dubbed "Citizens members."' With 240 full-time equiva- Against Vouchers."4S One co-sponsor lent employees, the OEA employs 13 of the 1993 bill observed: "We had sub- "consultants"4° who make an average in- urban Republicans whose superinten- come of $135,073 and who spend much dents had convinced the PTA that their of their time on political organization.'" school districts would be destroyed."' The OFT and the OEA had no interest

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 9 14 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Voucher proponents had few academic a pipe-dream.Once again, it looked stUdies in 1992 and 1993 to back up like the only "reforms" that the lobby- their proposal, and little money with ists for the status quo would permit were which to counter the unions' attack. simply proposals to lavish more money The voucher proposal never had a real- on the failed system. Insiders were sure istic chance: the 1992 bill died in the that the voucher idea was as dead as House Education Committee without a every other reform effort that preceded hearing. it.

The powerful pressure-groups arrayed But those insiders underestimated the against change made vouchers seem only determination of voucher advocates. "We had subur- ban Republicans whose superinten- dents had con- vinced the PTA that their school districts would be destroyed."

10 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 15 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The push for vouchers

One lesson voucher proponents drew Governor Voinovich threw his support from these early false starts was simply behind the renewed voucher effort, bol- that vouchers had too many foes and stered by a resounding re-election. Once not enough friends in the General As- again, he suggested legislation to estab- sembly. During the next electoral cycle, lish a pilot program in Ohio's eight big- voucher advocates resolved to make a gest cities. "He didn't let go," said former conscious effort to unseat the former and Special Assistant Paul Pelagyi. "He said to elect more of the latter. `This is something that I feel is impor- tant. This is something that has to hap- As the 1994 elections approached, pen.'" Though he was a practical poli- voucher advocates targeted specific races tician skilled in the art of give-and-take, for extra effort.Taking a page from Governor Voinovich made it clear that House Speaker Vern Riffe's playbook, vouchers were a priority."There was they selected fourteen open seats and no bargaining," said Pelagyi.5° "We have not had focused their effort there. The strategy worked. The 1994 elections brought a But the renewed effort for vouchers in one person actu- change of parties in both the House and 1994 also had one other ingredient that ally defeated over the Senate. Of the fourteen races tar- had been lacking the previous session. geted by voucher supporters, voucher- A genuine grassroots movement arose this issue." friendly candidates won ten. Citing the in inner-city Cleveland for the sole pur- ballot success of pro-voucher candidates, pose of promoting vouchers a move- - Michael Fox, Michael Fox, who had co-sponsored the ment which surprised friends as much Ohio legislator,on 1992 and 1993 bills," acknowledged: as it did enemies. school choice and the '94 "We have not had one person actually elections. defeated over this issue." In late December 1994, Cleveland Councilwoman Fannie Lewis and The With new, voucher-friendly legislators Buckeye Institute for Public Policy So- in both houses, and with important lutions, a Dayton-based think tank, or- groundwork having been laid during the ganized a "Summit on Vouchers" in the previous session, voucher advocates pro- basement of a church in Cleveland's posed another bill.Learning from the Hough neighborhood.The Hough failure of the 1992 and 1993 bills, both neighborhood Lewis represented was one of which had been stand-alone propos- of the poorest in the city.More than als, the new 1995 bill was included as 200 people packed into the crowded an appropriation in the overall budget church basement for the summit. bill."

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 11

16 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The crowd of neighborhood parents lis- trip to Columbus to demonstrate in front tened to Polly Williams, the Milwau- of the Statehouse."You didn't come kee legislator who had promoted vouch- down here to beg," Fannie Lewis told ers in that city. Williams explained how supporters."You came down here to vouchers had worked in Milwaukee and tell people what you want. This is seri- then rallied the audience to the idea of ous business. We ain't playing. "52 school choice. Her fiery speech ended with an admonition that the assembled The Cleveland parents invaded the parents not just request the right to statehouse "like a small army,"" knock- choose their children's school, but that ing on legislators' doors and handing out they demand it. leaflets. They passed out hundreds of "You didn't come letters saying that vouchers were ur- The summit brought a burst of favor- gently needed in Cleveland, and they down here to beg. able media attention. The legislative confronted unsympathetic lawmakers You came down efforts of 1992 and 1993 had gone vir- who tried to avoid them. Fannie Lewis tually unnoticed by the press. The sum- debated Jeffrey Johnson, a Cleveland here to tell people mit, by contrast, was headline news, with Democrat and opponent of vouchers what you want. both the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Wall who represented Hough in the Senate. Street Journal noting Fannie Lewis and At one point, Lewis yanked the micro- This is serious her interest in vouchers. TV and radio phone from Johnson. Ignoring his de- reporters interviewed Ms. Williams and mand for an apology, she thundered that business. We Ms. Lewis, both of whom expounded "no legislator in his right mind is going ain't playing." energetically in favor of school choice. to tell us that we can't have a choice."54 Clevelanders who had never heard of Supporters roared their approval, and vouchers contemplated the possibility. news cameras captured the spectacle. - Fannie Lewis, According to one observer, the summit Cleveland City Council was "a turning point in public opin- The Cleveland parents showed, in full ion."" view of eager news cameras, that edu- cational choice had strong support in Soon afterward, 300 Cleveland parents the districts affected by the proposal. mobilized for a January 31, 1995 bus Vouchers now had a human face.

12 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

17 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The Governor leads

The activist parents from Cleveland teachers' unions stepped up their oppo- found a champion in Governor sition. The OEA, the OFT, the State Voinovich.As the former mayor of Board of Education, and the Ohio PTA Cleveland, the Governor knew firsthand were now joined by the Cleveland the problems faced by the Hough neigh- Teachers Union Local #279 and the borhood parents who came to Colum- Metro Cleveland Alliance of Black bus. School Educators for a rally in Cleve- land on April 1.But the unions were Despite the Governor's efforts, it became able to cajole only about 150 members clear that the eight-city approach was into attending." Unimpressed, the still too big a pill for legislators to swal- House passed the budget bill contain- The city voucher low. Rather than concede the voucher ing the voucher appropriation in April concept, Governor Voinovich responded by a 57-to-41 margin." The measure, proponents chose by reducing the proposal's geographic moreover, was bipartisan.Patrick was the one whose scope. The governor suggested the adop- Sweeney and six other Democrats re- tion of a pilot program in a single city. sisted pressure from their party's leaders public school sys- The city that he and other voucher pro- and voted for the bill. ponents chose was the one whose par- tem had failed the ents had agitated most outspokenly for The Senate, however, proved more vul- most tragically educational choice, and whose public nerable to union pressure. The voucher school system had failed the most tragi- proposal was stripped from the budget Cleveland. cally Cleveland. bill. The budget passed by the senate made no appropriation for vouchers. A The new strategy worked. Opponents House-Senate conference committee in the House Finance Committee tried, then convened to work out the incon- and failed, to kill the program entirely. sistencies. They tried, and failed, to deprive it of funding from the state's impact aid fund. During the conference committee's de- They tried, and failed, to require par- liberations, Governor Voinovich's lead- ticipating private schools to conform to ership proved most crucial to the bill. all state mandates applicable to public He had amassed huge political capital schools.After the voucher proposal with his re-election, and was being men- withstood these attacks, it received the tioned as a possible candidate for vice- committee's approval by a 19-to-10 president. He now spent some of that margin." political capital to assure the inclusion of vouchers in the budget." Sensing the threat to their monopoly over Cleveland's inner-city children, the

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 13 18 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

His efforts worked.The budget pro- posal that emerged from the conference Why the 1994 committee provided for vouchers. Both school choice bill passed houses passed the revised budget bill on June 29. Governor Voinovich signed it More voucher-friendly can- the next day.59 didates elected to office The voucher program called the Geographic scope of pro- "Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring posal narrowed to the state's Grant Program" was now law in most troubled city Ohio. Vouchers included as part of overall budget rather than as stand-alone bill

Voucher program not com- promised by eliminating key provisions

Grassroots support from par- ents to lend an emotional appeal to the effort

Bipartisan support

Hard-line negotiating by popular governor

14 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 19 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Details of theprogram The pilot voucher program was an his- granted full reimbursement from the toric "first."Milwaukee had experi- Department of Education or any added mented with vouchers, but it was first costs incurred providing transportation limited to non-religious schools. The to voucher students. Cleveland program was the first ever to be enacted through the conventional legislative process to include religious schools.

