Parent Advocate 2003

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

PARENT ADVOCATE Vol. 10, No. 2, October 2003, Vol. 10, No. 2 June 2003; Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2003

HOUSE APPROVES VOUCHERS FOR D.C. KIDS

Osborne Votes No

By the narrowest of margins, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to give children from low-income families in the District of Columbia an opportunity for a better education. On September 9, by a vote of 209-208, the House approved the D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act, which will provide scholarships of up to $7,500 per child, targeted at kids in the lowest-performing public schools, which they may use to pay tuition at a private school of their parents’ choice. The House included funding for the scholarships in the D.C. appropriation package.
Voting in favor of the Parental Choice Act were Nebraska Reps. Lee Terry and Doug Bereuter. Rep. Tom Osborne voted against the proposal.

All funding for the scholarship program comes from new funds, so no public school in the District of Columbia will receive a reduction in funding due to this program. Eligible students must be residents of the District of Columbia, and their family income cannot exceed 185 percent of the federal poverty level. Scholarships can be used to cover the costs of private-school tuition, fees and transportation.

The Parental Choice Act was endorsed by the Democratic Mayor of Washington, D. C., Anthony Williams, and the president of the D.C. Public School Board, Peggy Cooper Cafritz.

In an Omaha World Herald story following the vote, Rep Osborne stated that he voted no because he worries that voucher programs will shift public resources into private schools while leaving public schools with the expensive task of educating students with learning disabilities or physical handicaps.

However, his concern was way off target, because the voucher proposal shifts no funds away from the D. C. public schools. It will actually result in the D.C. schools having the same amount of money available to educate fewer students. Furthermore, public schools generally receive additional funding to educate students with disabilities in recognition of the higher costs involved.

Rep. Osborne has achieved a reputation as a champion of opportu-nities for young people, but apparently that does not apply to the opportunity for education at a non-governmental school, even in the most compelling circumstances.

Although Rep. Bereuter voted "Yes" to enact the D.C. Parental Choice Act, he opposes school choice for children elsewhere. In a letter explaining his vote in favor of the D.C. Scholarship issue, Rep. Bereuter stated, "Although I do not support school vouchers because they have the potential to do great damage to many public school systems [a totally unsupported conclusion], I believe that the District of Columbia is a very special case that warrants special consideration for a scholarship program" Rep. Bereuter noted that, "School children in the District of Columbia have been trapped in failing schools for too long." He added, "School choice will offer hope to parents and students by giving them the opportunity to select a school that meets their educational needs, while the com-petition of school choice will improve the overall educational atmosphere for the parents, teachers and administrators who continue to work to improve the District of Columbia public school system."

One wonders why Rep. Bereuter believes the benefits of school choice he mentioned would not have the same positive impact upon families and schools outside the District of Columbia.

The issue now moves to the Senate, where the Appropriations Committee voted 16-12 on September 4 to advance a similar proposal. The issue is still pending before the full Senate.

NFCSP members are encouraged to contact Senators Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson and request that they support the amendment to the D. C. appropriations bill providing school-choice vouchers for D. C. children. Also, NFCSP members are encouraged to contact Reps. Terry and Bereuter and commend them for their votes in favor of the Parental Choice Incentive Act. Rep. Osborne should be urged to reconsider his position. Contact by phone, fax or e-mail is preferred given delays in mail delivery due to security concerns.

You CAN Make a Difference!

U. S. Senators
Senator Ben Nelson (202) 224-6551 (202) 228-0012 (fax) senator@bennelson.senate.gov	Senator Chuck Hagel (202) 224-4224 (202) 224-5213 (fax) Chuck_Hagel@Hagel.senate.gov

U.S. Representatives

Hon. Doug Bereuter

(202) 225-4806

(202) 225-5686 (fax)

Hon. Lee Terry

(202) 225-4155

(202) 226-5452(fax)

talk2lee@mail.house.gov

Hon. Tom Osborne

(202) 225-6435

(202) 226-1385 (fax)

www.house.gov/osborne

     (click "contact", then write your rep.)

Progressive Change Needed in Education Financing

Do parents of children enrolled in Catholic and other non-governmental schools have a stake in this complex issue? Absolutely!

Government-operated elementary and secondary education in Nebraska is an expensive, albeit necessary enterprise.

Local, state and federal tax dollars expended on K-12 education in this state exceed $1.9 Billion per year for an average tax-funded expenditure of $7,126 per public-school student. State aid distributed to local school districts has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade, totaling more than $625 million this year alone, or approximately 25% of the state’s General Fund budget. (It exceeds 30% when funding earmarked to meet the educational rights of handicapped children, i.e. special education, is added.)

It is in this setting that Omaha Public Schools, joined by the Grand Island, South Sioux City and Lexington school districts, collectively known as the Nebraska Schools Trust, Inc., have filed suit alleging that Nebraska’s education funding system deprives their students of their right to "free instruction in the common schools" as provided for in the Nebraska Constitution.

Adding to the complexity, a coalition of rural schools, organized as the "Nebraska Coalition for Educational Equity and Adequacy" is contemplating a similar lawsuit. That suit is based in part upon the financial inability of those districts to be on par with more populous urban school districts in terms of curriculum and in recruiting and compensating teachers.

Political attention

The common theme of the lawsuit filed by the Nebraska Schools Trust and that contemplated and anticipated by the rural schools coalition is that state aid to K-12 education is both inadequate and unfairly distributed, so much so that the State Constitution is violated. These politically sensitive cases are attracting plenty of attention.

