Last week, the Illinois State House of Representatives failed to pass a groundbreaking piece of school reform legislation. Senate Bill 2494 was placed on extended consideration meaning that there was significant, though not sufficient, legislative support for the reform measure.
As my colleague Collin Hitt reported:
The move to extended consideration means that no official role call was taken after yesterday's impassioned debate in House chambers. However, video of the live vote showed that the landmark school choice legislation was likely five or six votes away from passage, despite heavy opposition from union lobbyists and other powerful interest groups.
It’s no secret that our nation faces a serious education crisis, and Chicago public schools are some of the most underperforming schools in the country. Confronted with a 50% dropout rate, community leaders and school reform advocates in Illinois have rallied behind a solution that has worked virtually everywhere it has been tried: vouchers.
Under a voluntary voucher program, students and their parents can opt to take a voucher—a portion of the money the state would normally spend on their public school education—and apply it to the private school of their choice. In ten gold standard studies, such a program has been proven to not only improve the educational results of the children taking advantage of the vouchers, but the students in surrounding public schools as well.
SB 2494 would give Chicago students in the worst performing and most overcrowded schools the opportunity to take an education “voucher” valued at $3,700 to the private or parochial school of their choice. The average cost of private school tuition in Chicago ranges from $3500 to $4,000 per student. This voluntary program would be nothing short of transformative for these children trapped in failing schools plagued by violence and high dropout rates. Roughly 22,000 students would be eligible for this program that would have begun as early as the next school year.
The bill was met with significant resistance by union lobbyists and other entrenched political interests who launched a misinformation campaign aimed at derailing what many regard as common-sense education reform. Myths about the bill ranged from the idea that funding would somehow be diverted from other school districts, that special needs students wouldn’t be eligible, and that the bill would place an added burden on taxpayers. Proponents of reform handily dismissed each one of these allegations during floor debate.
The Illinois State Senate passed the bill at the end of March with substantial bi-partisan support. The House version of the bill was amended to address overcrowded schools in addition to Chicago’s lowest performing schools. Although the original bill contained language isolating funding sources for the program to Chicago, language was added to explicitly ensure a firewall between voucher program funding and the rest of state education funding to assuage the concerns of some legislators.
The voucher bill has earned widespread bi-partisan support and a number of significant endorsements including the State Journal-Register, the Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Sun-Times.
As the session comes to a close this week, many concerned citizens are left wondering what is next for school vouchers and the kids trapped in Chicago’s failing public schools. Writes Collin Hitt:
Parents, teachers, taxpayers and grassroots activists provided a powerful counter to the special interests who opposed this bill. Their ongoing support will be integral if families in Chicago's worst schools are to have a way out.
And the next step supporters can take is simple: call their elected representatives and candidates for office, and ask them to support this life-saving measure when the legislation next comes before the legislature for a vote.
Perhaps next time, legislators will choose to side with the children over union lobbyists. For the sake of these kids, let’s hope so.
John O'Hara is the vice president of external relations with the Illinois Policy Institute.
Comments