Choice's Tough Road: The obstacles to reform - school choice

National Review, Sept 11, 2000 by John J. Miller

At an event in Carthage, Tenn., on August 9, Al Gore spoke the words that must have made his handlers shudder: "If I was the parent of a child who went to an inner-city school that was failing, I might be for vouchers, too." Unfortunately for the school-choice movement, Gore was able to send his kids to private schools-so he still opposes vouchers. But he's obviously feeling peer pressure in the presidential race: Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are school-choice supporters, as is Gore's running mate, Joe Lieberman (despite his furious back-pedaling in recent weeks).

There's probably never been a better moment than now for riding the school-choice bandwagon. Public-opinion surveys over the last decade show the idea steadily gaining strength. Colin Powell, the most popular man in America, made it a centerpiece of his GOP convention speech. "What are we afraid of?" he shouted, to a roaring crowd. (Maybe he should be Bush's secretary of education.) And in June, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can buy books, computers, and other equipment for religious schools without breaching the church-state wall; it was the sixth decision in a row from the justices allowing public money to go to religious schools.

For all these reasons, school-choice activists are more confident than ever before. They're proud of the progress they made in the 1990s, and believe their movement is on the verge of total victory. But dark days lie ahead, or at least one dark day: November 7. Voters in California and Michigan will face ballot questions on large school-choice programs, and neither appears likely to pass. The one in Michigan has a chance, but its cousin in California is foundering. This has left otherwise optimistic backers feeling glum about the short term. "I wish there were no initiatives on the ballot this year," says Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice. "A pair of defeats, including a potentially catastrophic loss in California, creates the impression that people oppose this, and that's not helpful."

But if Bush wins, school-choicers may in fact have something important to celebrate on Election Day. In the first few months of his administration, he'd probably sign a bill that President Clinton has vetoed: school choice for low-income kids in Washington, D.C. He'd also push a national school-choice plan that would award $1,500 to parents of some of the kids trapped in America's worst schools. And he'd appoint judges with friendly views. The stakes are high: Despite the Supreme Court's recent encouraging signals, in June only three of Clarence Thomas's fellow justices joined him in a powerful endorsement of school choice. Through Supreme Court appointments, the next president could tip the balance on school choice, one way or the other, for at least a generation.

The Court will probably hand down a landmark decision within the next year or two. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is about to rule on a school-choice program in Cleveland that provides $2,500 education vouchers to the parents of some 3,800 kids. No matter what the decision, it will almost certainly be appealed-and there's a chance the Supreme Court will take the case for the term beginning this October. At the very latest, it seems, the justices will hear it in the term that starts in 2001.

That high-court ruling, when it comes, will either open wide the doors to school choice, or slam them shut for years. One of the chief reasons school choice hasn't seen more success is that its natural supporters haven't wanted to push for it-because the courts have not sent a clear signal on its constitutionality. Governors and state lawmakers interested in school choice have been reluctant to spend political capital and provoke potent adversaries over something the courts might snatch away.

That's one of the arguments Michigan governor John Engler has advanced against the initiative in his state. Last year, Engler surprised many of his allies by announcing his opposition to what is now called Proposal 1. His reasoning was largely political: Early polls didn't show the initiative to be wildly popular, and he worried it would inflict a double defeat on conservatives by losing in its own right and simultaneously dragging down GOP prospects in a swing state. The National Education Association is assessing its 2.5 million members an extra $5 fee for the purpose of defeating school choice in California and Michigan; a lot of that money will go toward revving up Democratic turnout. Engler was also concerned about what the Supreme Court might ultimately say on school choice: "They'll set out a map on this soon," he told me in an interview last January. He has a point: A statewide school-choice program is the top achievement of Florida governor Jeb Bush's administration, but it's currently tangled up in a legal fight.

Apart from the Engler flap, school-choice activists in Michigan have done just about everything right. They'll have enough money to wage a real campaign. Co-chairman Dick DeVos anticipates spending $5 million to pass the measure-about half of what the teacher unions predict they may spend, but a significant sum nonetheless. There's also genuine support for the initiative among blacks, thanks to years of grassroots contact by activists. The Catholic Church is behind it, too, having pitched in $765,000 so far, and more is on the way. Michigan's seven bishops have urged priests throughout the state to speak in favor of the initiative during their homilies, and have mailed letters to their flocks. If Proposal 1 fails, it won't be due to a lack of money or poor preparation-it will have lost fair and square, in the marketplace of ideas.