Israel Teitelbaum, cofounder of Parents for Free Choice in Education, recently had the opportunity to present Presidential candidate John McCain with the organization’s proposal for school choice legislation—the Civil Rights Act for Equal Educational Opportunity. This would require the states to provide equitable educational funding for children in public and non-public schools, while respecting the liberty of schools in hiring and provision of services.
This would fulfill what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tragically omitted—education. While our leaders saw fit to require equitable treatment in housing, employment, travel and entertainment, they deemed education unworthy of such protection for those in private and religious schools, and we are suffering the bitter consequences.
John McCain answered that he favored parental choice—a prevailing theme of his campaign.
For the many voters who are crying out for change, this legislation will transfer back to the people their Constitutionally granted freedom to raise and nurture their children without government interference.
It will drastically improve education and bring many societal blessings as a result.
While the public is unaware of both sides of this issue because of the “wall of silence,” Parents for Free Choice in Education will hold a rally and Freedom Concert, on July 3rd, at the Leon and Toby Cooperman JCC, West Orange, New Jersey, to bring this issue to New Jersey voters. There are now at least two candidates for US Congress championing this legislation, Dale Glading (NJ-1) and Roland Straten (NJ-8), who will address the rally.
Fifty-three years ago, Milton Friedman first proposed a voucher plan. This concept has never been debated in the public arena. All voucher plans now in effect and debated over the years were not truly school choice plans as envisioned and carefully outlined by him. He referred to them as “charity vouchers,” as opposed to “educational vouchers.” While they are a small step in the right direction and help the children they serve, these plans will not bring the magic of free enterprise to education.
Although some claim this legislation violates the 10th Amendment (states’ rights), this rationale would also disqualify the 14th Amendment (non-discrimination) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (equal opportunity). Civil rights, of all kinds, are at the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. This surely includes the right of parents to raise and nurture their children without government interference, especially seeing how much harm this has brought upon our society. Accordingly, the US Supreme Court ruled in Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris (June 2002) that school vouchers are constitutional and may be used at religious schools.
Those who fear this will force tax increases, may be shocked to learn that many private and religious schools would gladly provide a sound education for half of what public schools are now spending. This federal legislation does not in any way dictate to the states how to manage education. If a state chooses to defund education entirely it would have no bearing on this legislation. The object of the Act is to complete what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 omitted.
Just as the federal government does not tell the states how to regulate restaurants, sports stadiums or public transportation, yet requires equitable opportunity, so too here. It would still be up to each state to design their own system of funding education, provided all school children are granted equitable treatment, including those attending non-public schools. States would be free to design systems that have varying impact on property and other taxes.
Obviously, as overburdened taxpayers, we do not want to see increases in taxes of any kind, nor need there be. There is surely enough funding of education already budgeted to serve the needs of all school children, without having to raise taxes.
Those states sensible enough to follow the teachings of Milton Friedman would set the voucher amount low enough to assure that educational costs are in fact decreased. There are less than 15% of children who do not attend public schools, while there is surely far more than 15% waste and inefficiency in the current system that has been run without competition for generations.
Regarding federal spending, the CRA for EEO would render most federal oversight unnecessary and obsolete—as it should be—saving taxpayers many billions of dollars.
Further information is available at 073-267-4213 or Israel@SchoolChoiceVoter.org.
