Cascade’s School Choice Beginnings

NSCW e1327089136901 Cascade’s School Choice BeginningsJanuary 22-28 is National School Choice Week

Why is school choice such an important part of Cascade Policy Institute’s agenda? Partially, because it is the issue that got us started back in 1991.

In 1990 a small group, including myself, got together and placed a citizen initiative on Oregon’s ballot. Measure 11 would have provided refundable tax credits to every K-12 student in the state, which they could use to attend any public, private, religious, or home school of their choice. No state had ever voted on such a sweeping reform before, and we felt it was time for Oregon to lead the way.

We gathered over 130,000 signatures to place our measure on the ballot, more than any other measure that year. We raised over $500,000 from Oregonians and donors around the country to get the school choice message out in our state.

But on election night that November, we came up short. We only earned about one-third of the vote for our school choice measure. That didn’t surprise us, because through polling we realized that school choice was a new concept to most people, and it was easy for our opponents to scare voters into saying No.

Before the votes had even been tallied, we began thinking about how we could move our school choice agenda forward in the future. We decided that Oregon needed a free-market think tank to advocate for school choice as well as other limited government ideas. That’s why, barely two months after Measure 11 lost at the polls, we incorporated Cascade Policy Institute in January 1991.

In the 21 years that have now passed, we have made some significant progress on the school choice front. We worked hard to introduce the charter school concept in the state in the mid-1990s. By 1999 the Oregon legislature passed, and in his first administration Governor Kitzhaber signed, a charter school bill that has now resulted in more than 100 public charter schools operating in the state.

Also in 1999 we evolved from just talking about school choice to actually providing choice to hundreds of low-income kids in the Portland area through our Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland program. We initially raised $1 million of private money that was matched by $1 million nationally to provide partial scholarships to over 500 kids for four years at the schools of their choice. The fact that over 6,600 kids applied for those 500 slots demonstrated that the demand for school choice is great in Oregon. We can’t help them all, so we continue to advocate for broader programs that will.

In 2011 Governor Kitzhaber 2.0 signed three school choice bills as part of an education reform package, including expansion of online charter schools, more options to sponsor new charter schools, and open enrollment between public school districts.

We will continue bringing national speakers to the state, talking about the benefits of school choice elsewhere. And we will continue to bring realistic school choice funding proposals to the legislature in the hope that soon a majority of both houses will agree that we can’t wait any longer to provide real school choice for most Oregon children.

Cascade won’t stop advocating for school choice until every student in the state has the real choices they deserve. We appreciate the help of everyone who shares our vision of a freer, better education system in Oregon. It can’t come too soon.


Steve Buckstein was an organizer of Oregonians for School Choice, which placed a school choice measure on Oregon’s 1990 General Election ballot. He went on to help found Cascade Policy Institute in January 1991, serving as its first President. He is currently its Senior Policy Analyst.

tt twitter big4 Cascade’s School Choice Beginnings tt digg big4 Cascade’s School Choice Beginnings tt facebook big4 Cascade’s School Choice Beginnings tt reddit big4 Cascade’s School Choice Beginnings

Posted by at 04:30 | Posted in Education, Federal Budget, Food Stamps, Gov. Kitzhaber, Government Regulation, Individual Responsiblity, Initiative & Referendum, Leadership, Local Taxes, Measure 11, Oregon Government, Portland Politics, Portland Schools | Tagged , , , , , , , | 18 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    School choice will also bring very important secondary benefits in that:  (1) it has the potential of softening the dominance of the public teachers and other school employee unions’ dominance over state and local governance; (2) it will take away from the use by government of education to brainwash children and raise a generation of pro-(intrusive) government minded people, over trusting of government power and underlying intent.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I’ve never really understood on what honorable basis someone could be against school choice. To be against school choice has a discordant ring to it like being against health, or against food. Yes, I can understand union opposition, unions are anti competative by their very nature. Right now schools are run as jobs programs first, institutions of learning second. We need to reverse that. A school district with lots of teachers, but not a lot of learning, is a powerfull political force. Imagine if that were reversed? Imagine if schools were a powerfull force not because of the number of union members, but because of the actual quality of education delivered?

    It’s an almost impossible concept to grasp. Poor schools but giant teachers unions are a political force all are familier with. The idea of the teachers in an area being a political force because they had massive respect since all the kids started graduating and going to Harvard is almost impossible to imagine.

  • DrPhil

    Remember this. Libs only favor choice when it involves killing an unborn or partially born baby. School choice is another matter – they hate it because it works to improve education every time it is tried. Every time.

  • Dorothy

    We already have school choice in Oregon. You can send your child to public school, private school or you can homeschool. Why would we want government to get involved in private schools and homeschools by funding them? Have you ever known the government to get involved in anything without strings attached?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      This is actually a really good point and one that concerns me regarding school vouchers.

