A weekend interview with ...

... John Kirtley (second from left), vice-chairman of the board of the Alliance for School Choice and head of the Florida Education Freedom Foundation. The Alliance For School Choice is a national organization, and the Florida Education Freedom Foundation a state based one, that have the same mission: bringing more K-12 educational options to low income parents. Kirtley spoke via e-mail with reporter Jeff Solochek about school choice and corporate tax credit scholarships in Florida. Please note, relating to the wording of the questions, Kirtley stated, "I strongly object to the word 'voucher' in the questions, since it is such a demonized word. It's not even technically correct. The tax credit scholarship isn't a voucher, while Bright Futures and VPK are."

What is the importance of education vouchers and the corporate tax credit program you helped establish?

Many people are stunned to learn that less than 50% of minority children graduate high school in Florida. According the Harvard Civil Rights Project [recently moved to UCLA], if you are a black male in our state, you have a 38% chance of graduating. Prospects for dropouts are bleak: low wages, prison, or even an early death from violent crime. I don't state this to place blame on anyone, and in fact the public schools are making great progress in this area. The challenges facing those trying to educate low-income children in Florida are almost incomprehensible: children come from dangerous neighborhoods, there are gangs and other negative influences. Families come from numerous countries and often English isn't spoken at home. Over 100 languages are spoken in the Dade public schools! If there is one thing that can be said of low-income children in Florida, it's that their situations are not uniform. 

Some children are just not going to thrive in their assigned public school. That doesn't mean that school is a failure. It just means it's not working for that child. I'm a graduate of Fort Lauderdale High School, and I couldn't have been better prepared. But I personally saw kids who dropped out because my school wasn't right for them. Sometimes parents need choices of schools to find one that will work. All parents in Florida have school choice—unless they can't afford it. If you have enough money, you can move to a neighborhood with a public school that fits your kid. Or you can pay for tuition to a private school that works for them. Only those without the means to move or pay tuition have no choices.

The old model of education, where we assign kids to schools based just on their zip codes, needs to change--and it is. Public schools systems in Florida are doing a good job of creating new delivery models: open enrollment, magnets, career academies, charter schools and virtual schools. But sometimes even one of those won't work for a child. They might need the environment offered by a school not within that system. Or those public options may not be available near them.

The tax credit scholarship program is just a way to give low income parents power they never had. It doesn't tell them where to send their kids. It serves less than one percent of the kids in the public schools. But if your kid is in that fraction, it's the most important thing in your life. In December we had an event in Miami where a young woman spoke, Melody Cherflis. In eighth grade she had less than a 1.0 grade point and was going to drop out. She is the first to say it wasn't her school's fault. She got the scholarship, found the right school, and now she's in college. If not for the scholarship she'd be a statistic.

We often hear the argument that the program is a drain on public school funding. How do you respond?

 The biggest fiscal drain on public schools are dropouts. The most generous estimates show that we graduate 70% of our kids overall. Last year about 240,000 kids entered 9th grade. About 70,000 of them won't graduate. If you assume they drop out in 11th grade, then at any time there's 140,000 kids missing from the schools. The state sends districts about $7,300 for every kid that shows up. That means that dropouts are costing the public schools over $1 billion a year.

In the tax credit program, over 80% of the kids are in 8th grade or below. There just aren't that many private high schools in low income areas, and most of our parents can't afford the difference between the scholarship and tuition in the higher grades. These kids leave our program and go back to public school—and stay in. It's part of the solution, not part of the problem. Last year the legislature gave the public schools $17 billion. The scholarship program was $88 million, or one half of one percent of that

Why are you and others seeking to so dramatically expand the program now, as the state is grappling with declining finances?

The program can't serve any more kids under the current cap. We had 30,000 kids apply for our 20,000 slots this year, and we certainly could have had more applications. The proposed bill only grows the program at 5,000 kids per year for the next five years. At the end of that period, we would have 45,000 kids, or 1.7% of public school kids. It would still be small. The reason that we need a multi-year commitment is to convince the participating schools to reserve places for these kids—they need to have confidence that the program is going to grow and be around.

This program actually helps the state budget and the current fiscal crisis. Because the maximum scholarship by law is several thousand dollars less than what the state spends per child in the public schools, the state saves huge amounts of money. Florida TaxWatch and The Collins Center For Public Policy issued separate reports estimating the ten year savings from the program at a minimum of $600 million. If the state eliminated the program tomorrow, the legislature would have to come up with an additional $60 million for this year alone, and this assumes no additional costs to comply with the class size amendment when 20,000 kids return to public schools.

