A growing number of states are not waiting for the federal government’s lead in overhauling education. This year alone, 36 states have either passed or are considering comprehensive legislation on school vouchers, tax credits and other reform measures.

“It’s been a huge year for school choice … and I think it’s going to get a lot more intense,” said Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Foundation for Educational Choice.

Indiana on Wednesday passed the largest voucher bill in the nation’s history. Within three years, 60 percent of the state’s students will be eligible for vouchers to attend charter or other alternative schools. The bill is not geared solely toward low-income households or students in failing schools, as is the case with similar efforts in other states. Instead, a family of four earning up to $61,000 a year will be eligible. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels is expected to sign the bill into law.

Oklahoma has passed a broad school-choice program that gives tax breaks to businesses and individuals that donate to private-school scholarships. Students now enrolled in public schools can get scholarships worth up to 80 percent of the average per-child cost statewide.

Earlier this month, Arizona passed an education-savings program that allows the parents of disabled children to withdraw them from public school and put the money that would’ve been spent at those schools into tax-free bank accounts. It can then be used for private tutoring, virtual education, college tuition or other expenses.

Voucher, scholarship or charter-school proposals are also on the table in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and dozens of other states.

States are also experimenting with what should or should not be taught. The Texas State Board of Education is mulling educational materials that critics argue downplay evolution and promote the religious theory of creation.

Lawmakers in some states, such as Alabama, Missouri and Tennessee, have proposed legislation to ban the teaching of Islamic Shariah law.

Elsewhere, newly elected Republican governors have taken on teachers unions and proposed merit-pay systems, designed to bypass the traditional tenure model that often allows ineffective teachers to stay on the payroll. Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill last month to link teacher pay to performance, not the length of service.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has drawn national attention – and constant verbal abuse from pro-union Democrats – for his plan to eliminate collective-bargaining rights for teachers. The legislation cleared the state House and Senate but remains tied up in court.

Across the country, these plans are designed to improve school performance and give students more options. Some states, like Arkansas, have bodies specifically geared to alternative education.

“We research it. We do it … and then traditional education takes it on,” said Lori Lamb, president of the National Alternative Education Association and director of Arkansas’ alternative education program.

In the state’s Blytheville School District, a charter school runs a certified nursing assistant program for high school students. Rather than spend two years at a college before being certified, students can spend two hours each day in a CNA class. If they pass the year-end exam, they’re eligible to get a job in their field.

“We have the ability to make that schedule,” because the charter school isn’t tied down by the same rigid course requirements often found elsewhere, said Paul Stubblefield, the school’s assistant principal. While he stressed that students still take “normal” classes in math, social studies and other subjects, they’re also able to devote extra time to nursing, culinary arts or other specialized fields.

At the Davidson County School District’s Extended Day School in North Carolina, students primarily take classes online. “Our teachers will assign content … based on how the students do. The teachers will pull those students and reinforce the content in a face-to-face format,” said Principal James Fitzgerald.

If the per-child cost at a charter or other alternative school is lower than the price at a traditional school, the leftover money can enable cash-strapped states to reduce costs. But cost shouldn’t be the only factor, warns Bob Tate, a senior policy analyst at the National Education Association.

“It’s impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons” between traditional and charter schools, he said. “If a school is not feeding kids … it’s less expensive, but many parents would consider that a significant drawback.”

Mr. Tate said some charter schools, for example, may not provide English as a Second Language courses, or may not offer effective programs for students with disabilities. Such programs, he said, drive up budgets at public schools. Parents pulling their children out of traditional schools, in some cases, drains money for more-expensive but necessary programs, according to Mr. Tate.

The bill passed after much debate on the effects of the legislation on struggling rural school districts.  During the initial approval process, an amendment was adopted to limit who could sponsor charter schools in provisionally accredited districts to alleviate some of these concerns.

The amendment only allows, in these districts, sponsors who meet quality standards set by the State Board of Education, the local school board or the newly created Missouri Charter Public School Commission.  The district would have to be provisionally accredited for three years before one of these sponsors could open a charter school.

