In the past, we had
insurance companies that wanted to participate but couldn't, because they pay
insurance premium taxes instead of corporate income taxes. So
that's
why we wanted to expand the eligibility to that particular tax.

Regarding broadening
children's participation in the
program, our desire is very simple. We want economically disadvantaged children
to have every possible education tool available to them and for the parents to
be able to choose the school that works best, regardless of who runs
it. We won't rest until every
low-income family has that right. Most low-income parents are very satisfied
with their assigned public school, because most public schools do a great job
against great odds. But there are always going to be
some children who need a different learning environment in order to thrive.

I really
had no preconceived notions as to how it would work. I just had a desire to help
low-income families have more educational options. Now, after being in the
parental choice movement for over 10 years, I have a much better understanding
of the role the program can play. This program is not a silver bullet to solve
our challenges in K-12 public education. It is a crucial element of K-12 reform,
but only one element. Many public school districts have done a great job
creating more options for low-income children. I am very encouraged when I see
what's being done in places like Dade, Hillsborough and Okaloosa. There you see
excellent charters, magnets and career academies – and innovative partnerships
with private entities like Embry Riddle University. However, some low-income
children only thrive in school environments that can be accessed with the Tax
Credit Scholarship. To ensure genuine equal opportunity, these schools must be a
part of the mix.

As you
have reported, the program was passed in 2001 with the support of only one
Democrat in the Legislature. This year, 43 percent of all Democrats voted for
the bill. As significant, a majority of the Legislative Black Caucus and 100
percent of the Hispanic Caucus voted yes. This is simply the natural order of
things. All of the families who have or want the program are low income. Forty
percent are African-American, and 25 percent Hispanic. The average income is
$25,000 for a family of four. We've never done it, but I'm sure if we polled
them, they would be overwhelmingly Democrat voters. So it was politically
untenable in the long term for Democrats representing these families to oppose
something their constituents desperately wanted. It just took time to connect
these parents with their elected Representatives and Senators. Once these
legislators heard from these parents and understood how much the program was
helping their children, the support grew quickly.

By state
law, children on the program are required each year to take either the FCAT or a
nationally recognized standardized test approved by the DOE. Last year,
two-thirds of them took the Stanford 10. Those scores must be reported to the
University of Florida, which is under DOE contract to analyze the learning gains
of the children in the program. We should have the first report on the gains out
shortly. This will enable legislators and the taxpayers to see if we are getting
our money's worth on the program overall.

Our
organization is very interested in parents having enough information to make not
just choices, but the right choices for their children. We are interested in
exploring ways to help them do that with private schools. The parental choice
movement is wrestling with the details of how to do that right now.

We want
every low-income parent in Florida to have the ability to choose the best school
for his or her children, just like other parents with greater means already do.
We don't care where they choose to send them – if they all chose their local
public school because that was the best place, we would be thrilled. We just
want all of them to have the power to choose, which is why we're working to make
sure scholarships are available to all low-income families that need them.

The
benefit of more empowered parents is obvious: you will have better outcomes for
children. Every child is different. The key to each one succeeding is finding
the right learning environment. K-12 public education is changing rapidly, and
we can't stop that change. It is becoming more and more customized. You already
have children taking some classes at their assigned public school, some through
the Florida Virtual School, and some dual enrolled at a community college. You
have them trying out magnet programs or career academies or charter schools.
That's the future, and we don't want low-income parents left behind. We're
committed to helping public education fulfill the promise of equal opportunity.

There
are no pitfalls to more customization and parental empowerment. And what we are
finding is that the more people understand our goals and see how they work for
low-income families, the easier our political struggle becomes.

The
accountability bill championed by Senator King and passed in 2006 eliminated the
possibilities for most of the abuses that took place. The fiscal accountability
requirements of scholarship organizations is incredibly demanding and
well-designed. I think that's why you only see three active non-profits running
the program. We are exploring how to do more regarding the fiscal accountability
of schools serving children in the program.

Our
advice is that you must make the support for choice programs bipartisan. It's
hard work because of the political dynamics, but Florida shows that it can be
done. The idea actually had its first political champions in the Democratic
party. Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern both embraced tuition tax credit
programs when they ran for president. Today we are seeing great progress in
bipartisan support across the country. There are efforts to create a tax credit
scholarship in New Jersey, Maryland and New Mexico that are all led by
Democrats. It's becoming harder and harder for legislators to deny low-income
parents this basic right.

It will
help, and I know he already has been a tremendous source of inspiration to many
of the children on our program. I had great hope, because regarding
education he says “we have to use what works, regardless of ideology.”
Unfortunately, he did not lift a finger when Congress voted to eliminate the DC
scholarship program. That program is helping 1,700 poor kids, 95% of whom are
African-American. A federal study just showed that the kids in that program are
already ahead of their peers in reading. It's clearly working, and the President
should call upon Congress to save it. The President and the First Lady chose to
put their children in a private school. There are children at that school
attending on the scholarship program who will be kicked out. I could not imagine
a starker moral lesson for the country.

The
President could be like Nixon going to China. He should simply say, "I want poor
DC parents to have the same empowerment I have. Congress, fix this.” And it
would be done. Hopefully he will. Even if he doesn't, I think it's a teachable
moment for the country.