Fall 2012 Pennsylvania NOW Times

Pennsylvania NOW Times Fall 2012 -

Happy New Year and Thanks for Your Support: Summary of Accomplishments

Happy New Year!  Today is my (Joanne Tosti-Vasey’s) last day as President of the Pennsylvania NOW, Inc.; the Pennsylvania NOW Education Fund; and the Pennsylvania NOW PAC.   I really have appreciated your support over the 18 years of my tenure as both President and Treasurer of NOW here in PA. 

As part of passing the torch to our new President, Julia Ramsey, I’d first like to summarize the past  six years.  I will post the new leadership information in a second post.

We have done some awesome, successful work over the last few years. 

1.       We pressured Penn State University to change their policies towards all forms of campus violence.  In 2006, as a result of this pressure, PSU did create a zero-tolerance policy towards all forms of domestic and relationship violence, sexual assault, and stalking on campus.  However this policy hit some rather bumpy spots, particularly within the Athletics department.  As of result of the allegations of child sexual abuse against former PSU football coach Jerry Sandusky in November 2011, we have once again weighed in on calling for the University to fully investigate these allegations, to review policies and reporting methods of campus violence, and to include all forms of campus violence in both the investigation and upgrading of policies and reporting.  You can read the most recent joint National NOW/PA NOW statement here as well as a copy of the letter to the PSU Board of Trustees detailing both the history of our involvement in this issue and our call for a broader, full investigation into all forms of campus violence. It is time to make sure that NO form of campus violence – sexual assault, relationship violence, or stalking – is ever again tolerated. Against any child. Against any adult. Anywhere, including at Penn State.

2.       After a high school senior posted an online tabloid in 2006 discussing the breast and hip sizes, sexual proclivities, and sexual diseases of 26 female students, Pennsylvania NOW worked with a parent of one of these young women and with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to force the Mt. Lebanon School District to conduct sexual harassment training, to set up meetings with the parents of the girls that were harassed to provide input on how to change the policies surrounding sexual harassment, and we worked with the college where the boy matriculated (along with six of the women who were harassed) that resulted in a 4-year stay-away order.  The superintendent and high school principal also lost their jobs as a result of their failure to properly handle this case of sexual harassment.

3.       In collaboration with many women’s organization, we worked with the City of Pittsburgh to craft a zero-tolerance, police-perpetrated domestic violence ordinance in 2007.  This ordinance was created after three police officers who had current or prior histories of domestic violence were promoted.Su

4.       We worked with Philadelphia NOW, the PA Prison Society, and Senator Daylin Leach to pass the 2010 state law that prohibits shackling of incarcerated pregnant women in their 2^nd and 3^rd trimesters who are incarcerated in prisons and jails throughout the state.  And in Centre County, I advocated for even stronger protections in the Centre County Correctional Facility than are provided in the state law. As a result of this advocacy, any pregnant woman incarcerated in Centre County at any point in her pregnancy will not only not be shackled, but she also will not be tasered.  For details on what this 2010 law and Centre County Prison Board policy do, read a summary in one of our earlier blogs. 

5.       We provided testimony to the PA’s Independent Regulatory Review Board on the 2007 proposed regulations for sexual assault services in emergency rooms.  As a result of this testimony as well as testimony from the Women’s Law Project, Planned Parenthood, and the PA Commission for Women, hospitals must post signs if they refuse to provide emergency contraception to rape victims and must provide them with transportation to another facility where they can receive EC if they want it.  If a hospital refuses to provide EC, they are placed on a PA Deptartment of Health online list of hospitals denying full sexual assault services.  Prior to the new regulations going into effect, about two-thirds of hospitals in PA did NOT provide EC in the ER.  Now only 11 hospitals in the state refuse to provide EC in the ER.

6.       We worked with State College Borough in 2007 and 2011 to create one of the most comprehensive sets of anti-discrimination ordinances in the country.  The employment ordinance includes marital status, familial status, family responsibilities (protections for people who need to take care of or are assumed to be taking care of another adult family member), gender identity, and sexual orientation in addition to the state-level protections.  The fair housing and public accommodations ordinance includes marital status, familial status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and legal sources of income in addition to the state-level protections.  Also in 2011, we helped to fine-tune State College’s proposed inclusionary (affordable) housing ordinance to reduce the number of forms of identification from 5 to 2 for lower income people to apply for inclusionary housing units.  This ordinance also provides the ability for domestic partners to apply for this housing if they have registered with the borough’s Domestic Partnership Registration that was also initiated this year.

7.       We worked with Allegheny County Council in 2009 to pass a county-wide anti-discrimination ordinance that includes marital status, familial status, gender identity, and sexual orientation (but no family responsibilities protections) in addition to the state-level protections in employment, housing and public accommodations.  Also got them to include source of income in housing.

8.       In Spring 2009, we protested the make-up of Governor Rendell’s Stimulus Oversight Committee. Initially, this committee only had 1 woman, 1 person of color, and only people who lived in Allegheny County and southeastern PA.  A coalition of women’s organizations and people of color organizations asked to have the committee expanded to add women, people of color and people from other sections of the state.  We were only partially successful; 1 more woman and 1 more person of color were added to the committee.

9.       We gave written testimony on August 30, 2011 to the House State Government Committee opposing Rep. Daryl Metcalfe’s “National Security Begins at Home” anti-immigration bills.  PA NOW focused on the effects of these bills on children in low-income families and on victims of domestic violence and sexual assault (including women who have been trafficked).  As a result, there are some decent amendments being proposed to these really bad bills that we will continue to oppose.