The heart of the program is a voucher Key features of worth up to $2,250, or 90 percent of a the Cleveland $2,500 tuition bill. Students below 200 percent of the poverty line qualify for scholarshipprogram the full 90 percent subsidy.Students above 200 percent qualify for a 75 per- $2,250 per student cent subsidy.In the first years of the program, only students in grades K Participating schools may not prac- through 3 were eligible. As those stu- tice or promote illegal discrimination dents progress through the remaining grades of grammar school, they will re- main eligible for vouchers. No more Vouchers for K-3 students in first few than half the available vouchers may years, to be expanded later through be awarded to students who were already 8th grade attending a private school in the year of application. If the program is termi- Private schools may give priority in nated, a grandfather clause will allow admissions to present students and participating students to receive vouch- their siblings ers through the 8th grade.Private schools are prohibited from selectively Second priority to students from low- increasing tuition for defunded former income families until 20 percent of voucher students beyond the increase any given class meets that descrip- imposed on other students. tion Another provision awards severance pay or early retirement incentives to Cleve- Vouchers redeemed by parents them- land public school teachers if their jobs selves to allay First Amendment con- are made redundant by the program. cerns Cleveland public schools are also

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 15 20 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Participating private schools are allowed which voucher students will participate. to give first priority in admissions to stu- They cannot advocate unlawful behav- dents already enrolled there the previ- ior or promote ethnic or racial hatred. ous year and to their siblings. This re- And they must permit low-income fami- flects the policy of the Catholic schools lies to discharge their obligation for any of assuring that all children within a extra tuition capped at 10 percent given family receive substantially the of total tuition by providing labor or same education. After that, priority is other in-kind contributions to the given to low-income children until a school. maximum of 20 percent of any given class consists of children from families The vouchers or "scholarships" them- at or below 200 percent of the poverty selves are payable to parents. Because line. Schools then may give priority to of the inclusion of religious schools, it students whose parents belong to orga- was feared that payments directly to the nizations that support the school. Any schools could trigger First Amendment remaining available spaces are to be problems. By awarding the vouchers to Drafters modeled filled by random lottery. the recipient families themselves, draft- the program after ers modeled the program after the GI To be eligible, schools must observe basic Bill, which, like the Cleveland voucher the GI Bill, non-discrimination requirements and be program, reimburses students for tuition handicap-accessible. They must enroll at sectarian schools. which, like the at least 25 students in each grade in voucher program, reimburses stu- dents for tuition at religious schools.

16 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 21 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Seven myths about vouchers

Myth no. 1: Vouchers in Cleveland siphon money away from underfunded public schools. Fact: Cleveland public schools still receive per-capita funds for students enrolled in the voucher program. In 1997, for example, the net revenue received by Cleveland Public Schools exceeded voucher program costs by $118,473.* Moreover, a competitive educa- tion system ought to encourage schools to compete for students and their accompanying resources.

Myth no. 2: Cleveland schools were getting better without the voucher program. Fact: A federal judge had just placed the entire Cleveland public school system into receivership under the state superintendent before the pilot voucher program was en- acted.

Myth no. 3: Parents don't want vouchers. Fact: The program received 6,244 applications for only 1,700 advertised seats.That's more than three applications for every available seat. Parents clearly want a choice.

Myth no. 4: Vouchers will destroy public schools. Fact: Public schools facing competition for the first time have responded by improving. Two Cleveland public schools reorganized, assigned new teachers, and overhauled their approach to discipline when a private school opened nearby.

Myth no. 5: Private schools will take only the best public school students. Fact: Voucher students in Milwaukee had lower grades and were poorer than the average student in the Milwaukee public schools when they applied for a voucher. This was true in Cleveland as well.

Myth no. 6: Vouchers will foster class conflict. Fact: There are already divisions between suburban districts that excel and inner-city districts that do not. By improving test scores for urban children, vouchers reduce the difference.

Myth no. 7: Vouchers violate the constitutional separation of church and state. Fact: For years, Ohio has given private schools $615 per student to defray transportation and other expenses. Also, vouchers go directly to parents, not to schools. The family, not the state, decides where to spend it.The GI Bill does the same thing, giving vouchers to veterans to attend colleges of their choice, whether church-affiliated or not.

* "Cleveland schools profit from scholarship program," Policy Note (Dayton, Ohio: The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, June 1997).

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 17 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 22 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Inventing the wheel

ployed less orthodox methods to get the Some proponents of the voucher pro- word out."I went to every Cleveland gram had hoped that it would begin op- Housing Authority housing project," she eration in September 1995. The pro- said. "I knocked on doors and sent out gram, however, was so unlike anything mailings.I visited churches."" that had ever been done in Ohio be- fore that an extra year was needed to Her efforts worked. She and her small ready it for implementation.6° staff received so many calls that they "I went to every worked 12 or 13 hours a day, much of it Hiring a program administrator was the just answering the phone." Subsequent Cleveland Housing first order of business.Governor surveys showed that 40 percent of fami- Voinovich chose Bert Holt, a woman lies that qualified were not aware they Authority housing who had worked as an administrator for were eligible for vouchers." That num- project.I knocked the Cleveland Public Schools and was ber would surely have been higher were nearing retirement."I started work in it not for Bert Holt. on doors and sent the second week of October," she said. out mailings.I "I was called to go to Columbus. I didn't But in fielding those calls, Ms. Holt know what it was about. There I met learned that harmful rumors and visited churches." with Tom Needles and Paul Palagyi of disinformation were being spread by the Governor's Office, and they had the voucher opponents.Children in the - Bert Holt, application already filled out for me."" public schools were being told that if program administrator they enrolled in private schools, they She faced several formidable tasks in would be put back a grade or more. getting the program off the ground. An Parents heard that private schools were office had to be set up from scratch. interested only in "cherry-picking" the Office procedures had to be established. best public school students, and that The program had to be publicized. Pri- they weren't interested in poor children vate schools had to be contacted and or underachievers.They heard that persuaded to participate. Applications private schools would treat their chil- had to be distributed and screened." dren differently due to income level or race.They heard that they were un- Ms. Holt knew that grassroots public qualified to make the right decision re- relations would be essential to the garding the education of their children. program's success. Since 75 percent of Ms. Holt and her staff spent an inordi- the urban poor in Cleveland do not read nate amount of time dispelling these ru- the local paper, she knew she could not mors. rely on traditional media. So, she em-

18 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 23 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

After signing up numerous private to buy pencils and pens through the schools, Ms. Holt organized a schools DOE. The agency dipped into the fair at the Cleveland Convocation Cen- program's budget without her knowl- ter on January 22, 1996.66 Representa- edge. She eventually persuaded Gover- tives of 57 different schools attended. nor Voinovich to redraw the organiza- Many of them had been skeptical about tional chart so that she could report the willingness of voucher parents to directly to him.One proponent of make the commitment the schools typi- vouchers said that, if it were done all cally expected of parents, but the fair over again, "We wouldn't have had the dispelled their fears. "That was a proud Department of Education run the pro- moment for me," Ms. Holt said. "Some gram." 68 of them had told us they had only a few seats available, like five or ten.After Opponents of the program also expressed meeting the parents, many of them in- their opposition in uglier ways.One creased their capacity.After that fair, ill-wisher made an anonymous tele- Harmful we had more than enough seats for our phone threat. As a result, Ms. Holt no students."67 longer gives out her office's address, and rumors and allows visitors to enter the office only disinformation Another problem was lack of coopera- after identifying themselves by intercom. tion from the Department of Education, A virus introduced into the office's com- were being spread the agency supervising the program. puter in September 1996 nearly de- "The DOE tried to sabotage us," Ms. stroyed the entire database of students, by voucher Holt said. It was nearly impossible even applicants, and schools." opponents.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 19 24 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Transportation headaches

But the biggest headache of all faced by or her home."It might have special Bert Holt has been transportation. programs," said Lee Lundblad of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland, "such Most students travel to and from school as sports or a foreign language. Or it on buses provided by the Cleveland might be near a parent's place of em- public schools. Many scholarship stu- ployment. Another reason might be, dents used their vouchers at schools not for a voucher student who received a located near established bus routes. The voucher in the middle of the school year, public school officials who determined that all the schools near his home might bus routes were unwilling or unable to be full. Then that student, in order to The public school accommodate the needs of voucher stu- use the voucher, would have to travel »7 2 officials who dents.Students off the beaten track some distance. had no choice but to commute by taxi. determined bus Ms. Holt has had to hire an additional The problem began with a decision of staff employee solely for the purpose of the Cleveland Public Schools (CPS). routes were un- devoting full-time attention to students' The voucher program required CPS to willing to accom- transportation needs. provide bus transportation to voucher students. Rather than providing each modate the needs Taxis, of course, are expensive. It costs voucher student with bus service, CPS of voucher the program $6 a day to transport stu- chose instead to offer an end-of-the-year dents by bus versus $18 a day by taxi.70 reimbursement of up to $180 to each students. Local regulations exacerbate the prob- voucher parent." "They thought they lem. Though many Cleveland citizens had us," says Holt. "They thought they with good cars and excellent driving had killed off this program by seeing to records are willing to provide reduced- it that the students couldn't get to rate transportation to voucher students school."" In a meeting on August 21, and others, Cleveland ordinances effec- 1996 just days before school was to tively outlaw transportation entrepre- begin for most of the students CPS neurship."Thus, voucher students transportation director Mike Malloy told found themselves caught between a Holt that CPS would not be able to hostile educational establishment on provide any transportation for voucher one side that withholds legally required students." By that date, six of the par- bus transportation and a regulatory re- ticipating 49 schools had already gime on the other side that prohibits opened, with 34 more scheduled to open effective private transportation. in the next seven days.