In its complaint, OPS declares that thousands of students, primarily low-income, minority and English language learner students, are not proficient in reading, writing and math, and asserts they are being deprived of an equal opportunity to meet State-imposed academic standards due to funding inadequacies and inequities.

In addition, the lawsuit discloses that, overall, only 62.9% of OPS students complete high school, compared to a statewide average of 88%. OPS claims it needs extra funding to establish additional all-day kindergarten and other early-learning opportunities, reduce class sizes, provide more summer school classes, and to hire and retain highly-qualified teachers and paraprofessionals.

Problem Solving

The OPS lawsuit seeks to have the current school funding system declared unconstitutional. Presumably, this would force the Nebraska Legislature to increase K-12 spending by revising the state-aid formula, removing the property tax levy limits and spending-growth caps, or both.

Even if the lawsuit doesn’t proceed much further, it provides political leverage for "negotiation" with the Legislature. The State Commissioner of Education, a named defendant in the law-suit, calls it "a problem solving activity."

Do parents of children enrolled in Catholic and other non-governmental schools have a stake in this complex issue? Absolutely! If the proponents of the school funding litigation prevail to any degree, significant increases in sales, income and/or property taxes likely would be unavoidable since two straight years of budget cutting by the Nebraska Legislature has left little flexibility to reallocate resources from other state agencies and obligations. Additional tax increases will be an especially bitter pill to swallow for parents who are already paying twice for education.

Public good

Nebraska’s Catholic schools provide a quality education to approximately 30,000 children, about the same number educated by Lincoln Public Schools. The amount of state aid Lincoln Public Schools will receive for the 2003-04 school year is approximately $1,460 per pupil. State aid to OPS is close to $2,475 per pupil. Grand Island Public Schools receive $3,600 per student, and the Lexington Public Schools receive approximately $4,300 per student in state aid.

The amount of educational support provided by the state for children attending Catholic and other non-government operated schools is negligible, even though these children receive the public good of a quality education.

Parents who educate their children in Catholic schools understand and accept their obligation to support government-operated education, but the denial of financial assistance to support the education of their own children is unjust. To the extent inequities exist within the state’s system of funding education, an obvious inequity is the lack of adequate educational support for thousands of Nebraska children simply because they receive their education in privately-operated schools.

Empower the parents

From tweaks to a complete overhaul, all parties seem to acknowledge that policy changes are needed. Here’s a suggestion policy makers should consider: Conduct a study using whatever expertise is appropriate and identify the foundational funding level needed to provide each Nebraska student the opportunity to meet the Department of Education’s standards. Use that amount as the state’s obligation and empower the parents or guardians of each student to designate the expenditure of that amount at whatever state-accredited or approved school they choose, governmental or non-governmental. Authorize local schools to make supplemental funding decisions as determined by patrons or their elected representatives. Introduce true parental choice and real competition.

Contact your state legislator. Express your views. Change is necessary. Let it be bold and progressive and fair, for all schoolchildren! q

TEEOSA: What is it and Why Should You Care

TEEOSA is the acronym for the Tax Equity and Educational Opportunities Support Act, usually just referred to as the State Aid formula. This is the complex mechanism by which the state attempts to provide funding to the public schools in such a manner as to "equalize" the resources each school district has to fund its operations. In other words, if a particular school district has greater financial needs than can be provided for from its property tax base, the State steps in and provides those additional financial resources through the state-aid formula. Most public school districts receive some level of state-aid. For the 2003-04 school year, for example, the Omaha Public Schools will receive about $113 million in state aid, or about $2,475 per student. Lincoln Public Schools will receive about $1,460 per student, reflecting the fact that its "needs" are less than OPS’ "needs" under the formula. Grand Island Public Schools receive more than $3,600 per student.

Why should parents with children in Catholic-schools care about TEEOSA? Because TEEOSA is growing at a phenomenal rate, consuming vast amounts of state tax dollars and taking up a substantial portion of the state budget. TEEOSA funding for the 2003-04 school year exceeds $625 million dollars, and it is expected to increase beyond $880 million in the 2006-07 fiscal year absent changes in the formula to control its automatic growth. Again, so what? Well, at this rate of growth, other budget priorities will not be funded due to lack of available funds, or else taxes will have to be increased (again) to accommodate this skyrocketing growth. For NFCSP families it means that, if the growth in TEEOSA continues unabated, there will be no flexibility in the state budget to accommodate or even consider tax credits, or vouchers, or increases in textbook loan funding. In other words, the long-standing policy of taxing Catholic-school parents to support public education, while denying them assistance in educating their own children will continue unabated.

NFCSP Board Changes

The NFCSP Governing Board recently lost one long-time parent director, and gained two new faces. Colleen Mayo, a parent director representing the Archdiocese of Omaha since the NFCSP was formed, resigned from the board this summer. Colleen was a school choice advocate before the NFCSP even came into existence, and her enthusiasm and assistance as a member of the governing board has been invaluable and continued even after her own children graduated from high school. Thank you Colleen!

Two new parent directors were recently named to the governing board. Nicole Neesen, an attorney with Creighton University Law School’s Legal Clinic, was named to represent the Archdiocese of Omaha. Nicole also serves on the board of Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic School. Jerry Shoecraft of Lincoln has been named as a new board member representing the Diocese of Lincoln. Jerry, a former Lincoln city councilman, is a current and past board member of numerous civic organizations. Welcome to the NFCSP Board!