HB 473 calls for expanding charter school sponsoring organizations to include:

• Any public four-year college or university.
• A community college with a service area that encompasses some portion of an eligible school district.
• Any private college or university with its primary campus in Missouri.
• A two-year private nonprofit vocational or technical school.
• The Missouri Charter Public School Commission. which would be created by this legislation,
• A nonprofit or charitable organization meeting specified requirements.

In fully accredited districts only the local school board could sponsor a charter school.

The bill also greatly increases the accountability standards on charter schools.  Provisions in HB 473 allow the State Board of Education to close a school and suspend a sponsor for poor performance or financial management.  Sponsors must also apply to be allowed to open a charter school and all current sponsors must reapply.  Reporting requirements on student performance and financial management were also increased.

CECM was glad to work with lobbyists from the Missouri Charter Public School Association and Pelopidas, LLC to pass this legislation.  The bill now moves onto the State Senate where it will likely be heard in the Education Committee on Wednesday.

In addition, any school district that owns school buildings that have not been used for classroom instruction for two consecutive school years must either sell them or make them available for use by an accredited school district, charter school, virtual school, or nonsectarian nonpublic school, free of charge. The sale or lease terms must not include a restriction on using the facilities for educational purposes.

The bill sponsor, Senator Jane Cunningham, said that she will fight to keep the rights of students affirmed under the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case and that students deserve to be educated in an accredited school district.

Provisions in SB 370, also sponsored by Senator Cunningham, were rolled into the committee substitute for the bill and would set up a scholarship program for students in unaccredited districts to enroll in a nonpublic school, charter school, virtual school, or accredited school district. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education would administer the scholarship program.

CECM has testified this session in support of multiple school choice bills that would be practical solutions to the ruling in the Turner case and help students receive a quality education and escape their unaccredited district.  We will continue to support this type of legislation throughout the session.

This path toward tenure reform has been met with fierce resistance by Missouri’s teacher unions, but is supported by the Missouri School Boards’ Association and reform groups, like CECM.  During the committee debate on the bill, HB 628, a provision tying pay to performance was removed.

While the House Education Committee in Missouri debates tenure reform, it is worth noting that multiple states have moved quickly in their legislative sessions to address the issue.  In Florida, Governor Rick Scott has already signed a reform package that eliminates the state’s tenure system and creates a merit- based pay system for all teachers in the state.  In Idaho, Governor Butch Otter has also signed similar legislation for teacher contracts and merit pay.

Additionally, governors in Indiana, Tennessee, Nevada and New Jersey have all heavily pushed packages to reform teacher pay and tenure systems in their states.  Even Illinois, a traditionally strong union state, is pushing reform of its teacher tenure system.

Lawmakers in both chambers and both political parties should join the states that are reforming or eliminating their teacher tenure and pay systems.  These reforms are long overdue in making it easier for school districts to remove poor performing teachers.  These reforms also benefit teachers — and treat them like the professionals they are — by rewarding high performance and removing barriers to growth.

These are important bills that will help curb social promotion, the practice of just moving students to the next grade level each academic year, whether or not the student has learned the material. A recent report by the Missouri Department of Higher Education shows that 40% of Missouri high school graduates entering Missouri universities need at least one remedial course.  Seventy- two percent of students graduating from St. Louis Public Schools fall into this category.  Remedial courses typically cost the same as regular courses, but do not count toward credit for a degree.

Both pieces of legislation were held over for additional hearings this week in the House Education Committee.

The bill was also supported by Missouri Education Reform Council’s Joe Knodell, a retired superintendent from Southeast Missouri.  Also, the Missouri School Board Association testified in support of parts of the bill stating that they favor single- year or multi- year contracts over the policy of granting tenure after five years.  The longest contract term they would support is three years.

Teacher tenure has come under fire nationwide as examples pile up of the policy making it hard, or almost impossible without great expense, to fire under performing teachers.  Teachers themselves are showing willingness to forgo tenure in favor of performance based compensation.  Teachers in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD have recently signed contract agreements with local school districts loosening tenure provisions in favor of merit pay options.