Several good reasons exist why a par- "It was the worst mistake to put this ent might choose a school not near his program under the DOE," Holt says in

20 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 25 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

retrospect. "They didn't own it or want lems under control.In October 1996, it. They threw bureaucracy at you, lay- 645 students were taking taxis to school. ing traps all the time.I was thwarted at When the program expanded to 2,983 every juncture."76 State Representative voucher students by October 17, 1997, Bill Batchelder is more direct: "All the 1,167 were taking taxis and 581 were educrats have attempted to stop school riding buses. By March 2, 1998, only choice. It's almost impossible to believe about 450 used taxis,78 with the number that it could happen by accident. These continuing to decline to 330 as CPS people blamed it on vouchers and then agreed finally to begin providing bus leaked it to the papers."" transportation.79 Commenting on the change in policy, Batchelder states, In addition, the transportation reim- In lot even a 'whoops' from the Depart- bursement is not paid directly to the ment of Education."8° student, but to the local public school Commenting on district.That district then, theoreti- Now, the budget fashioned for the cally, reimburses the student's family. voucher program by the DOE includes the change in But the paperwork required by this need- a specific line-item for transportation. lessly-multilayered process was unfamil- The DOE's budget currently provides policy, Batchelder iar to voucher families, many of whom $7.1 million for the voucher program. states, "rniot had no previous experience with pri- The calculations for per pupil expendi- vate schools. While the voucher cov- tures, however, are based on projections even a 'whoops' ered tuition, the Ohio Department of from December 1996, when the program from the Depart- Education controlled the budget for was just three months old. While those transportation. projections have proved inaccurate, Ms. ment of Educa- Holt nonetheless has managed her bud- With time, Bert Holt has been able to get accordingly.8' tion." get the program's transportation prob-

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 21 26 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Transportation: The dilemma of voucher students

Cleveland voucher students attending schools not located near bus routes, and whose parents do not own cars of their own, often find that they have no choice but to use taxis.Taxis, however, are about three times more expensive than school buses.

One solution is to allow good drivers who own safe vehicles to offer charter van services or other alternative transportation at a competitive rate for voucher students.The operation of such services by private citizens, however, is illegal due to an archaic regulatory regime enacted in the 1930s. According to one recent study:

Cleveland requires taxi owners to operate fleets containing a mini- mum of 25 cars. So, unless you own 25 cars, you can't ask a passen- ger to pay for transportation services in Cleveland.

A taxi in Cleveland can charge only by the mile. Charging by the trip, regardless of length or traffic, is illegal. Thus, charter van own- ers must install expensive electronic meters on all vehicles.

In a barrier-free environment, a transportation entrepreneur could start his own company with a capital investment of only about $10,000 for a clean, safe used car and appropriate insurance.

The few large cab companies that monopolize the private transporta- tion market in Cleveland monitor the regulatory environment there to thwart reform.

Source: Taxicab Regulation in Ohio's Largest Cities (Dayton, Ohio: The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, October 1996).

22 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 27 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The HOPE Academies After the lottery and the start of their East Side with an enrollment of 330. first school year with vouchers, some stu- Both schools enroll only voucher stu- dents had difficulty adjusting to the pa- dents. The combined enrollment of 472 rochial school regimen. For one thing, students in the 1997-98 school year is students were not used to wearing uni- up from 221 students in the 1996-97 forms. "Parents were shocked and sur- school year." prised to receive phone calls in the morning when their children were ab- The founder of the HOPE Academies, sent," said Lee Lundblad. "They were David Brennan, also chaired the also surprised by the volunteer hours that Governor's Commission on Educational were required as well as the constant Choice in 1992 and 1993. An Akron "In the beginning invitations to come to the classroom."' entrepreneur who had, until then, con- it was voucher But the transition eventually smoothed fined his energies to buying and reviv- out.As Ms. Lundblad said, "One ing failed companies, he became inter- and non-voucher teacher told me recently, 'In the begin- ested in education reform when he saw ning it was voucher and non-voucher evidence of falling education standards students. But students.But now they are all our in his work force. When he learned now they are all kids.'"83 that two-thirds of his employees at one plant were incapable of simple arith- our kids.,, Perhaps the most remarkable success metic like averaging and plotting graphs, story, though, concerns two schools es- he instructed managers to test employ- - Lee Lundblad, Catholic tablished for the sole purpose of meet- ees at other plants. He found that one Diocese of Cleveland ing the demands of voucher parents for third of his present employees and half more educational alternatives.These of all new job applicants were illiterate, non-profit schools the HOPE Acad- and that two-thirds of present employ- emies did not even exist when the ees and 90 percent of applicants were Governor signed the scholarship pro- "innumerate," or incapable of perform- gram into law. In the short time since ing simple math.85 then, the HOPE Academies have pro- vided top-notch instruction on a shoe- In the spring of 1996, HOPE Bridge Av- string budget for almost 20 percent of enue Academy on the second floor of all students in the voucher program. an old Cleveland West Side church was opened for visitors. The second HOPE The smaller of the two HOPE Acad- Academy soon followed suit. While emies is in the Tremont neighborhood three more non-profit academies were near downtown Cleveland. Its present initially planned, with each to operate enrollment is 142.Its larger twin is autonomously with its own board of di- HOPE Central Academy on Cleveland's rectors, it became apparent that having

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 23

28 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

fewer schools would be more efficient. One reason for confining HOPE's ini- Only modest enrollments at each site tial effort to two schools was the un- were expected at first. "Nobody expects availability of suitable facilities.The that we are going to open Antioch Baptist Church on Cedar Av- these schools with 100 stu- enue was willing, at first, to allow its That would be a building to be used for a HOPE acad- HOPE's founder became mo- dents. very unexpected thing," emy. The minister of the church, Rev. tivated when he learned that said one HOPE organizer Marvin McMickle, had initially greeted one-third of the employees in at the time.' The acad- the HOPE proposal with enthusiam. his manufacturing business emies had hoped each of But voucher opponents, eager to see the and half of all new job appli- the five schools could at- program fail, eventually persuaded him cants were illiterate, and that tract 25 students."? How- to see a "conflict" between hosting an two-thirds of employees and ever, enrollments at the alternative school and serving on a pub- 90% of applicants were two existing academies lic school board. The church withdrew innumerate. vastly exceeded initial es- its offer." timates: 330 in one and 142 in the other.

Unlikely educator: David Brennan

David Brennan, the founder of Cleveland's HOPE Academies, had his epiphany on school choice in 1989 when his wife Ann Brennan showed him a book containing this anecdote:

Envision a law that required you to buy a Buick every three years, whether you wanted one or not, and you had to pay a Buick tax even if you declined to take the car. That didn't prevent you from buying a Chevrolet or a Plymouth (if these alternatives existed) , but you still had to pay the Buick tax. What would happen to the quality of Buicks under this scenario? What would happen to the cost of Buicks with this lock on the market?

"When I read that, it struck me like a blow to the head," said Brennan. With guaranteed revenues and little if any competition, the quality of Buicks would fall while their cost would rise.

After studying other education reform proposals, Brennan committed himself to doing something about school choice.