10.   I co-authored through the National NOW Foundation and the NOW Disability Rights ad-hoc Committee an article entitled “Reproductive Health Justice for Women with Disabilities” in the 2011 Center for Women’s Policy Studies Barbara Faye Waxman Fiduccia Papers on Women and Girls with Disabilities.  I also co-authored the Pennsylvania Commission for Women’s “Status of Women in Pennsylvania” reports in 2004 and 2009 that were distributed to the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Governor Rendell, and to the public. Unfortunately, since Governor Tom Corbett shut down the all four advocacy commissions (the Pennsylvania Commission for Women, Governor’s Advisory Commission on African American Affairs, Governor’s Advisory Commission on Asian American Affairs, and the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Latino Affairs) on July 1, 2011 and the Commission’s website was taken offline. As a result, none of their reports or publications are available for public access.

11.   We monitored and lobbied in Harrisburg on all forms of legislation dealing with women’s economic justice, budget and taxation, education, health care, immigration, human trafficking and ending racism, lesbian rights, reproductive justice, shackling of incarcerated women and children, violence against women, and voting rights. Summaries of some, but not all of these bills can be found in our Legislative Reports that appear in our semi-annual Pennsylvania NOW Times. Copies of these newsletters for 2010 and 2011 can be seen by clicking on each of the PNT links at this blog on the upper left side of the page.  We have done this advocacy as a single organization as well as in coalition with

a.       Pennsylvanians for Choice on issues related to reproductive justice, fighting the new PA TRAP law, and opposing restrictions on abortion access in general and in the new health care law);

b.      Value All Families, led by Equality Advocates  and the PA ACLU, to support  expanded statewide hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws that would add gender identity and sexual orientation to both laws and to oppose multiple attempts to create discrimination in the PA Constitution by defining marriage as “the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized;”

c.       Pennsylvanians Opposed to Vouchers to oppose legislation that would unconstitutionally give public funds to private and parochial schools though giving vouchers to parents to pay for their children’s private education;

d.      Health Care for All PA to advocate for passage of single-payer health care.

e.      Better Choices for PA to advocate, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, that lawmakers close tax loopholes and end special interest tax breaks before making deep cuts to schools and literacy programs, colleges, the environment, health care, and services for women; and

f.        Pennsylvania Immigrant and Citizenship Coalition to oppose anti-immigrant bills that threaten the lives of anyone, especially women and children, who look like they might be undocumented.

12.   We also attended and participated in monitoring tension, acts of bias, and potential hate crimes as a member of the Pennsylvania Tension Task Force.  The Task Force is headed by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, and the Pennsylvania State Police.  In both 2003 and in 2009 we also made presentations before the Task Force on Pennsylvania NOW’s history and on gender-based hate crimes.

We also have had some setbacks.  The most recent one was last week’s passage and signing into law Pennsylvania’s new TRAP – Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers law. We will work in coalition with Pennsylvanians for Choice to stop this undue burden law from going into effect.  We are still fighting more potential attacks on marriage equality, school vouchers, immigration, voting rights and access, reproductive justice and healthcare.

We will continue educating the public about women’s rights and equality through the Pennsylvania NOW Education Fund.  We will continue our advocacy through Pennsylvania NOW, Inc.  And we will work to replace enough members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to once again have a legislature that is concerned about and works for the betterment of all people’s lives and not just that of corporations.

It’s been a great six years.  Thank you all and

Happy New Year!

Debate in Harrisburg on School Vouchers - October 26, 2011

School Voucher Forum Harrisburg 10-26-11

Event Registration Online for Pennsylvania NOW Convention

Online Ticketing for Pennsylvania NOW Convention powered by Eventbrite

Pennsylvania NOW Convention just 3 Weeks Away with TWO Featured Speakers: Terry O'Neill and Sioban "Sam" Bennett

The Pennsylvania NOW Convention “United We Rise” is just three weeks away.  It will be held on Saturday, October 1, 2011 at Crowne Plaza‐Bucks County ♦ 4700 Street Rd ♦ Trevose, PA 19053.
 
PA NOW 2011 Convention Invitation BIG NEWS!  We now have confirmed two GREAT featured speakers! Our Featured Speakers will be Terry O’Neill, National NOW President and Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, President and CEO Women's Campaign Forum & 2008 PA Congressional candidate.

Sam will be our featured speaker at the PAC luncheon that starts at 11:35 am.  Siobhan "Sam" Bennett, President/CEO has served as the President and CEO of the Women’s Campaign Fund (WCF) and its affiliated programs The She Should Run Foundation and WCF PAC since March 2009. Under Sam’s leadership, WCF’s combined budget has more than doubled and the organization’s programmatic reach has expanded to every state in the country and been featured in national syndications, including USA Today and over 200 AP newspapers. Sam has lent her unique perspective as a candidate at the local and federal levels to broaden WCF’s impact on women leaders at all levels of government who support reproductive choices and options, and women who may run for office in the future. Cost for the luncheon is a minimum of $50/person.

Terry will be our featured speaker during the afternoon plenary.  Terry O'Neill, President, National Organization for Women is a feminist attorney, former law professor, and an activist for social justice. O'Neill oversees NOW's multi-issue agenda, which includes: advancing reproductive freedom, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping violence against women, winning lesbian rights, ensuring economic justice, ending sex discrimination and achieving constitutional equality for women.

We also have a great line-up of workshops that include the following topics:

• Voting Rights, Removing Barriers to Voting, and the Elections process
• Caregiving Care for Caregiver
• Health Care issues including single-payer health care and reproductive health and justice
• Collaborating with other feminist organizations
• School Vouchers and Violence in Schools.

Please spread the word!

Cost for NOW members to attend the Convention is $50 with a sliding scale down to $0.00.  Non-members can register for the Convention for $70.00, which includes a one-year membership in NOW.

To register, you can download this registration form (see below). After completing the form, either mail or email the form with your check/credit card number to our Treasurer, Pamela Macklin.  If you want to pay online for the PAC and/or the luncheon you can do so by credit card at our main website.  Go to http://panow.org and click on the "Donate" button.  Then send the completed registration form to our treasurer at pmacfish@aol.com.
Registration Form for PA NOW Convention and PAC Luncheon
Note two deadlines.  The guaranteed reduced rate for hotel reservations ends on September 15 ($99/night + tax); call the hotel at 1‐215‐364‐2000  to make your reservation. People interested in the PAC luncheon need to reserve their seat at the luncheon by Friday, September 23.  You can either pre-register or register on-site for the convention plenaries, workshops, and cocktail party.  If you are putting your check in the mail for the PAC luncheon, please email our Treasuer at pmacfish@aol.com and let her know that you put the check in the mail to ensure she adds your name to the PAC luncheon.

