During the past few months we have all witnessed an immense effort to advance the concept of school choice here in Pennsylvania. For many of us, we have been instrumentally involved on various levels as this is an important issue for us all. Unfortunately, this effort became divisive and has needlessly strained relationships within the conservative "family" as efforts became more directed at passing a particular bill than pursuing the development of the best school choice bill that truly meets the needs of all our parents and children.

For many, the question is what do we do now with the effort? What should be done with SB1? What should be done with the expanded EITC bill as passed by the House? Must the two be linked? Most of this consideration is a matter of strategy.

We at Americans for Prosperity-Pennsylvania have been urged to speak out on SB1 and school choice and offer a recommendation of what the Legislature should do and what we as citizen activists should do. All of us on the AFP-PA team are parents who care deeply about this issue. We are committed to staying true to our principles as we advance this agenda. I personally have been at the forefront of the school choice movement for 18 years and have led the fight for parental rights and choice. This fight is

For Prosperity,

Sam Rohrer and the AFP-PA Team

Recognizing and advancing parental choice in education is critical to the effective education of the children in this Commonwealth. The position of Americans for Prosperity – Pennsylvania is as follows:

-The concept that children are a gift of God not a grant by government forms the underpinning of parental choice.

-The primary responsibility for the education of children belongs to the parents, not government.

-The Pennsylvania Legislature has appropriately recognized in statute at least three basic approaches by which parents can choose to educate their children: 1) Public education; 2) Private or Non-public education; 3) Homeschooling.

-While government has a clear interest in the education of children, it should assist parents in their role, not compromise or subvert that role.

-There are three main groups of parents: 1) parents who prefer to educate their children in public schools; 2) parents who prefer to educate their children in private schools or at home; 3) parents who have their children in public schools but would prefer to educate them at home or in private schools but due to economic constraints are unable to do so, or parents who have been educating their children in private schools or at home but due to economic conditions must consider re-enrolling their children in public education.

-Recognizing and responding to the needs of parents by broadening the availability for parental choice in PA is a moral necessity, an educational imperative, and an economic requirement.

-Many students in failing schools - often in inner city locations- have no choice or realistic hope for a better education. They are locked in place more than any other segment of the population.

-Public education has become extraordinarily expensive and often ineffective in providing a quality education for the children.

-With an economy in recession, increasing inflation, and back breaking school property taxes, many middle income families with children in failing public schools would like to place their children in alternative public schools, or private or home school but have lost the financial freedom to do so.

-Public education is the most expensive form of education, homeschooling is the least and private education generally considerably less than public education.

-If all or even large numbers of students currently being educated at home or in private schools were to be placed back into public education, the system would financially collapse.

CONCLUSION:

Since any further legislative change regarding school choice is a matter of serious public policy both now and in the future, the Legislature must consider carefully policy impacts of the their changes. Because SB 1 (the current focal point of school choice debate) falls short of meeting the needs of the overwhelming majority of parents, it should more appropriately be referred to as "a logical next step in providing assistance to families with children trapped in failing and often violent school districts" rather than a "school choice" bill. It is my recommendation, that SB1 be more narrowly focused on distressed/failing schools only. In order that it not be discriminatory and sets sound policy, SB 1 should be modified to include assistance for all school age children living with theboundaries of the identified failed school. The bill should then be passed prior to June 30 so that it can take effect for this next school year. The expanded EITC legislation should be removed from SB 1 and be passed in the Senate as it was in a bi-partisan manner by the House (190-7) in the form of HB 1330.

Then, the Governor, the Legislative Leaders, and the Legislature as a body should commit themselves in participation with grassroots/parents to designing a model parental choice in education bill for the fall session that would represent broad options including such choices as Educational Savings Accounts. This effort must be genuine and done without being made hostage to political process or personalities. The Legislature’s responsibility to the parents and students of the Commonwealth demands no less.