The governing board still has two vacancies due to a decision by the board to expand the number of parent directors in each Diocese/Archdiocese. There is an opening for an additional director from both the Archdiocese of Omaha and the Diocese of Grand Island. The governing board meets three or four times annually to discuss goals, pending legislation, membership recruitment and mobilization activities, and strategies to advance public policies that are just toward Nebraska Catholic School Parents and their children. Interested? Call us at (402) 477-7517 for more information.

NOTABLES

St. Ludger Elementary is celebrating 100 years of providing quality Catholic education in the small northeastern Nebraska town of Creighton (population ~ 1,200). St. Ludger was founded by the School Sisters of St. Francis, who have had a continuous presence in the school for the entire 100 years of its existence. Enrollment this year is 38 students in grades K-6^th. The 100^th anniversary celebration commenced on August 31^st with a Mass by Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss and a banquet. Additional events are planned through the school year.

Mea Culpa! In the June 2003 issue of Parent Advocate, we included our annual spotlight on Extracurricular Team Excellence for the prior school year. It was quickly brought to our attention that we neglected to include O’Neill St. Mary’s achievement of winning the Class D-2 State Championship in football. We apologize to the students, parents, faculty and staff of O’Neill St. Mary for this oversight. Congratulations!

The Hastings St. Cecilia volleyball team has been named a recipient of the American Volleyball Coaches Association Team Academic Award. The award honors college and high school teams that displayed excellence in the classroom by maintaining at least a 3.30 cumulative team grade-point average on a 4.0 scale. 103 high school programs across the country earned this distinction, of which three were from Nebraska. q

NFCSP TURNS 11!

Memberships Begin to Arrive

Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents (NFCSP) is launching its eleventh annual membership campaign. NFCSP is open to parents of Catholic-school students, grandparents of Catholic-school students and alumni of Catholic schools. The membership fee remains at $3 (individual or family). For members who have children in school, renewal information is available at your school. For others—our renewal form is to the right. Clip, complete, and mail with dues to NFCSP, P.O. Box 94872, Lincoln, NE 68509-4872.

Thank you for your support.

A Child’s Hope: School choice will help all of the District’s children.

By Rod Paige, United States Secretary of Education, September 9, 2003, http://www.nationalreview.com/

Now that the D.C. school-choice bill has been passed by the House of Representatives, in no small part due to the dedication and leadership of Reps. Tom Davis, John Boehner, and Rodney Frelinghuysen, attention turns to the Senate. Despite strong backing from within the D.C. community, opponents of this provision still want to lock the District's poorest children into a school system that all too often robs them of a future. I find their opposition perplexing — and troubling.

This important issue — choice — really boils down to two questions. One, will it help our schools?; and two, is it the right thing to do? The answer to both questions is an overwhelming "yes." If we want schools to change, to become more productive, to become more efficient and more effective, then we must promote and nurture school creativity and innovation. By shielding schools from market forces, we are preserving a status quo, which on the whole is mediocre at best. We need to do something radical to shake up the system. The academic discipline of organizational effectiveness makes clear that creativity and innovation increase productivity and efficiency in organizations — this is as true of schools as it is of other organizations.

There is significant research about what can be done to advance improvement. After studying thousands of innovations in processes and products, James M. Utterback of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded, "Market forces appear to be the primary influence on innovation." Utterback noted that 60 to 70 percent of important innovations have been in response to market forces.

We also know from opportunity-scholarship programs that have been instituted in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida that school choice helps on two levels. First, it raises student achievement for those children who are fortunate enough to leave the poorly performing public schools. But, another interesting thing has happened in those cities: The competition has raised the performance of the public schools as well. I am heartened by the fact that some of the strongest advocates for school choice in Milwaukee are members of the public-school board itself.

We want schools to improve. School improvement requires change. Positive change requires creativ-ity and innovation. Market forces power creativity and innovation. School choice will drive this process.

There's also the matter of social justice. A child should not have his educational circumstances limited by his parent's income, the color of his skin, or the dialect of his speech. It's just not fair to use the power of government to chain a child to a school that is not serving her well. Disadvantaged parents should have the same right to make choices for their children as other parents have. Why deny a disadvantaged parent the single best way for their children to advance themselves — a great education? School should be the best way for low-income people to gain upward mobility and self-enrichment.

Former superintendent of the Milwaukee public schools Howard Fuller aptly asks why people do not want low-income parents to have choice. Could it be that opponents of school choice somehow believe that some people need to be protected from themselves — that they are incapable of making the right decisions? However, in a blatant double standard, many of these same opponents of school choice for others exercise choice for their own children. Interestingly, almost one half of members of Congress with school-age children made a decision to send their own children to private schools.

Without choice, caring parents who don't believe their children are being well served by their school have only one option: try to fix the school themselves by pushing the principal as they try to adjust the school to fit their needs. While parental involvement in their child's education is of utmost importance, imagine how disruptive it is when hundreds of such parents, each with children of different needs and with different problems, bang on the principal's office door. I know from my experience as superintendent in Houston that this is a prescription for continuous upheaval in the school.

The solution to this problem is simple. Allow parents the opportunity to choose a different school, one that is best for their children. In the District of Columbia, it's the right thing to do, and it will benefit all of the District's children.

Back to Top

PARENT ADVOCATE Vol. 10., No. 2 June 2003; Vol. 10, No. 2, October 2003, Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2003

Colorado Enacts School Voucher Program

Starting in the fall of 2004, students in under-performing Colorado schools will be eligible to receive vouchers to attend private schools under a bill recently signed into law by Colorado Governor Bill Owens. Thousands of low-income students in several urban school districts will be able to use tax-funded vouchers to attend private schools if the students score in the two lowest categories on state tests. The voucher program will initially help 3,200 students but could grow to 20,000 when the program reaches full implementation in 2007.

