Smith 1

Courtney Smith

Dr. Brian Smith

CULF 2321

April 2, 2006

Will School Choice Programs Improve Education

The last decade has presented a great focus on America’s

education system, and the government’s role in promoting growth

and achievement standards in public education programs.

Competing schools of thought surrounding the manner best to

insure our children’s success have produced a variety of

controversies over the effectiveness and efficiency of a

historically monopolistic and bureaucratic public school system

(Bosetti).

The Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik I, in 1957, initiated

the so-called ‘space race’; and “to prevent the nation from

falling behind in the technology competition, American leaders

called for improved educational techniques and student

performance” (Giuliano 117). This focus on education remained on

the minds of Americans, and became of further concern in 1983

with the release of A Nation at Risk, a report on education in the

Smith 2

United States. The report showed test scores of American

students on performance tests had actually decreased since 1957

(Giuliano 117). These results posed fears of national economic

consequences, fueling further agenda to improve our education

system. Two decades later, “the risk posed by inadequate

education has changed. Our nation does not face imminent danger

of economic decline or technological inferiority. Yet the state

of our children’s education is still far, very far, from what it

ought to be” (Taking Sides 174).

In February of 2005, results showed that “American 12th

graders scored near the bottom on the recent Third International

Math and Science Study (TIMSS): US students placed 19th out of 21

developed nations in math and 16th out of 21 in science. Our

advanced students did even worse, scoring dead last in physics”

(Taking 174). These results offer belief “that, compared to the

rest of the world, our students lag seriously in critical

subjects vital to our future” (Taking 174). Most previous

education reform movements have been coupled with greater

investment in school funding.

Smith 3

Recent years have seen an increase in education funding

coupled with a decreasing graduation rate. According to the

Department of Education, per pupil spending in inflation adjusted

dollars increased from $4,479 in 1971 to $8,996 in 2001; yet,

graduation rates fell to 72.2% from 75.6% over the same period

time period (20/20). Moreover, although funding has increased,

“since 1983, more than 10 million Americans have reached the 12th

grade without having learned to read at a basic level. More than

20 million have reached their senior year unable to do basic

math. Almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not knowing the

essentials of U.S. history, and those are the young people who

complete their senior year” (Taking 174). In 2004, a Texas state

judge said that “if the education gap continues into the future,

the average household income will fall from $54,000 to $47,000;”

and “the percentage of adult Texans without a high school diploma

will rise from 18 percent to 30 percent, increasing the need for

job training and costly support services” (District Court Demands

Increased State Investment). Thus, the argument for school choice

has become a focus of educational reform discussions forcing a

focus on a complex question of freedom. Should parents be

Smith 4

allowed to choose their children’s schools through the support of

government vouchers?

School choice is a term often used by education reformers “to

encompass all reform efforts that provide parents with options

about where to send their children;” and in the context of this

paper, the term voucher refers to a financial grant given to

parents by their state or local government for use towards

tuition at any private or publicly operated school the parent

chooses (Furlong and Kraft 299; Gill xi). Both The Charter

School Expansion Act of 1998 and The Education Flexibility

Partnership Act of 1999 have provided state education agencies

great freedom in how they spend their federally funded education

dollars, as well as choice in the programs they enact to

facilitate educational improvements (Giuliano 118).

Some states have enacted ‘school-choice’ programs allowing

parents to send their children to schools outside their

neighborhood school district. Such ‘parental choice’

alternatives include open-enrollment, allowing parents to send

their child to any public school in their state; public funding

of charter schools, which are supported by government by

Smith 5

independently operated; magnet schools, public schools operated

by a local school board that focus on a specific area of

instruction; and school voucher programs, in which the government

gives parents monetary assistance towards private tuition costs

(Williams 53). Of these, school voucher programs have received

the greatest attention, and perhaps the most contention, with

recent U.S. and State Supreme Court rulings regarding the

constitutionality of government funding religious schools

(Richard). “State-enacted voucher programs exist in Milwaukee,

Cleveland, and Florida, and all three have undergone or are still

involved in court challenges” (Giuliano 121).