24 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 29 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The shortage of available seats for "Once the culture was established," said voucher children in existing private Brennan, "it hasn't required as much schools made HOPE's role essential. In effort to keep it going." 90 the program's first year, 1,681 vouchers were awarded, but Bert Holt had been In addition to fostering a culture of re- able to locate only 1,372 seats.Four spect for students, HOPE Academies hundred of those openings were in new adhere to meaningful academic stan- schools, including HOPE Academies. dards. They do not grade on a curve, as "This much is certain," wrote on ob- many schools do, where certain, fixed server."Established private schools in percentages students will automatically the program cannot accommodate ev- get A's and B's. John Morris, principal ery child with a voucher without sub- of the academies, said that grades at stantially adding classes and staff re- HOPE gauge actual achievement, so that inforcing the need for new schools." a whole class can get high marks if they "The HOPE schools," said Bert Holt, all can meet their grade's achievement "are going to play a major role. "8' goals or low marks if they all fall short.9' Curved grading shields teachers and ad- After HOPE, the The HOPE Academies stress discipline, ministrators from public scrutiny, pro- market reaction a high ratio of adults to students, and viding no measure for determining computer use.Each classroom, which whether a school is performing well. posited by can contain up to 30 students, has a voucher propo- teacher, a teacher's aide, and six com- Before HOPE, new private schools for puters.Students must wear uniforms voucher students were only a hypotheti- nents was a and conduct themselves in an orderly, cal market response to the demand that courteous manner. The HOPE schools vouchers were expected to create. Af- proven reality. had problems at first with discipline. But ter HOPE, the market reaction posited teachers responded by making discipline by voucher proponents was a proven the prime focus during those first weeks. reality.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 25 30 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The results The Harvard study's In September 1997, the Harvard findings about the University Program on Education Cleveland voucher Policy and Governance (PEPG) program released a study of the Cleveland Scholarship Program. The team, Parents much more satisfied consisting of Dr. Jay Greene, from the University of Texas, William Howell Students gained 5 percen- from Stanford University, and Dr. tile points in reading Paul Peterson from Harvard, surveyed Students gained 15 percen- 1,014 parents of scholarship recipients tile points in math (and 1,006 parents who had applied for scholarships but did not receive Higher percentage of kids 60 percent of one) then analyzed the test score data. completing the academic parents of year They reported seven findings: scholarship Students opting to stay in First, parents of scholarship recipients were public schools usually did so students were much more satisfied with every aspect of for non-academic reasons very satisfied with their schools than were applicants who did not receive a scholarship and remained in Academic quality and safety the program. public schools.Regarding satisfaction were voucher parents' big- with the academic quality of the school, gest motivators 60 percent of parents of scholarship stu- Average family income of dents were very satisfied, compared with voucher students lower than less than 30 percent of parents whose non-recipients children remained in public schools. On discipline, 55 percent of parents of schol- arship students were very satisfied, com- pared with only 23 percent of parents of students in Cleveland public schools. with a 5 percentile point decline in lan- guage skills. Second, test scores in math and reading showed large gains at HOPE Academies. Third, choice schools did a good job of re- Relative to the national norm, in tests taining students. Only 7 percent of stu- conducted in May 1997, HOPE students dents enrolled in a choice school failed gained 5 percentile points in reading to complete the academic year at that and 15 points in math. This was coupled school.

26 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 31 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Fourth, the study found that voucher stu- searchers at Indiana University has ques- dents who opted to stay in the public school tioned the program's benefits.(See system did so more out of necessity than Appendix.) out of choice.Parents cited transporta- tion problems as the top reason for stay- The most ringing endorsements came ing in the public schools.Financial from the voucher students themselves problems (including coming up with the and their families.Nina Barrett, a 10 percent minimum parental contri- voucher student, had struggled through bution) were the next most-cited rea- the first grade in a Cleveland public son. Only a few 21 percent cited school the year before. Now she gets admission to a desired Cleveland pub- A's and B's and can't wait to get to class lic school, such as a magnet school or each morning."She's very proud of inability to secure admission to a de- that," said her mother."She's gained sired private school, as the reason. self-esteem."94Another parent boasts "She would have that her daughter now has the opportu- Fifth, academic quality and safety were the nity to spend half an hour a day in front been a statistic biggest concerns motivating parents to par- of a computer." ticipate in the program. Reasons for ap- without this pro- plying for a scholarship, in descending "By the time Antonea got to HOPE gram. She would order of importance, included academic Academy, she was a total disaster," said quality (85 percent said "very impor- another parent, Pamela Ballard."I have grown up to tant"); greater safety (79 percent), and didn't know what to do about it.I had be having babies religion (37 percent).Other respon- tried everything. Within two months dents also mentioned location and her grades had changed, her attitude and being on friends as influencing factors. changed. She would have been a sta- drugs." tistic without this program. She would Sixth, average family income of scholarship have grown up to be having babies and - Pamela Ballard, recipients was less than that of non-recipi- being on drugs. She wouldn't have had parent of HOPE ents. In other respects, such as mother's a chance in life.I had so many prob- Academy student education, mother's employment, fam- lems with the Cleveland public schools ily size, and ethnicity, the two groups that it was unbelievable. HOPE Acad- matched each other closely. emy was my last hope. I am thankful to God for this program." Ms. Ballard, in The report concluded that "both paren- fact,is now considering re-entering tal survey and initial test score results school herself to redress her own unmet provide strong justification' for con- educational needs.96 tinuing and expanding the program." Others, however, dispute these findings. Other parents noticed a change in their Since the PEPG study, a team of re- children's behavior and respect for oth-

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 27 32 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

ers. "Everybody is very disciplined," said other parent."What I saw here was Bobbi Roshell. "You don't see anybody that every teacher knew where every running up and down the halls. I never student was. One of the big differences see that, and I come here all the time."97 is that there is an expectation here and "In the Cleveland schools, there is no they make the kids follow it."" discipline," added Lynn Morrison, an-

28 The Buckeye stute for Public Policy Solutions Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Challenge in thecourts

Legislators were determined to include Three weeks later, a second suit was filed religious schools from the beginning. in the Franklin County Common Pleas Private schools, particularly the Catho- Court. The second suit made the same lic schools, never abandoned the inner allegations as the first.It was filed by cities and regularly achieve outstanding Americans United for Separation of results. Governor Voinovich and other Church and State, the American Civil school choice proponents wanted to Liberties Union, the OEA, and Norman broaden access to this excellent, ready- Lear's lobby, People for the American made educational alternative. The in- Way. '°' clusion of religious schools, however, became a lightning rod for legal attack Parents of children in the voucher pro- from the start. gram did not take the news sitting down. Ron Marec, the On June 21, supporters rallied in front OFT's president, Those eager to see the program fail of the Statehouse. Some of them were wasted no time. On January 10, 1996 parents and children who had received minced no words just two days after the voucher lot- vouchers. One of them, Jennifer Kinsey, when he identified tery teachers' unions and public a mother of four, who had been awarded school administrators filed suit in Co- a voucher for her youngest daughter, the union's goal. lumbus' Franklin County Common Pleas five-year-old Jermaine. "A lot of things Court,99 are broken with the Cleveland system," "We want to she said."Jermaine is very smart. I basically stop the The suit requested an injunction on wanted her io have a better chance. »102 grounds that the program's inclusion of program," he said. religious schools violated the separation The two suits were consolidated. Judge of church and state required by the con- Lisa L. Sadler was assigned to the case. stitutions of Ohio and the United States. Robert Chanin from the National Edu- It also alleged that the program would cation Association represented the cause irreparable harm to the Cleveland unions. Clint Bolick from the Institute public school district by diverting pub- for Justice, a public-interest law firm lic money to private schools. The OFT from Washington, DC, represented the openly acknowledged its ultimate mo- voucher families with State Solicitor Jef- tive in bringing the action. Ron Marec, frey Sutton defending the program. the OFT's president, minced no words when he identified the union's goal: "We Chanin attacked the inclusion of reli- want to basically stop the program."'w gious schools."What the defendants are asking you to do," he said, "is what

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 29 34 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

no court in the country, federal or state, efits of the program are limited, in large has ever done, and that's put taxpayer part, to parents who are willing to send money in the coffers of private, sectar- their children to sectarian schools." The ian schools." Bolick responded by point- court accordingly held that the program ing out the tragic record of the public violated constitutional guarantees of schools in Cleveland. "This program is freedom of religion, as well as provisions a life preserver for kids in the worst that prohibit religious sects from con- school districts," he said. He observed trolling state education money and that that only one in fourteen Cleveland assure state programs are uniform and eighth graders graduated on time from available to all." the twelfth grade, and that an equal number became crime victims inside the The main point that concerned the ap- schools.'m pellate court was that no public schools In what may prove had opted to participate in the program. On July 31, Judge Sadler denied the The rules, of course, permit the use of to be an important injunction request, ruling that the vouchers at participating public or pri- precedent for voucher plan was constitutional." OFT vate schools, but public school districts president Richard DeColibus immedi- must agree to participate in the program Ohio, the Wiscon- ately vowed to appeal.He dismissed and must notify the state superinten- sin Supreme Court the decision as nothing more than a dent by March 1 of their intent to par- Republican judge upholding a Republi- ticipate in the ensuing school year be- upheld the Mil- can agenda." ginning in August. Having as little af- fection for the program as their coun- waukee program. The promised appeal came on August terparts in Cleveland, the adjacent dis- 2, 1996. The Tenth District Court of tricts effectively boycotted the program, Appeals permitted the program to con- some of them citing the low voucher tinue pending the six-month appeal pro- amount as the reason." cess." The following May, a three-judge panel reversed Judge Sadler's ruling, Voucher opponents were elated.But, holding that the Cleveland Scholarship as Clint Bolick pointed out, the deci- Program did indeed violate the separa- sion did not strike down vouchers per tion of church and state." The court se.Rather, it took exception only to noted that no public schools accepted the predominant role supposedly given voucher students, and that, among pri- to religious schools in the program. vate schools accepting voucher students, only a few were non-sectarian. Because In any event, the case is poised for even- an overwhelming majority of voucher tual hearing by the Ohio Supreme Court students were being sent to sectarian and, after that, perhaps the U.S. Su- schools, the court found that the "ben- preme Court as well. Significantly, the

30 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 35 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the pro- to be an important precedent for Ohio, gram may continue through the 1997- the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld 98 school year despite the appellate the Milwaukee school choice program court's decision."° In what may prove in June 1998.'"

