ERIC Digest 137 - May 2000
Educational Vouchers
By Margaret Hadderman
Educational voucher programs, which provide parents with public grants to send
their children to public or private schools of their choice, are the most controversial
of numerous school-choice alternatives.
The notion originated in the mid-1950s, when economist Milton Friedman argued
that vouchers would improve educational efficiency by placing schools in a competitive,
free-market position (Miller 1999). In 1971, while working on California's famous
"Serrano" case, law students Jack Coons and Stephen Sugarman recommended vouchers
for students in poor districts as a potential remedy for unconstitutional school-funding
inequities (Miller).
WHO SUPPORTS EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS?
Public support for voucher systems is steadily growing. In the 1998 and 1999
Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Polls, 51 percent of respondents said they would favor
a proposal for total/partial government-paid tuition to send their children
to private or church-related schools. In 1999, 60 percent of public- school
parents favored such plans, compared with 56 percent in 1998. When questions
specified voucher plans, proponents and opponents' responses were more evenly
divided (Rose and Gallup 1998 and 1999).
Characterizing voucher advocates is difficult, as the case for parental choice
"is made by those of all political stripes and persuasions,... by members of
majority and minority ethnic groups; by the wealthy and the poor; by the religious
and the secular" (Metcalf and Tait 1999).
In contrast with media reportage of prominent politicians' views, the 1998
Kappan/Gallup poll found that Republican respondents were evenly split over
full-tuition vouchers for private or religious schools; a slim majority of Democrats
favored vouchers. Other groups favoring full-tuition vouchers include African-Americans,
18- to 29-year-olds, parents with average- or low-achieving children, and urban
dwellers.
WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST VOUCHER PROGRAMS?
Advocates claim vouchers will provide poor, innercity families with the educational
choice enjoyed by more affluent families, including the chance to escape from
low-performing neighborhood schools (Metcalf and Tait). Others believe that
"increased competition from voucher schools will force public schools to improve,
or risk closure" (Adelsheimer and Rix 1999). Still others regard private schools
as efficient, family-oriented institutions that promote appropriate student
behavior and high achievement.
Critics claim voucher plans will drain money from public schools, cull the
most highly motivated students and parents, violate church-state separation,
be costly to administer, and raise property taxes (Miller; Adelsheimer and Rix).
Many opponents are also concerned about private-school capacity, the predominance
of religious schools, private institutions' selective admissions policies, and
government intrusion issues.
ARE VOUCHER PLANS SUCCEEDING?
The best known publicly financed voucher systems are the Milwaukee Parental
Choice Program and the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program. Initiated
in 1990, the Milwaukee program originally offered $2,500 in private- school
tuition for children from low-income families. Over time, vouchers increased
to $5,000, student enrollment reached 6,000, and religious schools were added
(Metcalf and Tait).
The Cleveland program was implemented in 1996. This program also targeted low-income
families, embraced religious schools, and provided tutoring assistance. By 1997-98,
vouchers were available for 4,000 K-5 students (Metcalf and Tait). Like the
Milwaukee program, Cleveland's plan has been evaluated and reevaluated by various
research teams, with widely divergent findings.
In June 1999, the Florida State Legislature adopted a plan that "could qualify
as many as 150,000 of the state's 2.3 million K-12 public school students for
vouchers"-a $750 million investment (Elam 1999).
Privately financed voucher plans operate in about thirty-one cities (Miller).
In April 1999, billionaire financier Ted Furstmann and Wal-Mart heir John Walton
announced a plan to award $170 million in private and parochial- school scholarships
to 40,000 (out of 125,000) student applicants from low- income families.
A few privately sponsored plans have been preliminarily evaluated (by Harvard
University's Program on Education Policy and Governance), including pilot scholarship
programs in New York City, Washington, D.C., and San Antonio's Edgewood School
District.
Analyzing several evaluations of the Cleveland, Milwaukee, and New York City
programs, WestEd researchers found consistent, generally positive results regarding
inclusion of low-income families, parent satisfaction, parent education levels,
parent marital status and family size, race-ethnicity, and attrition and mobility.
Findings were inconclusive or inconsistent regarding student achievement and
parental involvement.
The Harvard study of the Edgewood Horizon Scholarship Program (financed by
the Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation of America) drew similar conclusions
about low-income families' participation, minority representation, and parental
satisfaction with private schools. It also documented voucher students' modest
achievement-test gains, compared with public-school counterparts (Peterson 1999).
Another, less formal investigation revealed that sponsors targeted selected
students; vouchers were used primarily to support religious education; several
district schools were high-achieving; and both voucher and public-school parents
seemed satisfied with local public schools (Mandell 1999).
ARE PUBLICLY FINANCED VOUCHER PLANS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Inclusion of parochial schools in voucher programs is a thorny issue- especially
since four-fifths of private schools have religious ties. For one legal expert,
"the central federal question is whether the participation of sectarian schools
violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits governmental
action" that advances religion (McCarthy 2000). During the past decade, McCarthy
notes, the High Court appears to have "relaxed its interpretation of the establishment
clause, and is willing to allow more state aid to flow to sectarian schools
than in the past."
Another expert believes the courts are more likely to uphold publicly financed
voucher programs if they are packaged as scholarships "going to parents, if
parents or students have a wide choice of schools, and if no preference is given
to religious schools" (Sianjina 1999).
Also, vouchers may be constitutional in some states but not in others. In November
1998, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case challenging a Wisconsin
Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Milwaukee voucher program-a disappointment
for critics and advocates alike (McCarthy).