The bill will be worked on heavily during the coming legislative week and could be voted on soon.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for hearing this bill today and receiving my testimony.  My name is Earl Simms and I am the State Director for the Children’s Education Council of Missouri.  We are Missouri’s leading advocates for education reform.

Legislation expanding charter public schools statewide is long overdue to give all children in Missouri access to an educational option that has made a life changing difference to so many children nationwide.  Alternatives, like charter public schools, are desperately needed in districts that have been labeled as unaccredited or provisionally accredited where no options exist, unless you are in St. Louis or Kansas City.

Why should children in the unaccredited district of Riverview Gardens be denied potential access to an option outside of their unaccredited district?  Why should children in Malta Bend R-V, Jennings, Normandy, Calhoun R-VIII and Hickman Mills, which DESE’s September Annual Performance Reviews said were on a path to unaccreditation, be denied an option outside of their failing school districts?

Why should children in Hayti R-II, Exeter R-VI, Humansville R-IV, Ferguson- Florissant, Oregon- Howell R-III, University City, Charleston R-I, Caruthersville, Hazelwood, Scott County Central, Clarkton C-4 and Laquey R-V, all trending toward provisional accreditation according to the same September report, be denied an option outside of their failing school district?

I call out these districts by name, and have marked them on a map attached to my written testimony, to show that the need for expanding charter schools is not just an urban core problem in the St. Louis and Kansas City area.  The need for options outside of a traditional district setting is in all districts in the state, and for people of all racial, socioeconomic and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to the 20 districts that this September report said could potentially be unaccredited or provisionally accredited, there are many children all across the state that are not learning in the typical traditional education environment that could benefit from expanding charter schools statewide and become involved in innovative programs.

Two years ago I spoke with a wonderful lady who would like to turn her private French language immersion school in Columbia into a charter public school to give more access to people in that community who are interested in her program. She said her dream was to bring to Columbia a school similar to Academie Lafayette, a French immersion school in Kansas City, which is one of, if not the, top charter public school in the state.  Why should children in Columbia, Springfield, or any other area of the state, be denied potential access to these types of innovative programs?

In addition to expanding charter public schools statewide, we support the expanded accountability measures in this bill.  The promise of charter public schools is not to have charter schools for name sake, but to have high quality charter public schools.  If these schools are not performing at high levels according to the tenants of their charter, then they should close.  We do agree that the State Board should have the authority to close a school for poor performance or financial mismanagement.  We also support provisions in this bill to increase initial planning and reporting requirements on sponsors.  Quality sponsorship plays a key role in founding a quality charter school.

We also support provisions in this bill to expand the entities that can sponsor a charter school.  I recently attended a panel discussion at the St. Louis Science Center where the main question was how to increase learning in Math, Science and Technology.  I immediately thought of how great it would be if the Science Center could sponsor a charter to focus on these areas well within their expertise.  The same could be said of many other entities across the state who have a wealth of knowledge to give back to the students in their communities.

The legislature should also expand charter schools statewide as large piece of the puzzle to practically resolve the affects resulting from the Missouri Supreme Court’s opinion in the Turner v. Clayton ruling.  Not increasing educational options in failing school districts could result in the potential flooding of neighboring school districts of students from St. Louis, Riverview Gardens, and future unaccredited districts. A much more practical solution is to give these children the options that they are seeking closer to their homes.

Missouri is the only state in the country, to my knowledge, to have a geographic cap on charter schools.  This cap denies students in many other areas of the state an option that they desperately need.  It also blocks students from access to innovative programs that are showing results in Missouri and around the country.   I want to thank Representative Jones for filing this legislation and I ask each member of this committee to support this bill.  Thank you and I would be happy to take any questions.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for hearing this bill today and receiving my testimony.  My name is Earl Simms and I am the State Director for the Children’s Education Council of Missouri.  We are Missouri’s leading advocates for education reform.

Scholarship tax credit programs are in use in multiple states with many of these programs focusing on special needs students.  Contrary to what you may hear in opposition testimony, public education in these states has not crumbled.