The Colorado vouchers will be worth 80% of the public school district’s average per-student spending. Based upon current state spending averages, the voucher would be worth roughly $4,100. Initially, participation in the voucher program will be capped at 500 students from any one school district.

The Colorado voucher program is the first enacted since the United States Supreme Court last year ruled that a voucher program in Cleveland did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, Colorado's law has already been challenged in court. The Colorado PTA, the Colorado NAACP, the People for the American Way, the ACLU, and the local affiliates of the teachers' unions all oppose the law and their main argument relies on the state's "Blaine Amendment", a provision in the state Constitution that prohibits state funds from going to religious institutions (see the related article on Blaine Amendments on page 2 of this newsletter).

Vouchers Across America

Colorado’s program is the second state-wide voucher program enacted in recent years. In 1999, Florida established a voucher program aimed at helping students in low-rated public schools, and special education students. The Florida voucher program is also being challenged in state court on similar Blaine Amendment grounds. Other voucher programs include programs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, established in 1990, and the Cleveland, Ohio program, started in 1996, which was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

All of the voucher programs enacted to date target low-income students in under-performing public schools in an effort to give the parents of those students some degree of choice over where their children will be educated and to act as an incentive for the public schools to improve. In line with that reasoning, Washington D.C. mayor Anthony Williams has switched from being a voucher opponent to publicly

supporting a proposal by President Bush to establish a voucher program for students in the D.C. school system. President Bush has proposed a $75 million choice incentive fund, with a portion of that money to be set aside for a pilot voucher program in Washington D.C.

"We’ve got thousands of children who aren’t getting the education they should be getting. And I as the mayor of our city can’t say no to thousands of young people and their parents, and tell them they ought to wait for more choices and opportunities, but they’re not available. The goal is…to give the neediest children opportunities they otherwise wouldn’t have," Mr. Williams said.

The Next Hurdle: State Blaine Amendments

(Reprinted from Parent Power, Vol. 8, Issue 1, Fall 2002)

While the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program has cleared the obstacle of federal Constitutional challenges to similar school choice programs, voucher opponents and proponents alike predict that the legal battle is far from over at the state level. In particular, state constitutional language prohibiting support of sectarian schools or institutions remains an equal, if not more substantial, obstacle to initiating local voucher initiatives.

The amendments, commonly referred to as Blaine amendments, have their origin in a U. S. Constitutional amendment proposed by Congressman James Blaine in the 1870s to prohibit states from using public funds to benefit any religious institution. Though the effort failed, subsequent efforts were successful in incorporating similar amendments in many state constitutions. As many as 37 state constitutions include such language, but slight differences in the wording of the amendments, along with varying opinions issued by state courts and attorneys general interpreting the amendments, ensure an equally diverse context for individual state efforts to enact voucher programs. These variations were immediately apparent in two court rulings involving state Blaine amendments that were issued within weeks of the Cleveland decision. In Davey v. Locke, a case originating in Washington State, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the state could not use its Blaine amendment to prohibit students from using state scholarships to pursue a post-secondary degree in religious studies. Soon afterwards, however, state Circuit Judge P. Kevin Davey struck down Florida’s state voucher program on the grounds that it violated the state constitution’s "clear and unambiguous" prohibitions against state support for "sectarian institutions."

In contesting Blaine amendments, voucher proponents have one certain argument in common, namely, the questionable nature of the original intent of the amendments. The inauspicious history of the Blaine amendment has been explicitly cited, for instance, in court opinions issued by both the Arizona Supreme Court and by the U. S. Supreme Court. The 1999 decision of the Arizona Supreme Court in Kotterman v. Killian, which upheld the state’s education tax credit, refers to the Blaine amendment as "a clear manifestation of religious bigotry," citing a quote from an 1875 article in The New York Tribune that labeled the amendment part of a plan to "institute a general war against the Catholic Church". Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his plurality opinion in Mitchell v. Helms (2000), expressed strong criticism regarding the history of Blaine amendments, claiming that "hostility to aid to pervasively sectarian schools has a shameful pedigree that we do not hesitate to disavow … Consideration of the amendment arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general … In short, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires the exclusion of pervasively sectarian schools from other-wise permissible aid programs, and other doctrines of this Court bar it. This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now."

Without a doubt, efforts to contest existing Blaine amendments, if successful, will achieve a critical victory not only for potential voucher programs, but also for the ability of families throughout the country who send their children to Catholic and other religious private schools to participate equitably in state-supported educational services.

Nebraska’s Blaine Amendment

Article VII, Section 11 of the Nebraska Constitution prohibits any appropriation of public funds to any nongovernmental school or institution of learning. Some have tried to argue that this provision not only prohibits direct financial assistance to private educational institutions, but also any assistance to the students attending private educational institutions. The Nebraska Supreme Court and the Nebraska Attorney General’s office have both concluded that argument is an incorrect interpretation of the constitutional provision. This is Article VII, Section 11 as it existed prior to November 1972:

"Neither the state legislature nor any county, city, or other public corporation shall ever make any appropriation from any public fund, or grant any public land IN AID OF any sectarian or denominational school or college, or any educational institution which is not exclusively owned and controlled by the state or a governmental subdivision."

This is Article VII, Section 11 as it existed after a constitutional amendment was adopted and approved by the voters at the statewide election in 1972:

"Appropriation of public funds shall not be made TO any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof."

