-By Israel Teitelbaum
Dick Zimmer, candidate for U.S. Senate from New Jersey, and candidates for U.S. Congress Dale M. Glading (NJ-1), Martin Marks (NJ-7) and Roland Straten (NJ-8) have committed to support the Civil Rights Act for Equal Educational Opportunity (CRA for EEO). This proposed legislation 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.
Israel Teitelbaum, of Parents for Free Choice in Education (PFCE), joined today with Larry Cirignano of CatholicVote.org, and candidates Martin Marks and Dale Glading in Washington, DC to introduce this proposed legislation to congressional staffers and fellow activists at the Wednesday Meeting of Americans for Tax Reform, as well as the halls of Congress.
The CRA for EEO is based on the writings of economist Milton Friedman in his 1955 article The Role of Government in Education, his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, his 1980 book Free to Choose and his 2005 article School Vouchers Turn 50, But the Fight Is Just Beginning. Although it’s been proven time and again that competition improves quality and efficiency, this is the first time in the 53 years since Friedman first proposed school choice that his plan is being introduced as national legislation.
Long time school choice activist Bob Schundler, who is leading the drive for national school choice, said, “The future of our nation is entirely dependent upon the quality of our children’s education. We cannot afford to delay this any longer.”
This legislation has the support of countless voters and a long list of prestigious organizations, including Americans for Tax Reform, Washington DC; Family Research Council, Washington, DC; Alliance for Worker Freedom, Washington, DC; Center for Equal Opportunity, Falls Church, VA; Torah Communications, Brooklyn, NY; National Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education, Brooklyn, NY; N’shei Chabad Newsletter, Brooklyn NY; CatholicVote.org, Washington, DC; Catholic Voices, Cedar Grove NJ; New Jersey Family Policy Council, Trenton, NJ; Sephardic Voters League, Brooklyn, NY; SchoolChoiceVoter.org., Westfield, NJ.
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 U.S. 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. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. 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 and public transportation, yet requires equitable opportunity and non discriminatory treatment, 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 any increase 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 the need to raise taxes. As reported in the National Review, “The truth is that, between 1960 and 2000, after-inflation education spending more than tripled. Harvard’s Caroline Hoxby has found that real, inflation-adjusted spending grew from $5,900 per pupil in 1982 to more than $9,200 in 2,000.”
There are only about 15 percent of children who do not attend public schools, while there is surely far more than 15 percent waste and inefficiency in the current system that has been run without competition for generations.
While the CRA for EEO makes no mention of the small percentage of home schoolers included in the above figure, they will have the option of creating schools that serve the needs of homeschoolers, provided they abide by similar standards required of other schools.
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.
Despite the many improvements this legislation would bring to education, a major grass roots effort is required to overcome opposition forces. In the words of Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, “I’m an advocate of school choice, and led the fight for vouchers in Washington, DC. But I have not heard from my constituents about this.”
PFCE has issued a call to schools, groups and individuals to call their Congressman and Senators at 202-224-3121, and ask them to sponsor the Civil Rights Act for Equal Educational Opportunity.
____________
Israel Teitelbaum is currently creating a new school choice organization to help further the efforts to improve our public schools. His blog will soon be up and running at SchoolChoiceVoter.org. Mr. Teitelbaum can be reached at israel@schoolchoicenj.org.