ShareThis Page
Lenny McAllister: ‘Children’s Fund’ advocates should focus on choice |
Featured Commentary

Lenny McAllister: ‘Children’s Fund’ advocates should focus on choice

The people of Allegheny County care deeply about the next generation. Just look how many locals canvassed for the recent ballot measure to establish an $18 million Children’s Fund for pre-K, after-school programs and nutritious meals.

I learned about this measure when my son’s friend asked me to sign a petition to get the measure on the November ballot. Like many non-homeowners, the young man simply viewed his vote and support as helping underprivileged kids get a better education.

But when we read the full details, we discovered that the Children’s Fund relied exclusively on increasing property taxes to form an unaccountable bureaucracy.

I explained how similar tax hikes have caused an exodus of Allegheny County residents to Fayette and Butler counties over the years. When taxpayers and homeowners flee Pittsburgh’s suburbs, and renters start outnumbering owners, it’s not just city revenues that suffer. Public safety and school quality also plummet, as in Penn Hills and Wilkinsburg.

The young man collecting signatures was sharp enough to recognize that raising taxes on homeowners to fund a new layer of bureaucracy is a self-defeating way to improve schools for the poor. He resolved not to collect another signature. I was pleased to note that many Allegheny County voters were just as sharp. On Election Day, the measure was defeated , albeit by a slim 17,000-vote margin of 3 percent .

Multimillion-dollar expenditures must be approached responsibly, and even tax-and-spend proponents like SEIU and Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers voiced concerns about transparency. Meanwhile, homeowners rightly complained about unfair exploitation.

We can do better. Pennsylvania already has solutions to improve educational outcomes with proven results — while saving taxpayers money.

It’s called school choice. We’ve been benefitting from it for nearly two decades.

Our state’s tax credit scholarship programs, for example, allow businesses to give back to the local community. These tax-deductible
scholarships enable thousands of children to attend schools that fit their needs better than the public school dictated by their ZIP codes. The result is improved assessment outcomes and a savings of over 85 percent of education costs, amounting to more than $1.7 billion in savings from 2002-14.

Unfortunately, the Wolf administration favors more spending, and higher taxes, over choice. The governor even made funding for these scholarships a bargaining chip in his 2015 budget stalemate — despite the programs’ immense popularity.

Last year, nearly 53,000 student applications were denied due to program limits. We should be beating the drums to raise the limits on these proven solutions, not seeking higher taxes to fund more bureaucracy.

The Klein family of Erie affirms the life-changing impact of school choice. Their only public school option was a “Focus School” — officially marked as an institution in crisis. But Bailey, the oldest of three boys, received a tax credit scholarship from Junior Achievement, which his mom, Amy, describes as “the key to his success.” He now attends Penn State’s Honors Program on a full ride, making the Dean’s List every semester.

Imagine where Bailey would be without school choice. “I would have jumped through flaming hoops to give my sons these opportunities,” says Amy. “It’s a shame to hear politics threatens this program each year.”

Let’s shift the paradigm away from expanding bureaucracies and toward student-based education funding. That will truly accomplish the goals Children’s Fund advocates espouse.

Lenny McAllister is director
of entrepreneur engagement
for Western Pennsylvania for the Commonwealth Foundation.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.