Constitutional provisions affecting school choice

First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.(Interpreted by the US Supreme Court to apply to the states.])

The General Assembly dealt with this provision by specifying that vouchersare payable directly to parents them- selves, not to schools. They consciously structured it around the postwar "GI Bill," which similarly awardedgrants (one might even call them vouchers) to veterans who were free touse them at any college they wished, including those associated with churches.

Ohio Constitution, Article I, §7 ("No person shall be compelled to attend,erect, or support any place of worship, or

maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall he given, by law,to any religious society.. . Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assemblyto pass suitable laws. ..to encourage schools and the means of instruction.") The Ohio freedom-of-religion provision goes beyond the federalone by positively encouraging the promotion of "religion, morality, and knowledge." For this reason, voucher advocatesassume that a program which passes muster under the First Amendment will pass muster under the parallel Ohio provisionas well.

Ohio Constitution, Article VI, §2 ("The general assembly shall make such provisions, bytaxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficientsystem of common schools throughout the State; but, no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive rightto, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.")

This provision gave rise to the recent DeRolph decision, which struck down Ohio'spresent public funding system. Originally, the main objection to the Cleveland program under this provisionwas its geographic limitation. The General Assembly has since addressed that problem by making theprogram available to any school district in receivership. (Right now, Cleveland is the only one meeting that description.) Further, the OhioSupreme Court has ruled that "the sole fact that some private schools receivean indirect benefit from general programs supported at public expense does not mean that such schools havean exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state." (Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and Statev. Essex, 1971.)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 31 1 36 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

The future Two important hurdles to the Cleve- ana University study is "seriously flawed. land program either have been or are Biases in design, data collection and likely to be overcome. First, when the analysis prevent it from telling us about Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in June the true effects of the scholarship pro- 1998 that Milwaukee's Parental Choice gram."'" Program is constitutional, it set an im- portant precedent for Cleveland. The Cleveland's reformers succeeded because Wisconsin court ruled that the program they remembered a crucial principle: the did not violate the First Amendment's legislative process is preferable to direct, prohibition of laws "respecting the es- mass-media democracy. The "essence of tablishment of religion,""2 stating that a republic," wrote Thomas Jefferson, is the Milwaukee program neither ad- "action by the citizens in person, in af- vanced nor inhibited religion. As con- fairs within their reach and competence, stitutional law scholar David N. Mayer and in all others by representatives, notes, "[t]he court's sweeping decision chosen immediately, and removable by bodes well for the Cleveland voucher themselves."15 program."13 Proponents have tried ballot initiatives Second, the program's transportation 21 times, and have failed 21 times. problems are now mostly resolved. Those 21 failures all come at an extraor- Cleveland school buses now transport a dinary cost in both money and advo- majority of scholarship students, with cates' time. Furthermore, doing "end- fewer than 300 still using alternative runs" around legislators is not going to transportation like taxis. A budget line win any favors from them. School choice item for next academic year will ensure proposals, no matter what form they that Cleveland scholarship students ride take, require continued support from leg- busesjust like other public and paro- islators. The legislative route gives chial students. school choice advocates an institutional "buy-in"; representatives and senators Although many state legislators cited participate in the decision and thus have the March 1998 Indiana University a stake in its success. study to argue against the program, the study's conclusions are at best impre- By the same token, pilots and reforms cise. As professors Paul Peterson and Jay of limited geographical scope lend them- P. Greene of the Program on education selves to legislative treatment. The same Policy and Governance at the John E is true for programs that involve school Kennedy school of Government at finance, transportation, labor, and evalu- Harvard University conclude, the Indi- ation.

32 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 37 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

As is true with most successful pilots, The Cleveland experience has surprises Cleveland's lessons are destined to fil- in it for everyone concerned about the ter beyond its borders. Since its incep- future of education. Michael Fox, Coo- tion, there have been numerous school per Snyder, and Patrick Sweeney sur- choice legislative efforts around the prised those who thought elected offi- country. Texas efforts failedbut by one cials were incapable of resisting the de- vote. Pennsylvania has considered a bill mands of special interests with a stake to offer scholarships to students in in the status quo. Inner-city parents from Philadelphia's low-performing public Cleveland neighborhoods surprised schools. New Mexico unveiled a school those who characterized scholarships as reform plan that includes scholarships. a pet project of wealthy outsiders. Gov- Indiana has unveiled a tax credit pro- ernor Voinovich and other policymakers posal for school choice, while Arizona surprised those who thought they could and Minnesota have already passed make the program fail by refusing to them. In Ohio, the Cleveland program cooperate and by frightening schoolchil- paved the way for recent charter school dren and parents. The HOPE Academies legislation that covers the "Big Eight" surprised those who assured us that pri- urban school districts. vate schools cannot function in a de- regulated education marketplace. Private No matter what obstacles lie ahead for schools surprised those who were sure school choice, itis hard to imagine no one would accept children from the public education will ever be the same. inner city. Teachers' union bosses and some school administrators may still feel nostalgia for And, above all, Cleveland's students the past, when voters seemed willing to surprised everyone, except themselves. lavish more money on any public school For they have proven that even the most system no matter how poor the product disadvantaged children in Ohio can when increased failure automatically learn, achieve, and excel, if only given a triggered increased funding. But, to their chance. surprise, those free-spending days are over. Clevelans experience is chang- ing the way people view education.

The Buckeye Institute for Public ,Policy Solutions 33

38 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Appendix: Addressing the Findings of the Indiana University Study

On March 16, 1998, researchers at the ing, language, mathematics, science, and School of Education at the Indiana Uni- social studies. These results were com- versity (IU) Bloomington released a pared with second-grade test results, year-long study.The study, commis- when both groups of students were en- sioned by the Ohio Department of Edu- rolled in Cleveland Public Schools. The cation, sought to evaluate the effects of IU researchers concluded that "[w]hen the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutor- available background characteristics and ing Grant Program on participating stu- previous levels of achievement are con- dents. trolled, there are no statistically signifi- cant differences between non-scholar- Researchers tested scholarship and non- ship and scholarship students for scores scholarship students at the end of the on the third-grade total battery or any third grade, the first year of the pro- of the five subtests. ',Ito gram. The students were tested on read-

1. Findings and Charges Two HOPE schools with 36 students used a different achievement test than the one administered to other students in the study. Therefore, the IU study excludes these students from the evaluation.Their test (the California Achievement Test, Form E, Level 13) was not the same one administered to the other students (the Terra Nova Survey, Level 13, Form A). These students "completed a different achievement test under substantially different conditions. ""7

Response Both the California Achievement Test and the Terra Nova Survey are designed by the same firm CTB/McGraw-Hill and a simple conversion formula is avail- able for converting scores from one test to another. Results from the two tests are therefore comparable. Furthermore, the exclusion of these 36 students' scores (for whom complete socioeconomic data and student ID numbers were available for 31) reduces the sample size of scholarship students to just 94. This increases the likelihood that no difference between the voucher students and non-voucher stu- dents would be found. Moreover, the test used during the second grade was not the Terra Nova Survey, but instead the California Achievement Test a different test from the one use during the third grade. The IU study therefore selectively applies its standard of longitudinal consistency (consistency across grades).

34 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 39 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

2. Findings and Charges The IU study excludes the 36 students from two HOPE schools because the testing was observed by proctors from John Carroll University rather than by the evaluation team itself.

Response The IU study includes testing on second-grade students from Cleveland Public Schools who were not proctored by the evaluation team but instead by Cleveland Public School teachers.Again, the IU study selectively applies its standard of consistency.

3. Findings and Charges The IU study concludes that scholarship students did not outperform public school students and bases this conclusion upon second grade test scores.

