ACE picks wrong target for Voucher Ads, plus a rant against those who spin lies

The usual suspects are at it again. Howard Fuller's group, the Alliance for Choices in Education, bankrolled by movement conservatives George and Susan Mitchell, is buying ads blaming Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle for the rationing plan for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, proposed by DPI for next fall:

The step was the first in what is likely to be an extended and heated series of moves by partisans on all sides as the cap issue comes to a head in coming weeks and, along with it, possibly other Milwaukee-related education issues. It came four days before Doyle is to give his annual "state of the state" speech.

Under the law covering the voucher program, the number of students using state money to attend private schools cannot exceed 15% of the enrollment in Milwaukee Public Schools. The program is at the cap this year and is almost sure to exceed it next fall.

The state Department of Public Instruction last month issued a plan for handling the issue that voucher advocates say is likely to lead to thousands of students being forced to change schools and many schools being harmed or forced to close. The DPI would ration the vouchers equally among schools that apply for them, making no distinction between well-established voucher schools and newly created ones, some of which never open their doors.

In the ad, one student currently enrolled in a voucher school says, "Gov. Doyle's just made a big mistake," and another responds, "He's throwing away my dream."

Voucher advocates have previously urged Doyle to support lifting the cap on the voucher program, but Doyle has said he would do so only if other conditions are met.

Hm. Sounds like it really is J-Dizzle's fault, right? Well, no: DPI--which is not under the control of Doyle's office--has been forced to implement a less-than-ideal solution to the cap problem because Republican legislators and school choice advocates rejected the more fair plan DPI proposed last August. That meant, when the cap was hit this fall, DPI had to develop a less fair plan that nobody likes. But couldn't Doyle have just lifted the caps? you ask. Read further:

Doyle has offered to raise the cap to 18% as part of a package of proposals that includes requiring more accountability in the voucher schools; changing a state financing formula that, in effect, costs taxpayers money whenever a student switches from MPS to a voucher school; and providing more money for the state's program to reduce class size in public schools.

"The governor is ready to sign a bill today that increases the cap and ensures that students and their siblings already in choice schools can stay in them," said Doyle spokeswoman Melanie Fonder. "It's the right thing to do, and the governor will continue to work on that in a bipartisan way to get that done."

Howard Fuller, chairman of the alliance, said Doyle should approve raising the cap and drop the other proposals, which he said had no chance of passing the Legislature.

This is what we call burying the lead. Years ago, Jim Doyle started offering to work with legislative Republicans on a solution to the cap problem, one that would prevent the kind of mess that we see coming this fall. Yet time after time, the Republicans have asked for one thing only: A complete removal of the cap. They have shown no willingness to compromise, no willingness to consider the 96,000 other children in Milwaukee and how to improve the education for them. Because, let's face it, even if the cap disappeared tomorrow, there would not be a voucher spot for 96,000 more students. We have to do something for them. But, no.

I saw this morning, via pro-voucher blogger (and non-Milwaukeean) Owen,that Alberta Darling--friend to brown and black children everywhere, though almost none live in her distrcit--is proposing new legislation to

1. End the enrollment cap on the MPCP.
2. Eliminate eligibility barriers that bar many low-income families from the MPCP.
3. Modify the program’s eligibility criteria so that students in families experiencing a small increase in income aren’t removed from the MPCP.
4. Direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to provide comprehensive reports on standardized test scores based on an independent scholarly research project that will begin this year.

That's Owen's summary, and based on the article (which gives a reasonably fair rundown of both sides' plans), is accurate, so let's consider them. First of all, a complete elimination of the cap should be out of the question: The more we give the legislature "outs" to fixing problems within MPS ("Can't they just go to a voucher school?" sorts of things), the less likely they are to bother. As for eligibility barriers, I am guessing these are things like the rules saying parents must try MPS first (a child moving to Milwaukee over the summer, for example, is not eligible to enter a choice school right away). I could see some room for compromise there, as well as #3, depending on how small the "small increase" is.

As for #4, this is another useless idea. No new tests would be required, and they would not have to be the state tests. Further, no school would have to start testing that does not already--in other words, any data gathered would be utterly useless and offer no real point-to-point comparison of MPS and the voucher schools. Doyle proposed requiring the state's tests in his last compromise offer, and I said then, it's a bad idea. Not because I am afraid the voucher schools will do better than public schools--some will, some won't, and if we don't already know that, we're really screwed--but because it will require private schools to adopt the state model academic standards (something many private schools won't want to do) and, speaking as one with experience planning for and administering the tests, I do not wish that on my worst enemy. It is grueling and unconscionable to put children throught that experience, for days on end, year after year. If I could get rid of them in my school, you'd better believe I would. They are not authentic assessments of student achievement and they do not promote genuine educational experiences. As for Darling's plan, they tried this in 2003, when Doyle rightfully rejected it.

And the Wall Street Journal joins in the bandwagon, too, today, talking tests and spinning the facts about that 2003 bill:

Running scared in this election year, [Jim Doyle] claims he wants to raise the cap on Milwaukee's choice program. But he insists on including side issues in any deal with the Legislature. For instance, he demands choice students take standardized tests and have the results made public. But in 2003 he vetoed a bill that would have done just that because the teachers union wanted to block an objective study of choice.

The bill J-Dizzle vetoed in 2003 was not what he proposed this year:

Under the bill, an initial report would be due to the Legislature by October 1, 2005. The study would be funded by private donors.

Opponents said the bill is weak because it allows individual voucher schools to opt out of the study and because it fails to require voucher schools to administer the same tests as public schools.

Plus, it was part of a package of bills that would have eliminated the cap and expanded the program county-wide--another Alberta Darling creation. (I called it the Thomas More High School Protection Act, since TMHS is this close to being in the city, and desperately wanted voucher money. They even tried to un-annex themselves from St. Francis!)

So it's time for people to really get their facts straight:

• Jim Doyle has been trying to meet Republicans half-way on a bill to raise (not eliminate) the cap for years
  
• Republicans want complete capitulation from the governor, Democrats, public school advocates, and the taxpayers on the issue, with no regard for accountability or oversight
  
• DPI is forced to implement a ridiculous rationing scheme by Republican legislators and school choice activists who rejected the "fair" plan (which would have given priority to returning voucher students), seeing a great 2006 campaign issue
  
• Previous attempts at imposing testing regimes would have yielded usesless data (since they didn't require full participation or the same tests) and no enforcement or accountability structure

The Wall Street Journal is getting a letter from me, and so is anyone else who continues to repeat Republican, movement-conservative spin.

Edited after I learned more about Darling's plan.