Meanwhile, voucher proponents plan to appeal a December 1999 U.S. District
Court ruling against the Cleveland voucher program, moving the program closer
to a possible test before the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Oliver delayed enforcement
pending such an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) in Cincinnati.
In Maine and Vermont towns lacking high schools, informal voucher plans allow
secondary students to attend public schools or approved private schools outside
their home districts. In both states, higher courts have squashed citizen efforts
to add religious schools (McCarthy).
WHAT ARE MAJOR POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS?
According to WestEd, policymakers must consider the costs of voucher programs
(and the costs of potential court challenges). The value and number of vouchers
will influence costs. Resources lost to districts may have to be made up by
higher taxes. (Adelsheimer and Rix).
Other considerations include voucher availability, amount, selection of recipients,
publicity/promotion, engagement of nonchoosers, racial/ethnic balance, provisions
for special-needs students, and transportation.
Voucher plans' effects on private schools cannot be ignored. Acceptance of
public funds generally means government regulation, increased paperwork, and
cash-flow problems (Adelsheimer and Rix). Program implementation is hampered
by midyear school closings, student attrition (Witte 1999), and private schools'
nonparticipation in government free/reduced-price lunch programs-a common eligibility
requirement for voucher recipients (Mandell).
More information is needed about private schools' capacity and responsiveness
to accepting diverse student populations. According to a U.S. Department of
Education survey of private schools, 73 percent of nonpublic schools are not
interested in accepting special-needs students; 92 percent would accept student
transfers only if "allowed to maintain their current admissions, curriculum,
and religious instruction policies" (Muraskin and Stullich 1998).
Accountability and program quality are important factors. The public, recent
polls indicate, expects private schools that accept public dollars to be as
accountable to the state as public schools are (Murphy 1999). A sizeable majority
of respondents expect private schools to accept students from a wide variety
of academic backgrounds (Rose and Gallup 1999), maintain high curriculum standards,
and employ certified teachers (Murphy).
Miller recommends that teacher unions embrace school choice as a catalyst for
improving public education and that conservative voucher advocates relinquish
their money-saving motivations. Special-needs students are expensive to educate,
and innercity school buildings are deteriorating. Claiming support from Friedman,
the NAACP, Lamar Alexander, and assorted liberals, Miller advocates furnishing
poor, innercity children and local public schools with vouchers based on the
basic per-pupil cost plus 20 percent. This progressive approach, Miller believes,
will "pursue the benefits of vouchers without risk to the poor."
McCarthy advocates comprehensive public discussion of voucher systems before
they proliferate like charter schools and other reforms, arguing that "we should
at least gather data supporting the efficacy of such plans and be certain that
they do not compromise national values." Policymakers, she believes, should
proceed cautiously, "since the school privatization movement has tremendous
potential to alter the nature and role of public education in the United States."
RESOURCES
Adelsheimer, Erica, and Kate Rix, What We Know About Vouchers: The Facts Behind
the Rhetoric. San Francisco, WestEd Policy Program, 1999. 15 pages.
Elam, Stanley E. "Florida's Voucher Program: Legislating What Can't Be Done
by Referendum." Phi Delta Kappan 81, 1 (September 1999): 81-82, 84-86, 88.
Mandell, Jeff. "Edgewood under Siege: Vouchers Come to a Texas School District."
American Educator 23, 1 (September 1999): 25-28.
McCarthy, Mary M. "What Is the Verdict on School Vouchers?" Phi Delta Kappan
81,5 (January 2000): 371-78.
Metcalf, Kim, and Tait, Polly A. "Free Market Policies and Public Education:
What Is the Cost of Choice?" Phi Delta Kappan 81, 1 (September 1999): 65-68,70-75.
Miller, Matthew. "A Bold Experiment to Fix City Schools." Atlantic Monthly
284, (July 1999): 15-16,18,26-28, 30-31. EJ 587 684.
Muraskin, Lana, and Stephanie Stullich. Barriers, Benefits, and Costs of Using
Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools. Final Report. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education Planning and Evaluation Service, 1998. 158
pages. ED 432 063.
Murphy, Dan. "Vouchers and the Accountability Dilemma: An AFT Policy Brief."
American Educator 23, 1 (September 1999): 29-37. EJ 587 020.
Peterson, Paul E. "A Liberal Case for Vouchers." New Republic 221, 4 (October
4, 1999): 28-29.
Rose, Lowell C., and Alec M. Gallup. "The 30th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup
Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan
80, 1 (September 1998): 41-56. EJ 571 808.
__________. "The 31st Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan. 81,1 (September 1999): 41-55. EJ 592 905.
Sianjina, Rayton. "Parental Choice, School Vouchers, and Separation of Church
and State: Legal Implications." Educational Forum 63, 2 (Winter 1999): 108-12.
EJ 578 831.
Witte, John. "The Milwaukee Voucher Experiment: The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly." Phi Delta Kappan 81,1 (September 1999): 59-64.
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract No. ED-99-C0-0011. The ideas and opinions expressed in this Digest do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of IES, ED, or the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.
Ordering Information: Single paper copies of this ERIC Digest are available from the Clearinghouse while supplies last. Although there is no charge for the materials themselves, a postage/handling fee of $3.00 is required to cover the Clearinghouse's expenses. This fee is waived if (1) you enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope or (2) you order other materials for which there is a charge. Send orders for paper copies to the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207. Make checks payable to University of Oregon/ERIC.
|