Response The second grade test scores are highly suspicious. First, theywere collected under unobserved testing conditions.Second, the scores appear too high and do not correlate in the usual way with demographic characteristics.Furthermore, if the second grade scores are to be believed, they are much higher thantest scores collected just one year later.In other words, the students lost 10 normal curve equivalent (NCE) points (18 national percentile points) inone year "an extraordinary decline far beyond the most pessimistic portraits painted about American educa- tion. 7)118 When the third grade scores are compared without making adjustments for non-credible second grade results, the evaluationteam finds that the scholar- ship students score considerably betteron every single test reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 35 40 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

4. Findings and Charges The IU study attempts to control for differences between the voucher and non-voucher students in its sample by using eligibility for a free lunch as an indicator of income.

Response Since 87 percent of Cleveland public school students receive free or reduced school lunches, using that measure fails to distinguish between the very poor and lower middle class students.The models, therefore, are biased against showing significant, positive effects of the program. Furthermore, no controls are introduced for mothers' education or fathers' education, two variables that have been shown to be powerful determinants of student achievement. In summary, the models inadequately con- trol for potential differences between the groups.

5. Findings and Charges The IU study uses "sequential multiple regression" (otherwise known as step-wise least squares regression) to evaluate differences in scholar- ship and non-scholarship students.

Response The statistical analysis used by the IU evaluation team analysis of residuals of a regression equation (also known as sequential regression or step-wise least squares regression) has been mathematically proven to be biased. The proof has been published in major peer-reviewed journals. As used by the evaluation team, this technique underestimates any positive effects of the scholarship program. Reports Harvard University professor Gary King, in an article entitled "How Not to Lie with Statistics," this statistical technique "has no useful interpretation" and that "one should not make too much of any interpretation of the residuals from a regression analysis [the technique used by IU] [and] it is not possible to draw fair conclusions." He reports that the estimate of the effects of the variable upon which residuals are regressed [the scholarship program, in this case] "underesti- mates" its true effect."'

36 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 41 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

6. Findings and Charges The IU study asserts that voucher and non-voucher student samples were controlled for similar socioeconomic variables.

Response The IU study failed to control for age of the student. Ifno adjustment is made for the fact that many Cleveland public school studentsare "held back" and are there- fore older, then research on school effects is flawed because older students receive higher percentile scores than is appropriate for theirage.With young students especially, this can introduce serious biases in estimates of school effects.In the Milwaukee voucher program, estimates of the effect of school choicewere notice- ably larger once student age was taken into account.tZO

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 37 42 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

References and NItes

1. Desiree F. Hicks, "Foes rally to fight vouch- California Teachers Association $12,300,000 ers," Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 2, 1995, California School Employees p. B4. Association $1,300,000 California Federation of Teachers $1,100,000 2. Scott Stephens, "Cleveland school-voucher Association of California plan debated in court for three hours," Cleve- School Administers $450,700 land Plain Dealer, June 25, 1996, pp. B1, B4. California State Council of Service Employees $310,000. 3. Clint Bolick, "Blocking the exits: Libertar- California School Boards Association $257,800 ian opposition to school vouchers is an at- Total $15,718,500 tack on freedom," Policy Review, no. 89 (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Founda- The California Teachers Association assessed its tion, May/June 1998), p. 43. 225,783 members $57 each to fund the $12.3 million necessary to defeat Proposition 174. 4. Washington Post, June 2, 1995, p. A3. (Philipp M. Go liner, "On the California ballot: should the state help pay for private-school pu- 5. New York Times, March 14, 1995, p. A10; pils?" New York Times, August 4, 1993; p. B9) Cleveland Plain Dealer, December 6, 1996, Some of the above amounts were subsequently p. Bl. revised upward. In addition, the million-member California Parent Teacher Association (CPTA) 6. Associated Press, "State will run public provided volunteers for-the Coalition. schools in Cleveland," New York Times, March 5, 1995, p. 26. 10.Public choice theorists in economics explain why demagoguery works so well in initiative 7. Interview with Michael Fox, former State elections: "Since [the voter] realizes that his Representative and Education Committee individual vote will not determine the out- Chairman, November 18, 1997. come, he will not invest in costly informa- tion search activities. Individuals simply have 8. Scott Stephens, "Voucher supporters state no incentive to invest their time and other case," Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 1, resources in obtaining and sorting out infor- 1995, p. Bl. mation on public sector issues in order to make more informed voting decisions. They Charlene Haar, Myron Lieberman, and Leo 9. will remain rationally ignorant." David B. Troy, "Teacher Union Political Operations: Johnson, Public Choice: An Introdution to the Three Case Studies," The NEA and AFT New Political Economy (Mountain View, Cali- Teacher Unions Iri Power and Politics (Rockport,. fornia: Bristlestone Books, 1991), p. 143. Massachusetts: Pro-Active Publishers, June: 1994). Obtained from Education,Policy 11. One observer from the American Federation stitute web site, http: / /www.schoolreport.com/ of Teachers speculated before T.V. cameras epi/files /neaftbk/booklitm: Haar, Lieberman, that the state would be forced to accept "a and Troy list the following as "Citizens cult school," or a "Ku Klux Klan or Farrakhan" Against Proposition 174 Coalition" campaign school. Bella Rosenberg, "The Right Reform?" contributors: PBS Newshour Backgrounder, September 10, 1996.Obtained from web site http:// www.pbs.org/newshour.

38 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 43 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

12.Twenty of the twenty-six states that prohibit merce, Statistical Abstract of the U. S . (Wash- initiatives are east of the Mississippi River. ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, In the East, only seven states allow citizren 1997), Section 14, Table 738, p. 476, citing initiatives: Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Illinois, Ohio, Mississippi, and Florida.In Survey P60-194 and earlier reports. contrast, only seven states west of the Mis- sissippi River prohibit initiatives: Minnesota, 15.Data from the Ballot Initiative Strategy Cen- Iowa, Kansas, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, ter website http://www.ballotordbackground/ and Hawaii. history.htm.

13.Figures are from 1997 and were obtained from 16.Data for the November 3, 1998, election. the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census Obtained from the National Voter Outreach of Population and Housing, Population and website http://207.222.193.107. Housing Unit Counts (CPH-2); Current Population Reports, P25-1106; and "ST-97- 17.Daniel McGroarty, Voucher Wars: Strategy and 1 Estimates of the Population of States: An- Tactics as School Choice Advocates Battle the La- nual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1997"; bor Leviathan (Indianapolis: Milton and Rose release date December 30, 1997.There are D. Friedman Foundation, April 1998), p. 14. 27 states and the District of Columbia (to- 18.Interview with Mike Krusee, Texas State Rep- taling 160,034,283 people) east of the Mis- resentative, April 7, 1998. sissippi River, with 7 states (with 58,129,053 people) permitting initiatives and 20 states 19.Robert C. Johnston, "School Choice Picks (with 101,905,230 people) prohibiting them. Up New Allies in States," Education Week, There are 24 states (totaling 107,601,778 December 10, 1997. Obtained from web site people) west of the Mississippi River, with http://www.edweek.org. 17 states (with 70,761,507 people) permit- ting initiatives and 7 states (with 36,840,271 20.David W. Kirkpatrick, Choice in Schooling (Chi- people) prohibiting them.Overall, cago: Loyola University Press, 1990), p. 25. 128,890,560 Americans (or, 48.16%) live in states which permit initiatives and 21.Interview with Cooper Snyder, former State 138,745,501 Americans (or, 51.84%) live in Senator and Education Committee Chair- states which prohibit them. man, March 24, 1998.

14.U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Popula- 22.Ibid. tion Surveys for March 1995, 1996, 1997. 23.Interview with David Brennan, businessman Figures are total number of children under and former Chairman of the Governor's Com- age 19, all income levels (3-year average of mission on Educational Choice, November 1994, 1995, 1996). 38.091 million children 20, 1997. (51.47% of the 74.001 million children in the U.S.) live in states without an initiative 24. The Governor's Commission on Educational process.State figures for child poverty, de- Choice, The Ohio Scholarship Plan (Colum- fined at 200% of the poverty level, and state bus, Ohio: December 1992). Annual state- figures for total children under age 19, all wide savings on p. 67. income levels (3-year average of 1994, 1995, 1996), are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Data 25.Ibid. obtained from web site http://www.census.gov/ hhes/hlthins/lowinckid.html, citing Current 26.Ibid. Population Surveys, March' 1997, 1996, and 1995. The threshold of 200% of the poverty 27.Ibid. level equalled $24,316 in 1995 for a family of three. Source: U.S. Department of Com- 28.Ibid.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 39 44 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the .Future of School Reform