And here are the directions to the hotel.
Direction Card Crowne Plaza

Again…

Join us at Pennsylvania NOW’s 40^th anniversary convention ON OCTOBER 1 and Please spread the word!

Thank you and see you on October 1.

Fall Issue of the Pennsylvania NOW Times

The Fall 2011 issue of the Pennsylvania NOW Times is now available online. The newsletter includes:

• The PA NOW PAC Voters' Guide for the November 8, 2011 General Election
• Legislative Updates for the 2011-2012 legislative session in the Pennsylvania General Assembly
• "We've Had Enough!" Information on the September 27 rally at the Capitol in Harrisburg opposing the legislators' attacks on women's reproductive health
• United We Rise - article on the upcoming October 1, 2011 PA NOW Convention and PAC fundraising in Bucks County. There is a discount on registering for the convention if you register by Friday August 26, 2011 (Women's Equality Day). 
• Proposed By-Laws Amendment
• My First National Conference - a first-hand report of the June 2011 National NOW conference in Tampa, FL by Michelle Weisen, member of Ni-Ta-Nee NOW.
• What Can We Do? - tidbits on what you can do for women's equality
• Chapter Exchange - information of actions and programs of some of the local NOW chapters across the state.

VOUCHERS ARE MOVING IN THE SENATE – WE NEED YOUR CALLS AND EMAILS TODAY

Please contact your own State Senator today urging them to vote NO on any school voucher bill and then contact as many of these critical Senators as time permits. The following Senators are especially critical as they may swing the vote:

Argal (717) 787-2637 dargall@pasen.gov
Greenleaf (717) 787-6599 sgreenleaf@pasen.gov
Gordner (717) 787-8928 jgordner@pasen.gov
Alloway (717) 787-4651 alloway@pasen.gov
Vogel (717) 787-3076 Evogel@pasen.gov
Ward (717) 787-6063 kward@pasen.gov 
Yaw (717) 787-3280 gyaw@pasen.gov
Vance (717) 787-8524 vance@pasen.gov
Baker (717) 787-7428 lbaker@pasen.gov
Boscola (717) 787-4236 boscola@pasenate.com
Stack (717) 787-9608 stack@pasenate.com

If your Senator isn't listed above, you can find his/her contact information at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator.

House Education Committee to Hold Hearing on School Vouchers This Wednesday and Thursday

I received an email this afternoon from Carol Karl, the Assistant Director of Government Affairs for PSEA.  She had just been notified that the House Education Committee is holding hearing tomorrow, June 22 and Thursday, June 23 on "Charter School Law and School Choice.”  By the latter, they mean tuition vouchers.  

The first hearing starts 9:00 AM tomorrow, Wednesday, and will be held in Room G50, Irving Office Building, Harrisburg.  The second hearing starts at 9:00 AM on Thursday and will be held in Room B31 Main Capitol, Harrisburg. The people testifying on Wednesday are primarily legislators and officials, with one charter school representative. The Committee is working on Thursday’s schedule, which is where our groups would fit in for testifying against school vouchers.

As many of the PA NOW leadership will either already be in Tampa, FL or on their way down there for the National NOW Conference, I sent an email out to the Republican leadership of the House and to the Republican members of the House Education Committee asking them to oppose any school voucher bill or amendment, including SB 1, which I've previously blogged about (see here and here and here).   Here's that email. 

You too can email, call, or fax these same legislators.  To help you do this, the Keystone State Education Coalition has created a list of these legislators' contact information.  Click here, find the your Representative and contact him/her.  If your Representative isn't listed here, the contact the Republican House leaders to express your opposition to school vouchers.  Representative Mike Turzai is the House Majority Leader and Representative Stan Saylor is House Floor Leader.

Dear Representatives Turzai, Saylor, Clymer, Tallman, Milne, Quiqley, Rapp, Cox, Emrick, Fleck,  Gillen, Murt, O'Neill, Rock, Simmons, and Truitt
On behalf of the approximately 14,000 contributors and dues-paying members, I am writing you to ask you to vote no on SB 1, the proposed School Vouchers bill when it comes up in the Education committee for review.  Here is why.
Two thirds of the public oppose school voucher that give tax-payer money to private and parochial schools. This bill removes funds for public education from struggling school districts by creating a voucher program to send taxpayer monies to private and parochial schools with little or no oversight as to the education provided in these schools.

Pennsylvania NOW opposes school vouchers for several reasons.