Some critics say they would have fewer problems with allowing students to use vouchers to attend private schools if they also would take the FCAT, to show the education they are receiving is truly better. What do you think about that?

I think it is crucial to show both low income parents and taxpayers that the program is working. We strongly endorsed Senator King's accountability bill, passed in 2006, that requires testing for children in the scholarship program. Every year scholarship children must take a nationally recognized, norm referenced test approved by the DOE, or they may take the FCAT itself. The tests approved by the DOE must be comparable to the FCAT. Every year the scores must be reported to the University of Florida, and UF will each year report on the learning gains of the children. UF will also compare them to comparable public school students, including a control group of public schools kids that applied for the scholarship but didn't use it. It looks like over 60% of the children are taking the Stanford 10, which is actually incorporated into the FCAT, so UF will be able to do excellent comparisons. 

There's also the whole church-state issue, and the concern over whether the public funds should go to religious institutions. Is there a way for the state to reconcile that?

This issue was actually already settled by the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the Federal constitution. The court ruled that a K-12 scholarship program from Cleveland was constitutional, and the judges reasoned it was just like the GI Bill. Veterans have always taken the GI Bill and used it at faith based colleges--they have even used it to study at seminaries. The crucial fact to the court was that the students had a choice among many schools — faith based and secular — so the government wasn't promoting any particular religion. It was the same with the K-12 program.

The Florida constitution has a stronger prohibition that was born of anti-Catholic prejudice in the 19th century. The biggest potential offenders of this clause are Bright Futures college scholarships and the Voluntary Pre-K program. Tens of thousands of students attend faith based schools under these programs. The ACLU even threatened the legislature with a suit when they implemented VPK. But they never filed, probably because of the horrible public opinion it would bring upon them.

Should someone sue on any of these programs and the Florida Supreme Court issue an opinion that contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be appealed to the higher court. Given the makeup of the higher court now, the state would surely prevail.

Lots of low-income and minority parents support vouchers and similar programs. Yet their seemingly natural consistency of teachers and Democrats don't always agree. Where do you think the disconnect comes from?

First, the low income parents we serve are the constituents of legislators—of both parties. It has just taken some time to connect legislators with their constituents and educate them on how these parents feel about choice. Parents vote on this issue. Last year we put out a call to parents on the tax credit scholarship program to come to Tallahassee and show their support. Over 4,500 showed up—over 700 slept on buses overnight to be there. Some state Senators have over 2,000 kids in their district on the program. The circle of influence of these kids' parents can produce 10,000 votes very quickly. That's a lot of votes in a primary.

Last Fall former Congresswoman Carrie Meek's non-profit became the third scholarship provider in this program approved by the state. She now has over 1,000 scholarship children in Miami. She tells us that everywhere she goes in Miami, people stop her and thank her for the scholarship program. Having one of the most revered Democrats in the state actually administering the program speaks volumes.

This program now has bipartisan support, and it is growing. It was passed in 2001 with one Democrat in the whole legislature voting for it. This year the legislation to expand the program will be co-sponsored by several African American Democrats and we are working hard to get many more Democrats to support the parents who live in their districts who want options.

What are the main obstacles or concerns facing the growth of the voucher movement in Florida over the coming year?

The main obstacle we face is the one faced by all education reformers, no matter what their emphasis. It is very hard to get some people to break out of old patterns — legislators, educators, the press — even parental choice advocates. But if we are going to make progress on this crucial problem, we have to be willing to consider new ideas, new methods, and even new partners. If twenty years from now we are still graduating less than half our minority children, the blame will rest with all of us.

Comments

[Manuel Artime]

Kirtley is one of Jeb's boys, a wealthy venture capitalist who pretends to care about poor Black children for political gain. He paid for the buses and the T-shirts and fed the African-American kids and their parents in his pro-voucher rally in Tallahassee. He pays the retired former Rep. Carrie Meek to be involved with his schemes. If he ever stopped handing out money the Black community would have nothing to do with him or his programs to undermine public education.

While the original Bush v Holmes decision did not directly reference either the CTS voucher program or the McKay voucher program, anyone who can read would understand that the exact reasons why Opportunity Scholarships are unconstitutional directly apply to both of these programs. All that has to happen is that the programs get challenged. If the voucher advocates cannot accept the status quo (that the programs exist under current rules that no one really cares about), they could probably continue, but if they wish to continue to expand these programs by passing unconstituional laws, the entire programs will be washed away.