Milwaukee was the first city to implement a limited voucher

program for students from low-income families (Zelman v. Simmons-

Harris). To date, Milwaukee’s program is the largest

experimental case on means tested school voucher programs with

nearly 15,000 students currently eligible for voucher assistance

up to $6,000 per student (Richard). Initially, the “program

provided vouchers up to $2,500 to a maximum of 950 low-income

families to be used only at non-religious schools” (Jost). Since

then, however, both the amount of vouchers provided and the

Smith 6

number of recipients eligible has increased immensely; and in

1995, religious schools were allowed participation in the program

(Jost). Though it has been plagued with various opposition and

court intervention, “the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in Jackson v.

Benson, ruled that inclusion of religious schools in the

Milwaukee Parental Choice Program does not violate U.S. federal

or Wisconsin state constitutional prohibitions against government

support of religion” (Giuliano 122). The court justified its

decision on the basis that “the program’s expansion was driven

largely by a ‘secular purpose’ – to expand educational

opportunities for poor children” (Furlong and Kraft 301).

In June 2001, Florida lawmakers approved a plan to give

students in the state’s lowest performing schools taxpayer-funded

tuition payments to attend qualified public, private, or

religious schools” (Giuliano 121). Yet, a subsequent ruling this

January by the Florida State Supreme Court deemed voucher, or so-

called ‘scholarship’, programs violate Florida’s constitution.

The statewide program, known as Opportunity Scholarships,

“provided about $4,350 per child in tuition aid for eligible

student to use at secular or religious private schools;” and the

Smith 7

Florida Court ruling will “likely force many of the roughly 700

students who attend private schools with state money” to look

elsewhere for educational opportunities (Richard). However,

unlike many school-choice cases, the decision “did not hinge on

the public use of funds at religious schools. Instead, justices

ruled that school vouchers violate the ‘uniformity’ clause of

Florida’s Constitution. It mandates a ‘uniform, efficient, safe,

secure and high-quality system of free public schools that allows

students to obtain high quality education” (Coulson). Chief

Justice Barbara J. Pariente of the Florida Supreme Court

represented the majority opinion when stating that “vouchers

violate the state constitution’s provision that requires a

‘uniform’ system of public schools for all students,” supporting

her argument with claims that “the program diverts public dollars

into separate, private systems…parallel to and in conjunction

with the free public schools” (Richard).

Following trend of other school-voucher programs,

Cleveland’s program too has faced legislative appeal, with

voucher opponents calling to the U.S. Supreme Court for relief.

Challenge to the voucher system came from a group of parents in

Smith 8

early 2000, arguing the program was a violation of our

Constitution’s Establishment Clause (Zelman). And in December of

2000, “the Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit in Ohio concluded

there was probable cause that the Cleveland voucher program,

which gives low-income students scholarships to attend private

secular or religious schools, violated the constitutional

separation of church and state” (Giuliano 121). For while

voucher awards do offer secular options for parents, “as a

practical matter, the majority of private schools that

participated in the program were religious” (Zelman).

However, the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Zelman

v. Simmons-Harris “that the school-voucher program in Ohio did not

violate the Constitution’s ban on the ‘establishment’ of

religion” (Taking 206). Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote

for the court majority that “indirect aid to religious schools

involved in the voucher plan was permissible because the money

was given to individuals who made a genuine and independent

private choice, and the incidental advancement of religion is

attributable to the individual recipient, not the government,

whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits” (Zelman).

Smith 9

This ruling followed a series of court “decisions that somewhat

loosen the restrictions on government programs that benefit

religious schools. In the most recent of those decisions, the

court in Mitchell v. Helms in 2000 approved a federally funded program

or lending computers and other equipment to parochial schools”

(Jost).

Nearly six decades ago, Milton Friedman argued that

universal vouchers for lower schools would “usher in an age of

educational innovation and experimentation, not only widening the

range of options for parents and students but increasing all

sorts of positive outcomes” (Gillespie). Advocates of school

choice programs call for the introduction of competitive

educational market; and believe “liberated parental choice and

increasingly autonomous schools that compete for students and the

per-pupil funding they bring would create necessary pressure and

incentive to leverage innovation and improvement in education for

all children”(Bosetti). The overall view of school choice

proponents believe without the threat of losing funding, public

school education will not improve.