This is Article VII, Section 11 as it exists today, following an additional amendment adopted and approved by the voters in 1976:

"Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made TO any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;…"

The obvious change in the relevant wording of Article VII, Section 11, from no appropriation of public funds "IN AID OF" any non-governmental school to no appropriation of public funds "TO" any non-governmental school, was significant indeed. The first time the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled on a case that turned on this difference was in 1981. In Lenstrom v. Thone, 209 Neb. 783, 311 N.W.2d 884, the Court held that Article VII, Sec. 11 should be interpreted literally: "[Article VII, Sec. 11] says what it means and means what it says."

In Lenstrom, the Supreme Court ruled that a statute authorizing financial assistance for eligible college students did not violate the Nebraska Constitution even though the funds could be used by the students to pay for education in private schools. The Court ruled that the primary benefit went to the student (i.e. Lenstrom), not to the private school (i.e. Nebraska Wesleyan University), and that the statute was not unconstitutional merely because incidental benefits might accrue to the private school.

Starting with the ruling in Lenstrom in 1981, the Nebraska Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held that "TO" says what it means and means what it says. In State ex rel. Bouc v. School District of Lincoln, 211 Neb. 731, the Supreme Court ruled that granting children attending private schools the right to ride public school buses along established public school routes was constitutionally permissible. In State ex rel. Creighton University v. Smith, 217 Neb. 682 (1984), the Supreme Court relied upon Lenstrom and Bouc to uphold the appropriation of public funds for cancer research at Creighton University. In Cunningham v. Lutjeharms, 231 Neb. 756 (1989), the Supreme Court followed Lenstrom, Bouc and Smith in upholding as constitutional the law that directs school districts to use funds appropriated by the Legislature to purchase and loan textbooks to children attending private elementary and secondary schools.

Of particular interest is the Supreme Court’s response in the Smith case to the contention that the "Legislature is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly." The Court discounted that argument in its unanimous opinion and stated: "That overworked expression about circumvention by indirectness, if subjected to the test of ultimate application, would necessitate that a fire in a nonpublic school be extinguished by a nonpublic bucket brigade, not by a publicly funded fire department. Common sense and the Constitution abhor such an impractical conclusion." Smith @ 690.

Also, an excellent analysis of this issue is included in an Attorney General’s Opinion, No. 91018, issued March 20, 1991 and concluding that legislation proposing to grant educational-expense tax relief to parents of children enrolled in elementary or secondary schools, including private and parochial schools, did not constitute an appropriation of funds to non-governmental schools and was constitutionally sound in all other respects as well.

Extracurricular Team Excellence 2002

Columbus Scotus State Champion: Class C Girls Cross Country State Champion: Class C1 Volleyball State Runner-up: Class B Journalism	Norfolk Catholic State Runner-up: Class C Girls Golf State Runner-up: Class C1 Girls Basketball
David City Aquinas State Champion: Class D Boys Cross Country	Omaha Creighton Prep State Champion: Class A Boys Soccer State Champion: Class A Boys Tennis
Elgin Pope John XXIII State Runner-Up: Class C2 Boys Golf	Omaha Duchesne Academy State Champion: Class B Girls Golf
Falls City Sacred Heart State Runner-up: Class D1 Girls Basketball State Runner-up: Class D-1 Volleyball	Omaha Marian State Champion: Class A Girls Swimming State Champion: Class A Girls Soccer State Runner-up: Class A Girls Cross Country State Runner-up: Class A Girls Tennis State Runner-up: Class A Girls Track State Runner-up: Class A-2 Journalism
Grand Island Central Catholic State Champion: Class B Boys Tennis State Champion: Class C1 Boys Golf State Runner-up: Class C1 Volleyball	Omaha Skutt State Champion: Class B Wrestling State Champion: Class B Boys Soccer
Kearney Catholic State Runner-up: Class D Boys Cross Country State Runner-up: Class D Girls Cross Country State Runner-Up: Class C1 Boys Golf	Wahoo Neumann State Champion: Class C1 Boys Basketball State Champion: Class C1 Football
Lincoln Pius X State Champion: Class A Girls Golf State Champion: Class B Softball State Runner-up: Class B Girls Soccer	West Point Central Catholic State Champion: Class C2 Volleyball State Champion: Class C2 Girls Basketball State Runner-up: Class C2 Boys Basketball
Lindsey Holy Family State Runner-up: Class D2 Football	CONGRATULATIONS!!

Choice Tidbits

A 100-year-old California Catholic school recently engaged in an unusual form of fundraising with unexpected results. St. Michael’s Elementary School in south-central Los Angeles, desperate for funds, collected $25 each from 100 supporters of the school, then bet the money at the nearby Santa Anita race track. They bet the money on a game called Pick Six, with long-shot odds. To cash in, they had to choose the winners of six straight races. All their horses won, and the school received about $200,000 in prize winnings. After paying taxes, and splitting part of the proceeds with the donors, St. Michael’s netted about $80,000, which will be used to purchase new desks and repair wiring and water damage in a classroom.

Education Week, 04/09/2003

Noting that as many as 20 other states are considering vouchers as a way to improve failing schools, the editorial board of the Mobile Register recently suggested "Alabama as well ought to consider vouchers and other forms of choice."

Indeed, the board continued, the Yellowhammer State should be "more ripe for choice" because of the problems it is having with its education budget, which merit wholesale reform rather than "mere tinkering at the edges." Polls consistently show large majorities of blacks and Hispanics support the idea of vouchers.

"Children do not deserve to be trapped in failing systems," argued the board, and so it "makes sense" for the recently approved voucher bill in Colorado to permit low-income children to attend private or religious schools of their choice.