29. The bill also proposed to track another 4,000 tutional Democracy (Ann Arbor, Michigan: similarly-situated students from the same cit- The University of Michigan Press, 1965), pp. ies.The two groups would be studied for 291-292. Other economists have cited ra- five years, starting in the 1993-94 school year. tional voter ignorance in the advantage that At the end, the two groups would be com- special interests such as the Ohio Education pared to determine whether vouchers affect Association and the Ohio Federation of actual educational achievement. Teachers have over school choice proponents in promoting taxpayer-funded government 30.Interview with Michael Fox, November 18, schools: "The harm done to each members 1997. of the majority by one policy is quite small and in many cases difficult to estimate. (What 31.Ibid. annual cost do you bear from milk price sup- ports or subsidies to airports?) Voters are of- 32.Ibid. ten rational in not making an attempt to estimate the damage done from hundreds of 33. Mary Beth Lane, "Bill proposes 5-year test of policies that affect them only slightly and voucher plan," Cleveland Plain Dealer, Janu- Instead, they concentrate ary 24, 1992, pp. Cl- C2. often indirectly. on policies that have large and obvious ef- 34. Hope for Ohio's Children, "The Time for fects on their own well-being, that is, on spe- School Choice is Now!" pamphlet, n.d. cial interest legislation that benefits or harms them." Edgar K. Browning and Jacqueline 35. "Voinovich to back school vouchers," Cleve- M. Browning, Public Finance and the Price Sys- land Plain Dealer, September 16, 1993, p. B3. tem, 4th ed. (New York: Macmillan Publish- ing Company, 1994), pp. 81-82. 36. Union membership as of January 1996 was 6,453. Cleveland City School District Perfor- 38Ibid. During 1997, the highest paid (in gross mance Audit, official publication of Auditor salary and expenses) ()EA lobbyists and la- of State Jim Petro, (Columbus, Ohio: State bor negotiators/political organizers ("UniSery of Ohio, March 15, 1996), pp. 11-13. consultants") were: 37."Almost any conceivable collective action will provide more benefits to some citizens 1.Benjamin Gerber, than to others, and almost any conceivable UniSery consultant $145,112 distribution of a given cost sum will bear more 2.Edward Spezia, heavily on some individuals and groups than UniSery consultant $144,309 3.Dennis Coughlan, on others . . . .[I]t is the opportunity to secure differential benefits from collective UruSery consultant ...... $140,990 activity that attracts the political profit-seek- 4. William Canacci, ing group. Moreover, these differential ben- UniSery consultant $140,537 efits may be secured in either of two ways. 5.James Romick, First, activities may be approved which cause UniSery consultant $140,241 benefits to accrue to selected individuals and 6. Alan Adair, Jr., groups but which impose costs generally on . UniSery consultant ...... $137,906 all members of the community.Secondly, 7.Dorothy Fay, activities may be approved which provide UniSery consultant $137,590 general benefits to all members of the com- 8. Thomas Scarpelli, munity but which impose costs on certain UniSery consultant $137,256 selected individuals and groups." James M. 9. Charles Williams, Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calcu- UniSery consultant $134,095 lus of Consent: Logical Foundations of a Consti- 10. Mary Jo Shannon Slick, UniSery consultant $132,971

40 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 45 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

11. Michael Shanesy, 40.UniSery consultants are trained by the Na- UniSery consultant $131,912 tional Education Association (NEA) and act 12. Donald Looker, as labor negotiators and politkal organizers. UniSery consultant $125,058 Part of their salaries are paid by grants from 13. Jane Currey, the NEA, which sends back to the state or- UniSery consultant $107,973 ganizations dues monies sent to the NEA by teacher-members.These members' dues :39.Although; the teachet in Ohio earned amounted to $107 in 1996-97 (National Edu- $49;354 in 'caSh;:compensat i on and benefits cation Association, Strategic Plan and Budget, during 1997; the average OEA staff member Fiscal Year 1996-97 [Washington: National earned $91 670, With 28. staff Mein bers; . ; Education Association, 1996], p. iii).The ing Over . $100,000 and; 'nine earning over NEA returned $24 to the states in UniSery $140,000Source: Education Intelligence grants.(Myron Lieberman, The Teacher Agency, Piles of Wealth. Teacher Union Staff Unions: How the NEA and AFT Sabotage Re- Compensation (Carmichael, California, June form and Hold Students, Parents, Teachers, and

1998), p 17, citing Report Form LM-2, "La- : Taxpayers Hostage to Bureaucracy [New York:

bor,Organization Annual Report," U S De- ; The Free Press, 1997], p. 53.) UniSery grants partment of Labor, Office of Labor Manage- ($40,516,815). and training ($1,993,460) ment Standards (Washington, DC US amounted to 22.1 percent of the total NEA Government Printing Office, 1997) During budget of $192,767,400.(National Educa- 1997, the top earning (in gross salary and tion Association, pp. 19, 41.) expenses) OEA staff members, excluding lob- byists and labor negotiators/political organiz- 41.UniSery directors ("consultants") conservatively ers ("UniSery consultants"), were spend one-third of their time on political orga- nization.(See Lieberman, p. 103.)Records 1 Mike Bilhrakts, (like employee timesheets) exposed by agency president $166,733 fee litigation, however, have shown that teacher 2 William P. Sundermeyer, union staff such as UniSery directors spend sub-

executive director $164,347 < stantially more of their time than this on po- . 3. William Dorsey, litical operations. In the U.S. Supreme Court secretary-treasurer .. $148,208 case Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson 475 U.S. 4. Gary Allen, 292 (1986), the court determined that 95% of vice president $145,988 the agency fees were chargeable to the national 5.Richard Bourgault, office, i.e., were unrelated to collective bargain- executive manager .... $120,608 ing and therefore political in nature.(See 6.Barry,. Bane lt, Lieberman, pp. 172-190.) computer services consultant.. $119,907 7.Richard Baker, 42.Interview with William Batchelder, House magazine editor ... . $119,082 Speaker Pro Tempore, April 10, 1998. 8. Jerome T. Rampelt, director, .. . $116,272 43.Jonathan Riskind, "Panel against using taxes 9. Christopher Turner, for school vouchers," Columbus Dispatch, Oc- director . $115,647 tober 6, 1993, p. B6. 9.Daniel Burke, computer services consultant .. $113,305 44.Ibid. 10. Dennis M Reardon, executive manager $104,786 45.Ibid. 11 Ellen Currie, 46.Interview with Michael Fox, November 18, director.. _ $104,705 1997.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 41 46 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

47. Ibid. 61.Interview with Bert Holt, Director, Cleve- land Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Pro- 48.H.B. 117, submitted February 9, 1995, which gram, November 13, 1997. amended section 3313.974 through 3313.979 of the Ohio Revised Code. This 62.Ibid. was the budget bill for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 63. Ibid.

49.Interview with former Paul Pelagyi, Special 64.Ibid. Assistant for the Governor, January 21, 1998. 65.Paul E. Peterson, Jay P. Green, and William 50.Ibid. G. Howell, An Evaluation of the Cleveland 51.Interview with Andrew Little, former Presi- Scholarship Program.Program on Education dent of The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy and Governance (Cambridge, Massachu- Policy Solutions, January 8, 1998. setts: Harvard University, September 1997).

52.Scott Stephens, "Storming the statehouse, 66.Desiree F Hicks, "Deadline is Monday to ap- local voucher plan supporters state their case ply for Cleveland tuition vouchers," Cleve- in Columbus," Cleveland Plain Dealer, Feb- land Plain Dealer, December 28, 1995, p. B2. ruary 1, 1995, p. Bl. Article gives information about plans for school fair. 53.Ibid. 67.Interview with Bert Holt, November 13, 54.Ibid. 1997.

55. Thomas Suddes, "School vouchers face 68.Interview with Thomas Noe, Member of the House debate Thursday," Cleveland Plain Governor's "Commission on Eductional Dealer, April 4, 1995, p. B4. Choice, March 27, 1998. 56. Two groups with First Amendment concerns over the inclusion of religious schools in 69.Interview with Bert Holt, November 13, the plan the Ohio ACLU and the Inter- 1997. church Council of Greater Cleveland also helped organize the rally. 70.Ibid. 57. Thomas Suddes and Benjamin Marrison. 71."[Cleveland Municipal Code] Sections "House OKs state budget; school-voucher 443.021 and 443.022 ... prohibit the Com- plan included," Cleveland Plain Dealer, April missioner of Assessments and Licenses from 7, 1995, p. Al. issuing a license to any company with fewer than 25 cars. The ordinance further prohib- 58.Interview with Michael Fox, November 18, its the commissioner from issuing a license 1997. to an independent operator unless he or she is a member of an association approved by 59."George Voinovich signs a two-year state the Commissioner. An association is defined budget, using his line-item veto powers to as a society organized for the purpose of ben- eliminate 18 provisions," Cleveland Plain efiting a group of not less than 25 owners of Dealer, July 1, 1995, p. Al. 'public hacks' (or taxis). No associations cur- 60. Mary Beth Lane, "Voucher program in rently operate in Cleveland. City taxi ser- Cleveland delayed," Cleveland Plain Dealer, vices are provided by only 3 large taxicab August 12, 1995, p. B5. companies Cleveland Yellow Cab, Zone Cab, and Americab. This may explain why

42 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 47 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

Cleveland's cap on taxicab licenses is set at 84.Remarks by David Brennan at Hope Central 700, but only 293 licenses have been issued, Academy visitation day, November 20, 1997. a lower number than either Cincinnati or Columbus." Taxicab Regulation in Ohio's Larg- 85.Interview with David Brennan, November est Cities (Dayton, Ohio: The Buckeye Insti- 20, 1997. tute for Public Policy Solutions, October 1996), p. 16. 86.Quoting Mary Ann Jackson by Desiree F. Hicks, "Opportunity rings a school bell," 72.Interview with Lee Lundblad, Catholic Dio- Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 20, 1996, cese of Cleveland, January 9, 1998. pp. B1 -B2.