      Think it cant happen? Guess again. At the very least I would see major efforts to force union dues from home and private school educators.

      A tax credit for home or private schooling would accomplish some of this with less possibility of government meddling. The bad thing about doing a tax credit is it does do much for low income people.

      The risk of government funding, say in voucher form, is that government could wrek the same havok on our two preeminant, and least expensive, forms of education, home and private schooling.

      The upside is it opens these venues to lower income people.

      The risk of destroying private and home schooling balanced with the upside of making these better alternatives available to more of our society is what has to be weighed.

      On a funny note, it would be hilarious to see someone on the left go into a conniption if you said “you oppose vouchers. you hate poor people! why do you hate poor people?”

    • Steve Buckstein

      As Rupert discusses below, Dorothy, you do raise a good point. Vouchers would likely be found to violate the Oregon Constitution (although not the federal) while tax credits are likely OK in Oregon. Keeping your own money to spend on the school of your choice (or letting others direct their tax credit savings to you) is a safer approach with less risk of government strings attached to private schools.

      • None

        What you’re really talking about isn’t “school choice”, it’s “government paying for private as well as public schools.” 

        Government should NOT be in the business of paying for private schools that are free to indoctrinate students on various religions.

        • Steve Buckstein

          Again, the US Supreme Court has ruled that as long as it’s the parents, not the state, choosing to spend the money at any specific private school that the separation of church and state is not violated. 

          Indoctrination is not limited to private or religious schools. Some parents prefer that the state not indoctrinate their children in public schools either.

    • DrPhil

      An ignorant comment to be sure. Your money only goes to the public schoosl, so that is not choice by any definition. Think about it.

  • Gcoe

    Congratulations Steve and your persistant team at Cascade Policy Institude.
    School choice is one step in working towards improving the graduation rate from 76%. With 25% of high school students in Oregon not graduating, it adversely effects thier ability to find a meaningful job, and it starves the business community of an educated work force. Education reform must continue.

  • Anonymous

    School choice is fine if one is talking about  abolishing the institution of state ran, force attended (truancy laws), and forced supported my tax dollars. The real problem is the collectivist, central planed sate run institution.   The problem is conservatives want to keep  put but reformed  the institution. To me keeping education institution amounts to putting lipstick to an collectivist pig. Ref om would be a constitutional amendment restricting government to only a limited post secondary eduction institution (service academies and research), and strengthening and  the establishment clause to prevent government interfering of use of private property for both religion and non religious institutions. 

  • valley person

    “School choice’ is great marketing but clearly deceptive. Every parent already has a free choice of where to send their kids to school, public, private or home. Public schools are funded by the taxpayer, as they always have been. Every taxpaying citizen, whether they have kids or not, are expected to support public schools because of the benefits they provide to everyone.

    What you are asking for is public funding of private schools. 90% of private schools are religious based institutions, so in effect you are asking for public funding of religious instruction.

    • Steve Buckstein

      No, valley, what we are asking for is that the public funding meant to educate children be used at any legal school, public or private. The US Supreme Court in the Zelman case ruled that a properly structured school choice program didn’t violate the Establishment Clause even if the vast majority of the funds end up following students to religious schools, as long as it was the parents choice where the money went.

      source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris

      • valley person

        That is legalistic parsing. Kids in religious schools get religious education. What you are proposing may be constitutional, but to me its a mistake. If you limited public support to parents who choose non-religious schools, I could maybe go along.

        I grew up in a city (Chicago) with a heavy Catholic population. Most of my friends were Catholic and many went to Catholic schools, where they got civic AND religious instruction. About half of all private schools are Catholic.

        • Steve Buckstein

          I think you’ll find today that many students in Catholic schools are not Catholic but are there because their parents see those schools as the best alternative for their children. That’s especially true in relatively poor, inner city neighborhoods back East.They either don’t worry about the schools indoctrinating them in the Catholic religion, or they see that as the lesser evil to the utter failure of many public schools to educate at all. 

          • valley person

            I’m sure you are right about inner city kids, to a point. But the better solution is to improve the public schools, not to use taxpayer money to support religion. 

          • Steve Buckstein

            And how do you propose to improve those inner city schools. Even court orders to push massive amounts of new funding into them hasn’t seemed to help.

            As Democrat Newark New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker said when he was running for the office in, I believe 2002, how much more money would Portland Public Schools pump into bad schools here before they realized that even Newark’s $17,000 per student (at that time) wasn’t helping. He was then, and is now, a school choice supporter.

  • Pingback: Latest Oregon Tax Rates News | Tax Rates 2011

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)