"Parents deserve the opportunity to choose a better future for their children," the editors opined. "And the public at large will benefit from having parents more engaged in securing an education more suited to their individual children’s needs."

The Heartland Institute 06/01/2003

Textbook Loan Funding Cut 10%

As part of the biennial budget package aimed at eliminating a projected $760 million gap between expected tax revenues and projected state government expenses, the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee recommended that funding for the Textbook Loan Program be reduced by ten percent from the current appropriation level of $390,287. This cut was generally in line with across-the-board cuts for many line items in the state budget. The Committee’s recommendation on textbook loan funding was included as part of the mainline budget bill, LB 407, which was passed by the full legislature on May 20. This means that the program will receive an appropriation of $351,259 for each of the next two fiscal years.

The textbook loan program is the only state aid to education program available to parents who satisfy the state’s compulsory education requirements by enrolling their children in private elementary and secondary schools. In the 2003-05 state budget, state equalization aid to local public school districts will exceed $625 million dollars during the next fiscal year. The proposed textbook loan program appropriation of $351,259 represents only about .055% (fifty-five one-thousandths of one percent) of the amount spent on K-12 education by the state even though 12.5% (1 out of every 8) of the children in Nebraska receive their compulsory education in private elementary and secondary schools.

When it comes to allocation of educational resources, state policy makers seem to ignore the fact that the education provided to each individual student enrolled in a private elementary or secondary school is just as important to the state’s future as is the education provided to a student in a public school. They also discount the idea that the parents of private school students pay taxes at the same rate as the parents of public school students, and deserve to have a greater share of their tax dollars allocated to the education of their children.

2003-2005 State Budget (LB 407)

2003-04 / 2004-05

Total General Fund Appropriations: $2,654,541,176 / $2,750,943,808

K-12 Programs/Funding

Equalization Aid to Public Schools $ 625,915,582 / $ 607,697,160

Special Education $ 153,473,068 / $ 161,146,721

ESU Core Services $ 8,102,763 / $ 8,102,763

ESU Technology $ 2,515,240 / $ 2,515,240

High Ability Learners $ 2,348,664 / $ 2,348,664

School Lunch Subsidy $ 421,087 / $ 421,087

Textbook Loan Program $ 351,259 / $ 351,259

School Breakfast Subsidy $ 271,378 / $ 271,378

In addition, an estimated $195,000,000 in federal funds will flow through the state to local school districts as additional state aid. Property taxes and other locally assessed fines and fees allocated to K-12 public education exceed $1 Billion annually according to the Annual Financial Report Statewide Totals published by the Nebraska Department of Education, School Finance & Organization Services. In total, expenditures on public K-12 education in Nebraska in 2001-02 (the latest year for which figures are available) exceeded $1.9 Billion, which amounted to an average tax-funded expenditure of $7,126 per public school student.

PARENT ADVOCATE Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2003; Vol. 10, No. 2 June 2003, Vol. 10, No. 2, October 2003

LEGISLATURE CONVENES FOR 2003

Governor’s Proposed Budget Holds the Line on Textbook Loan Funding

Governor Mike Johanns recommended no additional cuts to the textbook loan program for the next two years in his proposed biennial budget submitted to the Legislature on January 15. If the Legislature agrees with the Governor’s recommendations, the textbook loan program will be funded at $390,287 annually for the 2003-2005 budget cycle. However, given the state's budget deficit, that is a very big IF.

The textbook loan program, which previously received funding reductions during the 2001 special session and the 2002 regular session, is the only state-funded education program benefiting students in private and parochial schools. Prior to the session beginning, NFCSP representatives contacted the Governor and reminded him of several facts, most notably that parents who educate their children in private and parochial schools are already doing their part to mitigate state spending and provide property tax relief. These parents save the state and local school districts in excess of $266 million dollars each year in public education costs [40,000 private-school students x $6,651 average public-school per pupil costs = $266,040,000].

The Governor was also reminded that the education provided to each student enrolled in a private or parochial school is just as important to the state’s future as is the education provided to students enrolled in public schools. In Nebraska, state aid to local public school districts will exceed $650 million dollars this year (24.1% of the state’s budget). However, the current textbook loan program appropriation of $390,287 represents only .06% (six one-hundredths of one percent) of the amount though 12.5% (1 out of every 8) of the children in Nebraska receive their state-mandated education in private/parochial schools.

Finally, the textbook loan appropriation of $390,000 divided amongst 40,000 private and parochial school students amounts to only $9.75 per student. Compare this to the current state aid appropriation of $2,300 per public school student ($650 million/280,000 students).

The Governor’s proposed budget will be reviewed and probably revised by the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee over the course of the next few weeks. That committee could, and likely will, recommend additional cuts to the program, so NFCSP members are urged to contact the senators on the Appropriations Committee and encourage their support for the Governor’s proposed textbook loan program appropriation. Appropriations Committee members are Senators Roger Wehrbein, Don Pederson, Chris Beutler, Jim Cudaback, Pat Engel, Lowen Kruse, Marian Price, John Synowiecki, and Nancy Thompson. Information on how to contact senators is set out on page 2 of this newsletter.

You Can Make a Difference on Legislation

Most citizens do not realize how much impact their contact with a state legislator can have. Sometimes just a few letters, calls or e-mail messages from constituents can be the determining factor in how a legislator votes!

Public-policy advocacy from the grassroots level can be fun as well as interesting and informative. And it is part of your rights as a citizen.

Letters and e-mail messages are most effective when they are personal and informative. Following are a few suggestions for writing an effective letter or e-mail to your legislator.