Look at Pat's smoke screen about how the SC ruling could impact a number of other programs that have nothing to do with public school vouchers.

I am perfectly willing to argue that vouchers are not good for children, but I don't have too. If you think they are good, change the constitution. If not, you are the ones that are "breaking the law of the land."

[Chris]

I'm not certain to whom I am responding (since it is not indicated following the post), but I appreciate the time and effort it took to reply.

You used an interesting phrase when you alluded to "the experiment." Let me see if I can recall some of the points of the scientific method. As I remember, in order for an experiment to yield reliable and valid data it must be carefully constructed.

Subject groups should be comparable, so they must be comprised of students with comparable academic skills, english language skills, backgrounds, geographic locations, socioeconomic status, familial involvement, motivation to succeed, etc.

Then, I guess, there would be those variables that must be controlled or tested. A few come to mind right off the top of my head.

Perhaps all students in the school schould have to take the FCAT, and all should be held to the same high-stakes consequences. The effects of high-stakes consequences are insidious and affect how time, efforts, and resources are allocated in a school. One might wish to look at curricula, but I wouldn't be too concerned, since the high-stakes consequences will determine how and what is taught.

Perhaps all schools should have to accept any and all students who apply, regardless of readiness to learn, disabilities, english language proficiency, etc.

I would welcome a carefully constructed "experiment." Only then could we determine what exactly determines the success of our students and our schools.

On one last point, I acknowledge your point that very few of the exclusive, high-end schools are in the program now. I imagine that they are loathe to accept some low-end students, and/or live by the state mandates that should, rightfully, come with state funding. Moreover, I'd wager that regardless of the source of funding, be it state funding or personal wealth, these schools will always remain exclusive.

Our Florida Constitution mandates that the state provide a quality public school education to all. Before I allow any more of my tax dollars to go to unaccountable private schools, I'll have to see the results of "the experiment." Short of that, somebody will have to show me a gun.

Chris,

These are excellent points.

What would be interesting to see would be a situation where the playing field is truly "leveled". That would be one where:

1) All low income parents, not just some, are given choice.

2) The students are funded equally whether they attend a private school or a public school--instead of the situation now where the private school scholarships are limited to $3,750 and public schools recieve more than double that per student

3) Private schools are required to give the FCAT to the children attending under these scholarships

4) The same requirements are made of the schools in terms of teacher requirements. It is important to note that low income children in the public schools are often taught by substitutes with no college degrees. If this were outlawed the public schools would have a very difficult time staffing schools.

If the private schools were mandated to use the same curricula, I think it would defeat the purpose of the experiment. Certainly we could demand that all students pass the FCAT, but dictating curricula to get to proficiency would not be wise. We should give teachers in the public schools the same freedom.

I'm sure that some of the private schools would drop out of the program, but not many--very few of the exclusive high end schools are in the program now. Most schools would welcome using the same test in exchange for higher funding.

Of course these schools already are subject to the ultimate sanction if they don't perform--the parents can take the scholarship to a different school. That sanction does not exist for public schools. There are no sanctions for public schools if they do not graduate children (I'm not saying there should be).

[Chris]

Having private school sudents take the FCAT would, on the surface, seem to level the playing field. But would private schools be subject to the other restrictions that public schools labor under?

Would they have to hire state certified teachers, teach state mandated standards/curricula, and would their students and school community members be subject to retention, graduation requirements, and other high-stakes consequences? I don't think that private schools would agree to these requirements and, if that would be the case, the playing field would remain slanted.

Regarding the drop-out situation, I believe the problem has been exascerbated by FCAT and the standardized testing mania. How would the drop-out rates in private schools be affected if their students were subject to the same criteria? Citing high public school drop-out rates is unfair and deceptive.

[Chris]

Having private school sudents take the FCAT would, on the surface, seem to level the playing field. But would private schools be subject to the other restrictions that public schools labor under?

Would they have to hire state certified teachers, teach state mandated standards/curricula, and would their students and school community members be subject to retention, graduation requirements, and other high-stakes consequences? I don't think that private schools would agree to these requirements and, if that would be the case, the playing field would remain slanted.

Regarding the drop-out situation, I believe the problem has been exascerbated by FCAT and the standardized testing mania. How would the drop-out rates in private schools be affected if their students were subject to the same criteria? Citing high public school drop-out rates is unfair and deceptive.

Terminator,

The teachers' union has been funneling cash to politicians for years, and you complain about Kirtley giving money to help poor parents? I'm sure one of the reasons that these Democrats are now willing to do what their constituents want is that they now see someone making it a fair political fight.