• School vouchers are clearly unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article III, Sections 15, 29, and 30 clearly prohibit state funding of non-public schools:
• Article III, Section 15 states, "Public school money not available to sectarian schools. No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school."
• Article III, Section 29 states, "Appropriations for public assistance. No appropriation shall be made for charitable, educational or benevolent purposes to any person or community nor to any denominational and sectarian institution, corporation or association…" The only exception to this constitutional prohibition is for state grants and scholarships for higher education.  
• Article III, Section 30 states, "Charitable and educational appropriations. No appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational institution not under the absolute control of the Commonwealth [emphasis added], other than normal schools established by law for the professional training of teachers for the public schools of the State, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each House."
• Schools accepting the vouchers can discriminate in whom they accept, which could possibly violate the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act. SB 1 specifies that nonpublic schools may not discriminate in its enrollment decisions based on race. All other forms of educational discrimination would be allowed as this bill provides wide flexibility to these schools regarding other admissions policies. Therefore, a non-public school could receive monies from the state while being able to deny admissions based on gender, religion or ability. Boys, but not girls could be accepted. Christian, but not students from a Jewish or Muslim home, could be accepted. In addition, children who do not have a disability or who are "gifted" would be admitted but children who have a physical, emotional, or cognitive disability could be denied admission under SB 1. Note, it is the private schools – not the parent or the public school – who determines who is admitted. Thus, a private school can select whomever they want and still take public funding. Likewise, these schools can kick out any student they want to at any time without any protective recourse as is present in the public school system.
• Voucher programs provide little to no accountability to Pennsylvania taxpayers. Private schools do not have to follow the Department of Education's academic guidelines and students are not required to take any of the state-mandated school assessment tests. As such, there is no way for parents to determine if their children would be receiving a similar quality of education.
• Vouchers do not improve academic achievement. The schools that are targeted in SB 1 are the "under-achieving" schools in the state. The vast majority (n=125) of the 144 school districts listed by Senator Piccola are urban school districts with high levels of poverty. Research has shown that out-of-school factors such as food insecurity; lack of access to health care and insurance; family relations and family stress; and the community environment all affect academic achievement. Students who are hungry have problems concentrating in school. Students in stressful family situations and/or who are victims of or witness abuse often develop social and emotional problems that manifest themselves in low academic achievement. School vouchers do nothing to ensure that these out-of-school factors will change or improve. Without changes to the environment surrounding people living in poverty, the negative impacts of poverty will simply follow the student and continue to undermine his or her achievement potential. School vouchers do not change this one iota. This failure of education provided through a voucher program can be seen in Milwaukee, WI.  The Milwaukee schools have been using school vouchers for 20 years and have spent $1 billion spent on these vouchers.  Last year, for the first time, voucher students were finally required to take the same state assessment as the public school students. The results for voucher students were dismal, especially in math at all grade levels.
• Children who remain in the public schools have less funding available for their education. In a tight economic environment and with a mandate to expand funding for vouchers from a minimum of $53.4 million in the first year to over $1.3 billion in the third year and thereafter, public school funding will be even further threatened. Where is this money going to come from? New taxes? This number assumes that ten percent of eligible students will use the vouchers. By pulling state funds away from the public school system and still requiring those schools to continue paying for the "in-kind" services of transportation and books, the struggling school districts will have even larger financial holes that they will need to dig out of. Robbing Peter to pay Paul – or in this case robbing public schools to pay for private, parochial education – will contribute to more, not less, problems in these school districts. Moreover, it will threaten the very existence of the right to full education for all as these schools continue to fall further and further behind.

We therefore strongly encourage you to oppose and vote NO on any school voucher bill or amendment that comes up before the Education Committee or that comes to the floor of the House.
Please respond and let us know how you will handle this issue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joanne L. Tosti-Vasey, Ph.D.
President
Pennsylvania NOW, Inc.
P.O. Box 68
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0068 

Please take a moment and contact the House Education Committee.  Add your voice to the people testifying on Thursday by calling, emailing, and or faxing the House Committee members and telling them to vote no on ALL School Voucher proposals, including SB 1.

Thank you.

Spring 2011 Pennsylvania NOW Times

The Pennsylvania NOW Times Spring 2011 issue is now available online. The newsletter includes:

• Our Voters' Guide
• Legislative Updates of the 2011-2012 legislative session in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
• What Are They Thinking!? - article about the legislative attacks on women, children and people of color.
• United We Rise - article on the upcoming October 1, 2011 PA NOW Convention in Bucks County.
• Proposed By-Laws Amendment
• What Can We Do? - tidbits on what you can do for women's equality
• Chapter Exchange

Update on SB 1 - the School Voucher Bill

I just received an email from PSEA (the PA State Education Association) - one of the lead organizations of the Pennsylvanians Opposed to School Vouchers coalition - regarding what happened with the school voucher bill today in the Pennsylvania Senate.  Here's the text of that email from Beth Zampogna, Assistant Director of Government Relations:

Update on SB 1 -

Thanks to all of you for your EXCELLENT work and outreach to Senators opposing Senate Bill 1. Collectively we have made significant progress [emphasis added]. As of this morning the Senate was scheduled to vote on SB 1 and we did not have the votes to defeat it. Throughout the day, based on all of your hard work, we got a LOT closer on the vote count and raised significant concerns about the bill, particularly among the Senate Republican caucus. Even after Governor Corbett himself appeared in the Senate Republican caucus pushing for support for vouchers, the decision by the caucus was to postpone the vote tonight and possibly tomorrow on SB 1. In fact, we have heard that they may not vote the bill at the earliest until the week of April 25 [emphasis added].

This is real progress but there’s a lot more work to be done. We must take advantage of this momentum - PLEASE CONTACT YOUR MEMBERS AND ADVOCATES and urge them to keep up the pressure. As of today, the following are the Senators we believe need to receive the most contact urging opposition to Senate Bill 1:


• Rich Alloway (R-Franklin, Adams)
• Mike Brubaker (R-Lancaster)
• Jane Earll (R-Erie)
• Bob Mensch (R-Montgomery)
• Mike Stack (D-Philadelphia)
• LeAnna Washington (D-Montgomery)
• Mary Jo White (R-Venango)
• Gene Yaw (R-Lycoming)

More updates and information to follow tomorrow as we continue to collect intelligence from across the street but for now just want to say thanks and congratulations on this accomplishment. Let’s keep up the hard work!

So please continue to call / email your Senator and tell him/her to vote NO on SB 1.  My earlier blog today gives more details including links to talking points and information on how to find out who you Senator is and how to contact him/her. 

Thanks for all you do!

School Voucher Bill Vote Expected as Early as Today

SB 1 came out of Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, April 11, as amended, by a vote of 15-11. The full Senate could take a vote on the bill as early as TODAY!-- with virtually no time to analyze and understand the amendment that went into the bill on Monday. And certainly no time to get input from the public. You can see what the amended bill looks like here.  The changes made in the amendment on Monday, April 11 are in capital letters. This amendment basically broadens the group of students who would be eligible to obtain vouchers to include "middle class" students instead of low-income students only.  This amenment would create an even greater burden on school districts and property taxes as monies for the school district are funnelled out of the public schools into the private and parochial schools.