Smith 10

Opponents of choice programs claim these policies would take

money away from schools already struggling, leaving a great

negative impact on the students left in these district that

outweighs individual gains (Peterson). These concerns are

furthered by the fear that competition will bring to the focus of

school administrations. “Competitive education markets encourage

schools to focus on marketing, public relations, and the symbolic

management of the school’s image, rather than inducing innovation

and improvements in teaching and learning” (Lubienski). Still

the greatest controversy over school vouchers has become a

fundamental argument over separation of church and state power

(Swindell). In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled voucher

programs constitutional because they do not limit parents from

choosing secular institutions; still, 96.6% voucher money goes to

religious schools (Court).

Voucher programs are still in experimental stages and

“evaluation of existing evidence suggests many of the important

empirical questions regarding vouchers have not been answered.

In fact, some of the strongest evidence is based on programs that

have operating for only a short period of time with a small

Smith 11

number of participants,” leaving both sides of the argument

filled largely with theory, rather than fact (Gill xiv). The

lack of empirical evidence to date on the success of these

programs insures this issue is not close to resolution (Bosetti).

Some have proposed the use of school vouchers as a means of

narrowing the equality gap between families who can afford to

send their children to any school they choose, and the families

who must accept the public school choice in their district.

“Given the continued failure of many urban public schools systems

to deliver quality education, parents want alternatives. Those

with means can find them by moving or putting their children in

private school. Those without means are trapped unless they can

access resources to do the same” (Jost). These proponents “argue

that students using vouchers would be able to attend more-

effective and more-efficient schools; that the diversity of

choices available would promote parental liberty and, if properly

designed, benefit poor and minority youth” (Gill xi).

“Educational choice is about equalizing the playing field. And

the choices should include vouchers” (Jost). This argument is

based on an equity concern for equivalent access to quality

Smith 12

education for all parents, regardless of income; this principle

is often referred to as ‘equality of opportunity’. In Ohio,

however, “studies indicate that most of the students currently

using the vouchers have never attended Cleveland public schools;”

and in Florida, voucher eligibility is not means tested, leading

many to argue the program is simply a form of welfare for the

rich (Jost).

Other voucher supporters claim that “the competitive threat

vouchers pose would induce public schools to improve” (Gill xi).

These reformers attribute the “growing disparities in educational

achievement among the middle class, the socio-economically

disadvantaged and racial minority groups” to the “inefficiency of

a monopolistic and bureaucratic education system (Bosetti).”

Voucher programs, they say, “would bring a healthy increase in

the variety of educational institutions and in competition among

them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace

of progress in this area as it has in so many others”

(Gillespie). In his article entitled The Role of Government in

Education, Milton Friedman referred to voucher programs as the

“denationalization of education,” which he said “would widen the

Smith 13

range of choice available to parents by bringing about a healthy

increase in the variety of educational institutions available and

in competition among them” (Jost). “Through this ‘market

mechanism,’ inferior schools will be forced out of business,

superior schools will flourish, and the bureaucratically

organized public school system will come under pressure to

improve school quality” (Glen).

Opponents disagree by saying “there is no evidence school

systems already using vouchers increase performance, and insist

the programs hinder public schools by stripping them of badly

needed funds” (Dizikies). “Vouchers might be good for the few

poor kids who can take advantage of them,” says Theodore Shaw,

associate director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund (Jost). “But systemically, they are going to further

undercut public education, where the vast majority of [minority]

and poor children are going to remain” (Jost). Some critics have

gone as far as to say, “If the goal of the program was to

subsidize an economically failing parochial school system, then

it’s succeeding” (Jost).

Smith 14

Still others focus on the harm vouchers might do with claims

that voucher schools “just take the best students, so that leaves

the public schools with the more difficult students --

behaviorally and academically” (Stupid in America -- Viewer Q&A).

The National Education Association (NEA) argues “that parental

choice is really misleading. The real choice lies with the

schools, not the students. By definition, private schools are

discriminatory and use a wide range of criteria to reject or

cream students” (Weil 161). “Creaming is the not-so-blatant

practice of admitting the ‘best’ students to private choice

schools and excluding other based on student characteristics”

(Weil 157). Voucher critics worry that “schools left behind

after the disadvantaged depart might be weakened as educational

institutions, and the children in those schools, disproportionate

numbers of whom would be from low-income and minority families,

would receive worse instruction after than before” (Glen).