Identify your topic immediately. If you are writing about a specific bill, refer to it by number and topic. If you are writing about an amendment to a bill, identify the bill’s number and topic, but also be as specific as possible about the amendment.

Be yourself. Use your own words, on your own stationery. Be direct and specific in stating your position, either for or against the bill or amendment. Make it clear why you are taking that position.

If possible, support your position with personal examples of how and why the issue makes a difference to you.

Be clear and concise, but never curt. Be positive, do not make threats. Avoid using undue criticism. If possible, express appreciation for a vote or public statement.

Make sure your letter is legible and includes your name and address on letter and envelope. Use a word-processor or typewriter whenever possible.

Most letters and e-mails focus on being persuasive, but do not overlook opportunities to express thanks when your legislator votes the way you like. If, on the other hand, the legislator casts a vote which is contrary to your views, do not hesitate to let the legislator know of your disapproval, in a polite way.

In some situations, you might prefer, and it might be more advantageous, to telephone a legislator. This method is especially effective if time is short.

When talking to the legislator, or a member of his/her staff--as with all "grassroots lobbying"--be sure to identify yourself, and give your address. If you reside in the legislator’s district be sure to identify yourself as a constituent.

During telephone conversations, present your business clearly and concisely and, of course, be courteous. It is a good idea to have a few notes jotted down. Listen attentively. Follow-up a telephone conversation with a short letter or e-mail expressing thanks and reiterating your strongest points.

NOTABLES

Catholic school students dominated the recent 2002 Math Day competition, taking first place in Class A, Class B, and Class C. In the Math Bowl Tournament, the Omaha Creighton Prep team consisting of Michael Bogacz, Colin Dinsmore, Ted Erickson, Guillermo Huerta and J. J. Schumacher took first place honors in Class A. In Class B, the Grand Island Central Catholic team of Benjamin Bialas, Dusty Sorahan and Sarah Wirth took first place, and the Omaha Duchesne Academy team of Andrea Griffin, Katie Hildreth, Amy Locher, Theresa Thiel, and Kathryn Zukaitis took second. In Class C competition, Tyler Hoehn, MichaelJensen, and Nate Sorensen took home first place honors for Kearney Catholic.

Lincoln Pius X High School physics teacher Michelle Strand recently received honorable mention for the Presidential Award for Excellence in Secondary Science Teaching at the Nebraska Association of Teachers of Science fall conference. As Pius X's science department chairwoman, she has added several new courses designed to challenge Pius X's top students.

Catholic Schools Week – Proclamation Signing Ceremony held December 18, 2002

Catholic-school participants: Joe Creglow and Alyssa Kucera, both 3rd Grade, Lincoln-St. Peter; Emily Crowley and Caitlin Bennett, both 8th Grade, Omaha -Mary Our Queen; Alex Witmer, 8th Grade, Grand Island Central Catholic, Cayla Kurtenbach, 8th Grade, Omaha-St. James/Seton; Ryan Zavala, 8th Grade, Grand Island Central Catholic; with Governor Mike Johanns on hand and the three Diocesan Superintendents: Fr. Thomas A. Ryan, Grand Island Diocese, Sr. Michelle Faltus, Omaha Archdiocese and Fr. John Perkinton, Lincoln Diocese.

Federal Education Law a Good Model for State to Follow

The No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), signed into law a year ago by President Bush, contains enhanced opportunities for private school students and teachers to participate in various federally funded education programs. NCLB is the most recent reauthorization of the landmark 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the primary vehicle for federal funding for K-12 education. Title IX of the Act, specifically Section 9501(c), requires local educational agencies (public school districts) to consult with private school officials during the design, development and implementation of programs providing benefits and services to eligible private school students and teachers. Timely and meaningful consultation must occur on such issues as:

	How the children’s needs will be identified;
	What services will be offered;
	How, where, and by whom the services will be provided;
	How the services will be assessed and how the results of the assessments will be used to improve services;
	The size and scope of the program and the amount of funds available to serve private school students;
	How and when the agency will make decisions about the delivery of services, including a thorough analysis of the views of private school officials on the provision of services through a third-party provider and a written explanation if the LEA decides against using a third-party provider; and
	Whether the agency is using a flexibility authority or an authority to transfer funds among programs and how they will ensure, through consultation, that the requirements for equitable services under the Uniform Provisions or under specific program titles will be followed.

The programs that require equitable participation of private school students and teachers include:

Title I: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies

Reading First

Even Start Family Literacy Program

Education of Migratory Children

Title II: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (professional development)

Math and Science Partnerships

Enhancing Education through Technology

	Title III: English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement
	Title IV: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Title V: Gifted and Talented Students

Many of our state policy makers could take a lesson from the feds and begin to consider the educational needs of students in private and parochial schools as they design state education programs. They need to remember that parents of students in private and parochial schools pay taxes at the same rate as public school parents. They deserve to have educational programs funded with those taxes include their children instead of being treated as second class citizens for exercising their constitutional right to choose an education provider that supports their religious and moral convictions.

State Legislator Seeks Input on Education Financing

Senator Chip Maxwell, Omaha District 9, has taken the education financing issue directly to the people by placing an advertisement in the February 2 issue of the Omaha World Herald. In the ad, he cites Legislative Fiscal Office statistics showing that spending on K-12 public education has increased at nearly double the rate of inflation over the past 20 years despite enrollment remaining virtually flat. In addition, property taxes statewide have continued to increase despite a quadrupling of state aid to education intended to relieve the property tax burden. He states that "If we don’t change the way we finance K-12 education, we’ll be in a perpetual budget crisis."