THE BEST THING NOW IS TO CALL YOUR STATE AND ASKING THEM TO VOTE AGAINST SB 1 WHEN IT COMES UP FOR A VOTE. I know many of you have sent letters  or made calls to the full Senate.  You can find your Senator by zip code.  Once you find your Senator, link to his/her web page to find the phone number and email or web form.

And here's information to help you make that call:

• Pennsylvania NOW's statement opposing school vouchers.
• Talking Points on opposing school vouchers
• Impact of SB 1 on Property Taxes by County and School District
• Why school vouchers are unconstitutional

Additional information is also available at the Pennsylvanians Opposed to School Vouchers website.  Pennsylvania NOW is part of this coalition.

In case you don't have time to review this material before you call your Senator, here are some quick talking points:

1. School vouchers are clearly unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
2. Schools accepting the vouchers can discriminate in whom they accept, which could possibly violate the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act.
3. Voucher programs provide little to no accountability to Pennsylvania taxpayers.
4. Vouchers do not improve academic achievement.
5. Children who remain in the public schools have less funding available for their education.

Thank you for taking action today!

Guest Blog: PA NAACP Speaks Out Against School Voucher Bill

This afternoon, Representative Mike Sturla (D), Chairman of the House Democratic Policy Committee, held a hearing on SB 1, the bill creating school vouchers in Pennsylvania. While the bill is still in the Senate, the House is starting to look at the impact of this bill on public education in Pennsylvania. Thus the hearing today. One of the speakers at this hearing in Philadelphia was Dr. Joan Duvall-Flynn, the Chair of the Education Committee for the Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP. The NAACP, as I stated in yesterday’s blog, also opposes school vouchers. I asked Dr. Duvall-Flynn if I could post her testimony on the PA NOW blog; she agreed. PA NOW gives a shout out to her well-rounded and thoughtful presentation on the problems of creating a school voucher program in Pennsylvania.
______________________________________________________

 

Pennsylvania State Conference of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

TESTIMONY BEFORE

THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 22, 2011

Background:

 

The PA State Conference of NAACP Branches appreciates this opportunity to submit remarks to the House Democratic Policy Committee today as we focus on education. It is good for the citizens of the Commonwealth to have this rigorous discussion on “Opportunity Grants” as we call the current vouchers proposal presented in Senate Bill 1 . In truth, this proposed legislation presents us with an important opportunity to reaffirm the fundamental need for universal public education, to evaluate the condition of that system, and to diagnose its needs.

 

The traditional public school classroom has, since its inception, been the most effective approach to equip the nation’s young for their futures as well to prepare citizens for the overall welfare of our society. It is a place in our society organized with the intent that persons from all cultures and conditions will share time and space with a common purpose; and where children learn to accept and trust others who may differ from them by condition, by ethnicity, or by social standing.

 

It is in the traditional public school classroom, under the oversight and protection of the State, that the human capacity of our young is best developed to the benefit of a democratic, nonsectarian society.

 

Currently, state assessment outcomes demonstrate that a number of school districts across the Commonwealth are struggling. We know that these strains have led to this hearing today to discuss policy around using public money to pay tuitions to private and to sectarian schools so that some children may be evacuated from a number of traditional public schools that today are in travail.

 

In truth, what brings us here today are the deeply rooted inequalities and injustices that exist in the public educational system of Pennsylvania and the policy decisions that give birth to those inequities. That is why, from the perspective of the PA NAACP, this current drive to legislate tuition vouchers is a timely and beneficial event. The push for Senate Bill 1 in the Pennsylvania State Assembly of 2011 makes the inequities in education in Pennsylvania clearly visible and easily understandable and brings them to the table for discussion.

 

Our specific reactions to this proposed legislation are in the Addendum. We wish to use this public forum to first address the needs of children that are being used to drive the legislation; then to cite our reactions to specific sections of SB 1 seriatim if time allows. We will post this testimony on the PA NAACP State Conference web site for those who wish a copy.

 

The Problem:

 

Many stakeholders find it very difficult to acknowledge, to face, and to address the race and socio-economic status inequities within our public schools here in the Pennsylvania. As is made apparent by the introduction of Senate Bill 1, it is much easier to devise escape routes for the children whose parents have the financial means or the political sophistication or support of state policy to abandon troubled schools than it is to correct the inequities that prevail.

 

Senate Bill 1, in its proposal for tuition vouchers, is an attempt to create an additional evacuation strategy from universal public education and seeks to do so under the obfuscation that forcing the general population to pay for private school education for a select group is a civil rights issue. It allows for and supports the denial that democracy demands our continuous care, concern, attention and commitment.

 

Government is instituted for the equal protection and benefit of all. Thomas Jefferson, as he proposed our current system, believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society (Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806).

 

If the General Assembly believes the condition of the public education system has reached such a state of crisis that it must rescue children from schools because they are in physical danger and because they cannot be educated, then it is not only wrong governmental policy to deny the children who would be left behind in those same schools equal protection of the law; while at the same time, under cover of law, relegating them to permanent second class citizenship; but it is also immoral, reprehensible, and illegal.

 

For that reason, there is an essential question that must drive policy in the Pennsylvania State Assembly.

 

Is the solution to the obvious inequities and injustices in the universal public education system of Pennsylvania to ration out chances to vacate the traditional public school classroom; or should the legislature move forward to solutions that yield more equity and justice within the system where most of Pennsylvania’s children go to be educated?

 

We are all aware of the enormous injections of money into the war against universal public education. The billions of tax payer dollars budgeted to fund the public system has been sufficient motivation to drive this campaign. Not only in Pennsylvania, but across the nation, achievement data derived from State Assessment Systems has been used to make the case that “public education is ‘failing’ ” and that it needs to be dismantled and that education needs to be put into private hands.