You are willing to outright lie about Kirtley--he fought for three years to pass the accountability bill until it finally did.

You make statements like "many charter and voucher school operators were found guilty of stealing money". You don't back it up with any stats. The truth is the actual losses from the CTC program are less than one percent--can the public schools make the same claim?

You complain that private school teachers don't "have to possess Bachelor's degrees nor be credentialed unlike the public schools". And yet you know from reading this blog that low income students in Florida public schools are often taught by substitutes who aren't even required to have college degrees! As we have posted here before, the Gannett News Service ran a great story on that a couple of years ago.

You state that the only reason that black Democrats would support parental choice is for personal financial gain. Do you have even one example of that being the case?

Terminator, every time you post claims without evidence or outright lies, we will be here to call you out. Every single time.

[terminator]

Did Mr. Kirtley bother to mention his $100K contribution to the RPOF some years ago just before the "voucher" err....opportunity scholarship program was implemented?
Gosh, kind of sounds suspicious doesn't it?
Also, how come Kirtley and the rest of the school choice rags fought accountability for years and years, even though many charter and voucher school operators were found guilty of stealing money, their kids didn't have to test out on FCAT, their teachers didn't have to possess Bachelor's degrees nor be credentialed unlike the public schools they were constantly assailing?
Many of the black legislators and politicians who are currently jumping on board see dollar signs in their eyes more than anything else (i.e. free public money for their foundations, non-profits, etc.)
How come they're not interested in helping to improve failing public schools in their own neighborhoods?
And lastly, why should these vouchers be reserved for the poor and minority?
How come middle class kids of working parents can't qualify? Sounds like racism to me.
I would have to question why these kids couldn't perform in their neighborhood public schools.
Many thousands of disadvantaged public school students in some of the most challenging urban environments are able to rise above their circumstances through hard work, diligence and staying focused on the prize.
Taxpayers and voters have never supported vouchers. I keep challenging the choice supporters to produce imperical evidence that would substantiate the publics support of using tax dollars for private and religious based schools.
Anyone Bueller?.....anyone?

Dear 2:27pm,

I cannot for the life of me figure out what you are trying to say.

I think it has something to do with the Florida Supreme Court decision on the Opportunity Scholarship Program which gave funds out of the state treasury to pay for tuition to private schools. The ruling did not apply even to the McKay Scholarships, which are funded in the same way, and it certainly didn't apply to the tax credit scholarship program, where the money never reaches the treasury. I think that's what your talking about, but honestly I'm not sure. If you're trying to say you object to this program because it's unconstitutional, that's certainly conjecture on your part.

Interesting how you chose not to comment on whether it's a good program and helps kids, you just speculate on legal theoreticals.

[Doug Tuthill]

In the context of education policy, the political center is being rebuilt in Florida and our children are the big winners. Over the past eighteen months I have participated in over a dozen private meetings between John Kirtley and public critics of the CTC program. What is striking about each of these meetings is how much all the participants have in common, starting with their core values and their aspirations for low-income children of color. I have also been encouraged by the civility and genuine efforts to find common ground. Given what I have seen and heard in these meetings I am not surprised that the current CTC expansion legislation has such broad bi-partisan support.

We face extraordinary challenges in helping all children achieve at high levels. We need all hands on deck and we cannot afford to waste resources fighting each other. The CTC program is not a silver bullet but it does help many needed children and it is an asset to public education.

Is it true that the ruling on Opportunity Scholarships banned the Legislature from establishing any program that was designed to meet its requirements to provide a high quality free education system to its children? Is it true that without Legislature action that this program would not exist? Is it true that the right way to change the Constitution if you do not agree with its limitations on GOVERNMENT or the rights that it establishes for individuals (such as my right not to have tax credits (not tax deductions) credited toward private schools) is to propose an amendment? Why haven't you tried to do this?

I could suggest that only half of murderers are ever caught and punished. Eliminating certain Constitutional rights of the accused would certainly increase the arrest and conviction rates. But arguing that if we still have 50% of murders getting away with it twenty years from now that we are somehow to blame because we DON'T IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND ABUSE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM (such as warantless searches, or forcing the accused to testify against himself) is just as stupid as his argument. If you don't like the Constitution, there is a way to change it. But, please quit ignoring the law of our State.

[good for you]

I'm thrilled to see people working so hard to bring choice, change and chances to kids that have few advocates.

Thanks, Mr. Kirtley, to you and those that work with you on these efforts.