73. The applicable statute says that "[Ole state 87.Ibid. superintendent shall make a grant to the pi- lot project school district [meaning Cleve- 88.Ibid. land public schools] sufficient to defray one hundred per cent of the additional costs to 89.Ibid. the district of providing transportation to and from the alternative school for all students 90.Remarks by David Brennan at HOPE Cen- utilizing a scholarship to attend an alterna- tral Academy visitation day, November 20, tive school." Ohio Revised Code, Section 1997. 3313.975(E). 91.Interview with John Morris, principal of 74.Interview with Bert Holt, February 25, 1998. HOPE Academies, November 20, 1997.

75. Document entitled "Cleveland Scholarship 92.Peterson, Green, and Howell, p. vi. and Tutoring Program Start-Up Transporta- tion Chronology" prepared by Cleveland 93. Though the team acknowledged limitations Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program, n.d. in the data, the survey size was large enough, and the differences wide enough, to justify 76.Interview with Bert Holt, February 25, 1998. the study's conclusion that the program was working. 77.Interview with William Batchelder, April 10, 1998. 94.Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 22, 1997, p. 78. UPI wire service report, Ohio News Brief, Janu- B4. ary 28, 1998. 95.Interview, HOPE Academy visitation day, 79.Michael Hawthorne, "Questions on school November 20, 1997. vouchers," Cincinnati Enquirer, March 31, 96.Ibid. 1998, p. Bl. 97.Ibid. 80.Interview with William Batchelder, April 10, 1998. 98.Ibid.

81.Interview with Allen Endicott, Special As- 99.Scott Stephens and Desiree F. Hicks, "Edu- sistant to the Governor for Education, April cators, others sue over school vouchers," 3, 1998. Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 10, 1996,p. Bl. 82.Ibid. 100. Ibid. 83.Ibid.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions BEST COPY AVAILABLE 43 Giving Choice a Chance Cleveland and the Future of School Reform

101. Associated Press, "School voucher program Guide to the Indiana University School of is target of second lawsuit," Cleveland Plain Education Evaluation," telefacsimile (Cam- Dealer, February 1, 1996, p. B4. bridge, Massachusetts: March 31, 1998), Ex- ecutive Summary. 102. Mary Beth Lane, "Voucher backers rally for plan," Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 22, 1996, 115. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John pp. B1, B6. Cartwright, June 5, 1824, in Thomas Jefferson, Writings, ed. Merrill Peterson (New York: The 103. Scott Stephens, "Cleveland school-voucher Library of America, 1984), pp. 1493-1494. plan debated in court for three hours," Cleve- 116. Kim K. Metcalf, William J. Boone, Frances land Plain Dealer, June 25, 1996, pp. B1, B4. K. Stage, Todd L. Chilton, Patty Muller, and 104. Mary Beth Lane and Tom Breckinridge, Polly Tait, "A Comparative Evaluation of the "School vouchers ruled constitutional in Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Ohio," Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 1, ProgramYear One: 1996-97," A Project of the School of Education and The Junior 1996, pp. Al, A4. Achievement Evaluation Project 105. Ibid. (Bloomington, Indiana: Smith Research Cen- ter, Indiana University, March 16, 1998), pp. 106. Mary Beth Lane, "Voucher opponents ask 45-46. for injunction," Cleveland Plain Dealer, Au- gust 3, 1996, p. B5. 117. Metcalf et al., p.

107. Duane St. Clair, "School vouchers fail con- 118. Peterson and Greene, p. 3. stitutional exam," Columbus Dispatch, May 2, 1997, p. Al. 119. Gary King, "How Not to Lie with Statistics: Avoiding Common Mistakes in Quantitative 108. Ibid. Political Science," American Journal of Politi- cal Science 30 (August 1986), pp. 665-686; 109. National Educational Goals Panel, Arthur S. Goldberg, "Stepwise Least Squares: "Cleveland's voucher program: bumps along Residual Analysis and Specification Error," the way," Daily Report Card, February 26, Journal of the American Statistical Association 1996. 56 (December 1961), pp. 998-1000; Arthur S. Goldberg and D.B. Jochems, "Note on 110. Catherine Candisky, "State officials file ap- Stepwise Least Squares," Journal of the Ameri- peal to save school vouchers," Columbus Dis- can Statistical Association 56 (March 1961), patch, June 7, 1997, p. B2. pp. 105-110; Christopher H. Achen, "On the 111. See David N. Mayer, "A harbinger of hope: Bias in Stepwise Least Squares," unpublished The Cleveland school voucher program manuscript, 1978. should pass constitutional muster," Perspec- 120. In the Milwaukee voucher program, estimates tive on Current Issues (Dayton, Ohio: The of the effect of school choice were notice- Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, ably larger once student age was taken into July 1998). account. See Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, 112. Ibid. and William Du, Effectiveness on School Choice: The Milwaukee Experiment (Occasional Paper. 113. Ibid. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer- sity, Program in Education Policy and Gov- 114. Paul E. Peterson and Jay P. Greene, "Assess- ernance, 1997). ing the Cleveland Scholarship Program: A

44 The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions 49 BEST COPYAVAILABLE 131 N. Ludlow Street NON PROFIT ORG. Suite 317 U.S. POSTAGE p ee Iucicnsti ute Dayton, Ohio 45402 PAID gt= Ph: (937) 224-8352 DAYTON, OH 45402 Fax: (937) 224-8457 PERMIT NO. 380

131 N. Ludlow Street Suite 317Dayton, Ohio 45402 Ph: (937) 224-8352Fax: (937) 224-8457 e-mail: www.buckeyeinstitute.org 50 En 0E00231- t\t:pi ociut.A. 01

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (0ERI) National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information ERIC Center (ERIC) Reproduction Release (Specific Document) I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

- s.te_ aisiceltaeleutotatatcl - - 1AuthOHS): I !Corporate Source: 7,e_do etr/41 :fifh, Publication Date: II. REPRODUCTION RELEAS :

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE),are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

lipermission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign in the indicated space following.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be affa:d to all[the sample sticker showrbeTOw will be i1ixed to all] affixed to all Level I documents Level 2A documents Level 213 documents 1 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THISMATERIAL IN 1 PERMISSION TOREPRODUCEAND MICROFICHE., AND INEt.t.critoNicNlE)IA PERMISSIONTO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HASFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY. DISSEMINATE THIS :MATERIAL IN BEEN GRAN' BY HASBEEN GRAN) BY MICROFICHE ONLY HAS B N GRANTED BY

...... ____

TO -IHEEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES "IO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC') INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Level I Level 2A Level 211 t t

-----i J Check here for evel I release, permitting Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and in Check here for Level 213 release, permitting microfiche or other ERIC archival media electronic media for ERIC archival collection reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only (e.g. electronic) and paper copy. subscribers only Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level I. ..)

http://eric.uoregon.edu/ReproductionRelease.html 1/18/00 ic iczthc 01 L

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche, or electronic media by persons other than ERIC em loyees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-prof reproduc o/7 by li mries and other service agencies tosatisfyinformation needs of educators in -esponse to discto inquir'

, ,/..!---,5" jr-- ; I Signature: ...t4treint Name/PosttiorTrrnle: (;',golf C 1 re rgantzation/ dress: !Telephone: 6.4/...z.6., 4.-451y,y 12_1 xL_4* 2441, Woja ly l-Si 20rzi,Le. Oryzi r: -marl Address: pate: / 2_9-00 III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

IPUblish-e-r7Distributor: Tke

Address: 4100 (k), . L 21)o 41+.2622- 15 3 004 ive ker. Gq/7 \ v5 ilusvt-k3 Price: 00 IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management 1787 Agate Street 5207 University of Oregon Eugene, OR, 97403-5207 attn: Acquisitions

http://eric.uoregon.edu/ReproductionRelease.html 1/1 8/00