 

In some points of view, traditional public school teachers have been demonized. Nine out of ten of these teachers are women of varying ages. They are mostly white and middle class. Many of them are single heads of household. They joined the profession to help children learn and grow. Yet, the propaganda would have us believe that these daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts and friends arise daily and in hordes, go into schools to ignore their obligations; thus causing students to not score as proficient or advanced on state assessments. However, it goes unmentioned that those who teach at a Charter School or a private school for lower pay, few if any benefits, and no job protections are just as likely to see the same results on student assessments as do teachers in traditional public schools.

 

In some points of view, unions have been demonized and used as scapegoats. Unions do not hire teachers. They do not supervise teachers. They do not evaluate teachers. School district administrators and supervisors are responsible for these functions. Unions can not circumvent the agreements negotiated with and sanctioned by the school boards elected by tax payers and to whom tax payers have open access. Yet the propaganda would have us believe that unions are the reason many students are not scoring as proficient or advanced on state assessments.

 

The propaganda machine has demonstrated its tactics at their best while in general, the masses have no voice. The push is to privatize education, lift it from the protective hands of the state, dismantle collective bargaining units, and allow market systems to drive improvement. However, factually, loud and demanding voices notwithstanding, there is no evidence to substantiate the fallacy that market place competition improves educational outcomes.

 

In the United States we have learned some hard lessons about free markets. History has taught us the dangers of ferocious greed and how the market place will consume, abuse and devourer any commercial target. That is why we have protective agencies to watch over our foods and medicines. That is why a number of Charter Schools are under investigation even today. That is why we know to not turn our children into commodities for competition and purchase – even to great benefactors – who may be looking for their next software market.

 

You may have noticed that none of the noisome and frantic manipulations designed to access the state coffers and make profit off children as a commodity have addressed honestly the basic question of why some of our children are not learning well in school. As well, there is nothing in SB1, the vouchers proposal, that attempts to identify or correct the conditions that actually burden our children in the classrooms of Pennsylvania’s traditional public schools.

 

The task of the statesman, at its best, is to find the right balance for the benefit of all the people: to inform, to educate, to advocate. The issue of “choice” is not the civil rights issue here. Parents are not entitled to a check from the state with which to go shopping for their personal preferences.

 

The General Assembly has the responsibility to provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education.

 

The notion of a thorough education has been structured in the United States through normative boundaries since the 1700s and has consistently provided for instruction in language arts, mathematics, science and social studies as a core curriculum. To that, based on the changes in and needs of society, are added enhancements. Hence the State Board of Education periodically sets and reviews a scope and sequence of instruction that identifies what students in the public schools of Pennsylvania should know and be able to do in their areas of study at given levels in preparation to meet their own goals and for the general benefit of society. Thus the state insures a thorough education.

 

It is in the term efficient that we meet the challenge faced here today and in Senate Bill 1. If we mean the satisfactory and economical use of tax payer dollars; or even if we mean performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; then the PA NAACP holds that the vouchers sections of SB1 fail on both connotations as demonstrated in the Addendum.

 

PA NAACP: Theory

 

The right to an education belongs to the student. This is the civil rights issue involved in our present discussion. In Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District in 1998 the Court asserts that children are not entitled to the best education that money can buy; they are only entitled to an appropriate education.

 

In Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Court asserts that: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

 

The free public education available to many students in Pennsylvania today is not “appropriate”, nor is it available to all on equal terms. It is clear that unless the traditional system of universal public education is stabilized in Pennsylvania, more and more children will be separated from the promise of America and left to live in ignorance, in poverty and with disease.

 

The improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures embedded in No Child Left Behind policy was intended to get schools back on track to meet State standards, not to dismantle universal public education (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002). In the same spirit, the intent of the policy of the Pennsylvania State Assembly must be to address the inequities and injustices in the universal public education system and to correct them in such a way as to get schools back on track.

 

The Necessary Action:

 

It is simply just not possible to inequitably distribute teacher quality and track students into or out of programs, like AP or special education, and reasonably expect to achieve equity in achievement or even to achieve progress toward equitable achievement, as is now required in all states (Skria, L. et. al. 2004).

 

There are causal variables that result in inequity and injustice in Pennsylvania classrooms.

 

Variable: Teacher Quality Equity

•   Teacher education-level of degree – Student testimony @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU2BjzzbDpk
• Teacher experience – years in service - – Student testimony @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU2BjzzbDpk
• Teacher mobility – number leaving or not leaving each year
• Teachers assigned outside the field of expertise

Variable: Programmatic Equity

• Special education
• Gifted and talented education
• ELL education
• Student discipline – Student testimony @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU2BjzzbDpk

Variable: Achievement Equity

• High school completion - student testimony @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_eBoKUdeok&feature=related
• Completion of college-pre curriculum
• Higher level assessments: SAT, ACT and Advanced Placement exams

(Skria, L. et. al. (February 2004))

 

There are policies and processes that can address these variables that result in inequity and injustice in Pennsylvania classrooms and which will improve student outcomes.

 

PA NAACP refers the House Democratic Policy Committee to The Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches Agenda for Education in Pennsylvania (2010). The following list summarizes that agenda.