According to December 2008 data from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education the state is home to almost 133,000 children on Individualized Education Plans, almost 6,000 of these plans are for children whose IEP results from a diagnosis on the autism spectrum.  In many cases, the parents of these students are satisfied with the education that their child is receiving.  In the cases where these students are not receiving an education that is helping them to move toward leading a successful life, they should have an option such as a tax credit scholarship program.

An appropriate education for these children can often run into hundreds of thousands of dollars over their K-12 education career.  That is simply an expense that most families cannot afford, especially in light of many of the medical expenses that these families are incurring.  As a result, many of these children are led to a life of dependency or social welfare.  Failing to help these children also takes a heavy toll on their families.  Instances of divorce and bankruptcies are much higher among families with autistic children.

Considering that we have tax credit programs for all types of economic development, I can think of no more worthy tax credit program than one that would help develop a child with a special need.

I want to thank Representative Scharnhorst for again filing this legislation and I ask each member of this committee to support this bill.  Thank you and I would be happy to take any questions.

This legislation was named for Representative Scharnhorst’s late grandson Bryce, who was autistic.  CECM looks forward to once again supporting Bryce’s Law to give families with IEPs access to the best possible education. Please check out our section on Scholarship Tax Credits for more information on how these programs are helping students in other states.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Outraged D.C. parents are crying foul today after President Obama’s FY 2012 budget zeroed out funding for the highly-effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. By cutting all funding for the program in his budget request, the President risks violating his own promise to D.C. parents that existing school voucher recipients would be able to stay in the schools of their parents choice through the 12th grade.

If the program is not funded in 2012, there is no guarantee that all 1,012 current children will finish their education in the program, which means some will be forced to return to an already overburdened D.C. Public School system.

“By submitting a budget that ignores the educational needs of low-income students in Washington, D.C., President Obama is cutting an educational lifeline for children,” said Virginia Walden Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice. “It is clear that for all of his rhetoric, President Obama, a man who received scholarships to attend private schools throughout his life, simply does not believe low-income families who live just blocks away from the White House deserve the same opportunity.”

D.C. leaders instrumental in the passage of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program — and who are fighting to see it restored and extended for five additional years — expressed frustration at the president’s failure to include funding for the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

“The president’s position on this issue is confusing and unacceptable,” said Kevin P. Chavous, former D.C. Councilman. “Instead of recognizing the effectiveness of the program, respecting its broad base of support, and working with local leaders to see it funded and extended, the Administration instead changes its position on this position on a yearly basis and throws into jeopardy the education of thousands of low-income children. We call on the President to join with leaders in his own party and settle this matter once and for all by supporting a full reauthorization and improvement of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.”

Similar bills have been filed in a dozen states.  These bills are modeled after a similar law in California, which was recently used by parents in the South Central Los Angeles neighborhood of Compton to attempt to reform a school in the district.

Below is the text of CECM State Director Earl Simms’ testimony on the bill:

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee thank you for hearing this bill today.  My name is Earl Simms and I am the State Director for the Children’s Education Council of Missouri.  We are Missouri’s leading advocates for education reform.

In the three years that I have worked on the issue of education reform in the state the word I have heard the most from members of both political parties in both chambers of the legislature is “local control.”  I can think of nothing that better defines local control than HB 393, which gives parents the option to gather petitions and essentially reboot their schools if they feel that the school is failing their children.  This grassroots option puts the power in school districts back in the parent’s hands and provides a strict measure of accountability for local school leaders.

Again, Missouri is home to two unaccredited districts, ten provisionally accredited districts, and DESE told us in September that the situation is getting worse.  Having a “parent trigger” option would provide a much needed measure of accountability, and a form of choice and competition, that most of these struggling schools and school districts currently do not have.

The “parent trigger” movement is rapidly picking up steam across the country.  Parents in Compton, California recently used that state’s law to attempt to turnaround a failing school in their neighborhood.  Similar bills to enact a “parent trigger” have been filed in several states across the country.

I ask that the members of this committee stand up for true local control of schools and put the power back in the parent’s hands by passing HB 393.  I would like to thank Representative Jones for filing this legislation and I would be glad to take any questions.  Thank you.