In the ad, Senator Maxwell proposes a bold revision to the way K-12 education should be financed in Nebraska. He proposes shifting all K-12 education financing responsibility to the state, eliminating property tax as a source of K-12 funding, scrapping the current state-aid formula and simply sending each public school district $6,000 per student. Special-needs students would receive separate funding.

Senator Maxwell would finance the additional state spending required by his proposal by increasing sales and/or income tax rates. He asks, "Is it worth increasing your state tax burden by a billion dollars to get a billion dollars of true property-tax relief, and stop the runaway, budget–busting growth of K-12 spending?"

Senator Maxwell is inviting the public to respond to his ad. He asks, "Do you agree that there is a problem? If so, what do you think of this proposal? Is there a better way to fix the problem? Please join the conversation by contacting me at: State Senator Chip Maxwell, State Capitol, Lincoln NE 68509-4604; 402-471-2723; or cmaxwell@unicam.state.ne.us.

The NFCSP encourages members to get involved and give Senator Maxwell input on his proposal.

Only Public School Teachers Need Apply

As in past years, legislation has been introduced once again to provide state-funded employment incentives to Nebraska’s certificated teachers, but only to those employed in public schools.

LB 341, introduced by Senator Patrick Bourne of Omaha, proposes to establish a tuition reimbursement program for public school teachers, subsidizing up to nine credit hours of post-graduate study in exchange for a promise to teach one additional year in any Nebraska public school. Similar legislation introduced in the 2002 session was advanced to General File by the Education Committee, but failed to advance further before the session ended.

As with last year’s bill, NFCSP representatives contacted the sponsoring senator and pointed out that teachers employed in Nebraska’s private and parochial schools are required to meet the exact same state-imposed certification requirements as public school teachers. Furthermore, Nebraska’s private and parochial school teachers educate 1 out of every 8 students in this state.

This bill will have a public hearing on March 3 in front of the Education Committee, comprised of Senators Ron Raikes, Patrick Bourne, Kermit Brashear, Dennis Byars, Chip Maxwell, Vickie McDonald, Ed Schrock and Elaine Stuhr. NFCSP members are strongly encouraged to contact these senators and remind them of the value to the state provided by those who teach our children in Catholic schools, and request that they amend LB 341 to include ALL Nebraska certificated teachers.

Nebraska Unicameral Legislature
Dist #		Senator	From	Capitol Phone		Dist #		Senator	From	Capitol Phone
1	Floyd Vrtiska*		Table Rock		471-2733	26	Marian Price*		Lincoln		471-2610
2	Roger Wehrbein*		Plattsmouth		471-2613	27	DiAnna Schimek*		Lincoln		471-2632
3	Raymond Mossey*		Papillion		471-2627	28	Chris Beutler*		Lincoln		471-2633
4	Kermit Brashear*		Omaha		471-2621	29	Mike Foley*		Lincoln		471-2734
5	Donald Preister*		Omaha		471-2710	30	Dennis Byars*		Beatrice		471-2620
6	Pam Brown*		Omaha		471-2714	31	Mark Quandahl*		Omaha		471-2327
7	John Synowiecki*		Omaha		471-2721	32	Jeanne Combs*		Friend		471-2711
8	Patrick Bourne*		Omaha		471-2722	33	Carroll Burling*		Kenesaw		471-2712
9	Chip Maxwell*		Omaha		471-2723	34	Bob Kremer*		Aurora		471-2630
10	Mike Friend*		Omaha		471-2718	35	Ray Aguilar*		Grand Island		471-2617
11	Ernie Chambers		Omaha		471-2612	36	Jim Cudaback*		Riverdale		471-2642
12	Pam Redfield*		Omaha		471-2623	37	Joel Johnson*		Kearney		471-2726
13	Lowen Kruse*		Omaha		471-2727	38	Edward Schrock*		Elm Creek		471-2732
14	Nancy Thompson*		Papillion		471-2730	39	Dwite Pedersen*		Elkhorn		471-2885
15	Ray Janssen*		Nickerson		471-2625	40	Douglas Cunningham*		Wausa		471-2618
16	Matt Connealy*		Decatur		471-2728	41	Vickie McDonald*		Rockville		471-2631
17	L. Pat Engel*		So. Sioux City		471-2716	42	Don Pederson*		North Platte		471-2729
18	Mick Mines*		Blair		471-2801	43	Jim Jones*		Eddyville		471-2628
19	Gene Tyson*		Norfolk		471-2929	44	Tom Baker*		Trenton		471-2805
20	Jim Jensen*		Omaha		471-2622	45	Paul Hartnett*		Bellevue		471-2615
21	Carol Hudkins*		Malcolm		471-2673	46	David Landis*		Lincoln		471-2720
22	Arnie Stuthman*		Platte Center		471-2715	47	Philip Erdman*		Bayard		471-2616
23	Curt Bromm*		Wahoo		471-2719	48	Adrian Smith*		Gering		471-2802
24	Elaine Stuhr*		Bradshaw		471-2756	49	LeRoy Louden*		Ellsworth		471-2725
25	Ron Raikes*		Lincoln		471-2731		FAX for Senators		(402)		471-2126

You may contact any senator marked with an asterisk (*) by e-mail by typing the initial of the legislator’s first name plus complete last name followed by @unicam.state.ne.us (example: jdoe@unicam.state.ne.us ). You can also e-mail the senator through the Nebraska Legislative webpage at www.unicam.state.ne.us. The senator’s regular mailing address is: Name, District No., Nebraska State Legislature, P.O. Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509-4604.