 

1. The state must support, through regulation and through funding, strong early childhood education and equity in the provision of instruction, instructional supports and resources.
2. Language proficiency evaluations must be performed for all students when they enter a school district, restrictive barriers must be removed from access to vocational education programs, and alternative forms of entrance assessments for accelerated and gifted classes must be available for students seeking access to such programs.
3. Expanded school services that provide education advocates, mentors, service-learning projects, on-site access to health care and on-site access to mental health professionals must be available where needed and adequately staffed and funded.
4. The social isolation of Pennsylvania’s children must not be perpetuated by law. Consistent with Title VI, Local Education Agencies should not increase school based poverty concentration and racial isolation; nor should state or federal funds be used to create new racially concentrated or high poverty schools.
5. The eradication of economic inequality is a human rights issue. Withholding the high school diploma from students who have satisfactorily completed a school district course of study exacerbates this inequality. Regulations requiring the withholding of the high school diploma from students who have satisfactorily completed a school district’s course of study must be repealed.
6. All local education agencies receiving public funds must review discipline records to assess for racial disparities in discipline. Mandated zero tolerance policies must end. Harsh, denigrating language must be removed from legislation concerning the education of children (Flynn, J. (2010)).
7. Beyond monitoring test scores to measure for AYP or to evaluate improvement in pupil learning:  

• Charter schools must be monitored for and assessed on contributions to the field through innovations that are shared with other public schools, and which improve professional practice,
• Charter schools must be monitored for and assessed on the development of new professional opportunities for teachers,
• Charter schools must be monitored for and assessed on contributions to the variety of educational programs available in the public system,
• Charter schools must be monitored for and assessed on contributions to the field in the way of innovative and replicable improvements to the accountability systems,
• Charter schools must be monitored for and assessed on a quantitative atmosphere of flexibility and innovativeness that supersedes that of non-charter, district schools, and
• Charter schools must be monitored for and assessed on compliance with all laws governing diversity of population.

Not only does PA NAACP call for policy that addresses the inequities and injustices that impact student performance on accountability tests, our young people are crying out for help. For example, Tamara Anderson writing for Examiner.com recently posted the extract below:

 

Homelessness, aging out of foster care and teen pregnancy are very seldom mentioned when discussions and debates arise about the state of public education. Community organizations and school districts need to work together and create grassroots community based schools. Places that provide medical support, mental health providers, and active partnerships with local businesses for job readiness or professional certificates. http://www.examiner.com/education-in-philadelphia/homelessness-teen-pregnancy-and-foster-care#ixzz1EdGRqiyF.

 

As well, there are student organizations such as Youth United for Change who have published statistics concerning the drop out crisis and the chaos caused by Zero Tolerance policies. These young people have taken to YouTube with their pleas for help.

 

SB1 does not address the pressing issues facing education in Pennsylvania today. Pennsylvanians need comprehensive reforms that address the actual needs and conditions of our rural and urban regions. We need reforms based on proven strategies such as the Equity Audits demonstrated in the article by Skria et. al and listed in our references. We need reforms such as called for in the PA NAACP Agenda and listed above.

PA NAACP’s specific concerns with Senate Bill one are attached. Thank you for this opportunity.

 

--------------------------------------------

PA NAACP TESTIMONY BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON POLICY 

FEBRUARY 22, 2011

ADDENDUM

 

PA NAACP Concerns with Senate Bill 1 as Statute

SB1 seeks a solution to the struggles of students as they attempt to meet state assessment system measures for proficiency or advanced proficiency. The legislative solution put forth in SB 1 is to create an evacuation strategy for students as opposed to meeting the legislative obligation to create a thorough education and efficient system of education.

In instances when it has spoken on the issue, the Court has found that it is the civil right of each child to have a “free and appropriate public education” The intention of the Court was to guarantee that each child have access to education which is free, which is appropriate for the child, and which is public. While specifically focused on special education, the decision provides a rational framework from which we can draw reasonable assumptions about what we should provide all children.

PA NAACP is concerned that Sections 2503 B; 2504 B, 2505 B, 2506 B, 2507 B and 2508 B are designed with intentions that do not meet the FAPE standard of “free” or “public”, and which potentially will not create access to programs which are “appropriate”.

The PA Constitution, Article 3, Section 14. Public School System

The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.

Section 2506 B: Amount of Opportunity Scholarship - This section presents questions of efficiency in that –

1. It decreases the resident school district funds while the local district cost of operation will remain the same
2. It creates a fund in the State Treasury to pay the cost of a superfluous bureaucracy
3. It fails to create a substantive formula upon which to base an appropriation amount for 2011 and leaves grants open to potentially 500,000 applications for poor children prekindergarten and up
4. Section d 2 negates the practicality of the Opportunity Grant in that it pro rates reductions in the grant amount based on the number of applicants
5. Section f 1, and 2 presupposes that the schools from which Opportunity Grant recipients have fled will not improve –

There is no road back for tax payer funds.

 

As well, Section 2506 B potentially denies equal opportunities to many receiving schools in that it creates “preference” toward non-public schools that have the resources to provide financial assistance to students.

 

Section 2507 B: This section creates questions of efficiency in that:

 

1. It creates an inefficient payment process with an outdated payment and reimbursement system using checks and mail postage costs; neither of which is necessary and a burden on the public coffers and which creates the possibility for loss of public funds.
2. It creates an unfunded and costly mandate on already financially overburdened school districts by demanding the creation of forms and notification mailings.
3. It fails to address the multiple language translation needs of parents in district most immediately and directly effected by the legislation and who meet the eligibility guidelines.

As well, 2507 c and d create an impenetrable system that appears to result in taxation without access to representation.

 

Section 2508 B: This section creates a question of efficiency in that:

 

It further weakens the local school district by removing necessary funds.

 

Section 2509 B: This section creates a question of efficiency in that:

 

The general practice for research is to pilot major programs on a limited basis to evaluate their effectiveness, to decide on their practicality, and to make internal adjustments prior to disrupting major systems. Given the 500,000 reported children who live in poverty in Pennsylvania, passage of SB 1 could cost taxpayers billions of dollars, including the cost of the study suggested by this section, and yet prove to be impractical and unsustainable.

 

Section 2512 B: This section creates concerns in its possible impact on the question of a thorough education in that:

 

It creates a mechanism for districts to deport difficult students into alternative environments, which may not have programs that meet their needs or be to the best advantage of society.

 

Section 2522 B: This section creates questions of efficiency in that:

 

Scholarship organizations are not asked to report their total income or identify their affiliations or their mission.

 

Section 2525 B: This section creates policy that may have a disparate impact on universal public education. By the way it has proportioned tax credits, it shows preference through tax credits for organizations that fund scholarships and bias against organizations that fund educational improvement organizations.

 

Testimony and Research from PA State Conference of NAACP Branches

Joan Duvall-Flynn: State Education Committee

 

and 

J. Whyatt Mondesire

President: PA State Conference of NAACP Branches

 

References

 

Anderson, Tamara, http://www.examiner.com/education-in-philadelphia/homelessness-teen-pregnancy-and-foster-care#ixzz1EdGRqiyF.

 

Civil Rights: Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html.

 

Flynn, Joan D. (2011). The Pennsylvania State Conference of NAACP Branches Agenda for Education in Pennsylvania. http://www.pastatenaacp.org/.

 

Jefferson, Thomas (1806). 6th Annual Message.


Skria, Linda; Scheurich, James J.;Garcia, Juanita; Nolly, Glenn. (February, 2004).  Education Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1. “Equity Audits: A Practical Leadership Tool for Developing Equitable and Excellent Schools."

 

Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District (1998).

 

Pennsylvania NOW Opposes SB 1: the State’s Proposed School Voucher Funding Program

Political parties in power often reserve the lower bill numbers in the General Assembly (and Congress) for bills that they feel are of high critical importance. So when the state Senate gave the number 1 to a school voucher bill, warning flags were immediately raised. On January 26, 2011, Senators Jeff Piccola (R-Dauphin and York counties) and Anthony Hardy Williams (D-Delaware and Philadelphia counties) along with 15 co-sponsors introduced SB 1, which has been titled the "Opportunity Scholarships and Educational Improvement Tax Credit Act." It was referred to the Senate Education Committee and they held the first hearing on February 16, 2011.
This title is a misnomer. Proponents of this bill are using words like "school choice" and "opportunity scholarship" rather than "voucher" because it puts a positive spin on what two thirds of the public oppose – giving tax-payer money to private and parochial schools. This bill removes funds for public education from struggling school districts by creating a voucher program to send taxpayer monies to private and parochial schools with little or no oversight as to the education provided in these schools.
Pennsylvania NOW opposes school vouchers for several reasons.

• School vouchers are clearly unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article III, Sections 15, 29, and 30 clearly prohibit state funding of non-public schools:
• Article III, Section 15 states, "Public school money not available to sectarian schools. No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school."
• Article III, Section 29 states, "Appropriations for public assistance. No appropriation shall be made for charitable, educational or benevolent purposes to any person or community nor to any denominational and sectarian institution, corporation or association…" The only exception to this constitutional prohibition is for state grants and scholarships for higher education.  
• Article III, Section 30 states, "Charitable and educational appropriations. No appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational institution not under the absolute control of the Commonwealth [emphasis added], other than normal schools established by law for the professional training of teachers for the public schools of the State, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each House."
• Schools accepting the vouchers can discriminate in whom they accept, which could possibly violate the Pennsylvania Fair Educational Opportunities Act. SB 1 specifies that nonpublic schools may not discriminate in its enrollment decisions based on race. All other forms of educational discrimination would be allowed as this bill provides wide flexibility to these schools regarding other admissions policies. Therefore, a non-public school could receive monies from the state while being able to deny admissions based on gender, religion or ability. Boys, but not girls could be accepted. Christian, but not students from a Jewish or Muslim home, could be accepted. In addition, children who do not have a disability or who are "gifted" would be admitted but children who have a physical, emotional, or cognitive disability could legally be denied admission under SB 1. Note, it is the private schools – not the parent or the public school – who determines who is admitted. Thus, a private school can select whomever they want and still take public funding. Likewise, these schools can kick out any student they want to at any time without any protective recourse as is present in the public school system.
• Voucher programs provide little to no accountability to Pennsylvania taxpayers. Private schools do not have to follow the Department of Education's academic guidelines and students are not required to take any of the state-mandated school assessment tests. As such, there is no way for parents to determine if their children would be receiving a similar quality of education.
• Vouchers do not improve academic achievement. The schools that are targeted in SB 1 are the "under-achieving" schools in the state. The vast majority (n=125) of the 144 school districts listed by Senator Piccola are urban school districts with high levels of poverty. Research has shown that out-of-school factors such as food insecurity; lack of access to health care and insurance; family relations and family stress; and the community environment all affect academic achievement. Students who are hungry have problems concentrating in school. Students in stressful family situations and/or who are victims of or witness abuse often develop social and emotional problems that manifest themselves in low academic achievement. School vouchers do nothing to ensure that these out-of-school factors will change or improve. Without changes to the environment surrounding people living in poverty, the negative impacts of poverty will simply follow the student and continue to undermine his or her achievement potential. School vouchers do not change this one iota.
• Children who remain in the public schools have less funding available for their education. In a tight economic environment and with a mandate to expand funding for vouchers from a minimum of $53.4 million in the first year to over $1.3 billion in the third year and thereafter, public school funding will be even further threatened. Where is this money going to come from? New taxes? This number assumes that ten percent of eligible students will use the vouchers. By pulling state funds away from the public school system and still requiring those schools to continue paying for the "in-kind" services of transportation and books, the struggling school districts will have even larger financial holes that they will need to dig out of. Robbing Peter to pay Paul – or in this case robbing public schools to pay for private, parochial education – will contribute to more, not less, problems in these school districts. Moreover, it will threaten the very existence of the right to full education for all as these schools continue to fall further and further behind.

With the hearing on SB 1 now over, the Senate Education Committee will schedule another meeting to move the bill out of committee. If the Education Committee approves the bill, it will be considered by the full Senate and, if passed, move to the House of Representatives for review.
Pennsylvania NOW is joining Americans United, the Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA), the Pennsylvania NAACP, and other organizations to oppose SB 1 and school vouchers. We are all asking you to contact your legislators now to voice concerns with SB 1 and ask them to vote "No" on the bill. You can find your legislators contact information at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator. The PSBA has created a list of questions to ask your legislator. You can use this list for some of your talking points when you contact your Senator and Representative in opposing this dangerous bill.
Thank you!