Supporters of school vouchers counter this argument with claims

“that voucher schools do not discriminate in the admission of

students. From their point of view, private schools are more

Smith 15

successful at integration than public schools, partly because”

residency restrictions are removed (Weil 157).

Critics continue their argument by saying “that in a voucher

system, individual choice is little more than a figure of the

imagination, because often no openings are accessible for the

many students who wish to take part in the voucher program” (Weil

161). One reason “for this opposition is the relatively small

number of student that private schools can currently handle,

which around six million. In comparison, public schools enroll

about forty-six million students” (Furlong and Kraft 304). There

is also controversy over the validity of vouchers as providing a

means for low-income parents to enjoy the same choice as those

with more money. Many have raised the argument that “voucher

programs do not provide enough money to pay for private-school

education” (Jost). And “because the voucher only pays for

partial tuition, many low-income students cannot take advantage

of the program, since they simply do not have the funds to

supplement the cost of tuition” (Weil 161). This seems to be one

argument voucher advocates have little to refute (Peterson).

Smith 16

As for the fiscal impact, critics say funding for school

voucher programs takes money away from the public school systems.

Supporters counter that school systems continue to receive more

per capita state aid than the cost of vouchers, and that in any

event the schools save money by having fewer students to educate.

Most broadly, voucher opponents contend that vouchers divert

energy and attention, as well as money, from more productive

education reforms. It should also be noted, that while the

argument for a competitive education system holds strength in a

market economy, opponents point out that “market forces are

connected with pro-fit seeking, but 98% of America’s private

schools are not-for-profit institutions” (Merrifield 157).

Perhaps the strongest “opposition to vouchers focuses on the

use of public monies to fund religious schools,” and the threat

such policy would be to the constitutional separation of church

and state (Weil 101). Opponents urge that voucher programs are

“so heavily skewed toward religion that [vouchers] violate the

Establishment Clause;” but “pro-voucher allies insist that the

program in religiously neutral” (Jost). Anti-voucher groups

Smith 17

argue that money distributed by the government which goes toward

tuition at a parochial school, is clearly a form of direct aid.

But supporters challenge that school voucher programs “leave it

up to parents to decide where to use the tax-paid stipends;” and

that “funds are directed to religious schools only through the

true private choice of individual parents, therefore, satisfying

the Establishment Clause requirement” (Jost).

Opponents believe that “the program inevitable operates to

channel students to parochial schools because of the relatively

low limit on tuition that participating schools can charge.

Catholic schools - subsidized by church funds - typically have a

significant lower tuition than secular private schools” (Jost).

In fact, non-sectarian private school tuitions are roughly three

times that of Catholic schools, and more than twice the amount of

other religious elementary and secondary private institutions

(Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States).

Critics maintain that “when the government sets up a program and

says that you can spend money this money only in the limited

universe of schools - the majority of which are religious -

that’s not a free independent choice by the parents. It’s a

Smith 18

choice dictated by the government” (Jost). Still, some place

blame for “the high proportion of students attending religious

schools on the failure of elite private schools or suburban

public schools to participate;” they say “it’s not that parents

are looking to send their children to a religious school” (Jost).

A key distinction between views is whether governmental

distribution of voucher payments are a form of direct or indirect

aid to the school the student chooses to attend. The “government

is prohibited from giving direct support to religious

institutions, and when the Court has supported the granting of

public money to religious schools, that support has always been

described as indirect or targeted (Weil 107). Barry Lynn,

executive director of American United for Separation of Church

and State, calls voucher programs “a direct subsidy of the

educational mission of religious denominations. And in the same

way that one should not expect tax-payers to support churches,

they should not be expected to support church-related educational

facilities either” (Jost).

Nonetheless, “the federal government has a long history of

giving private and religious groups taxpayer support when they

Smith 19

serve the secular public interest” (Federal Government History).

Thus supporters argue the validity of voucher monies “to

religious schools under the theory of neutrality, which [views]

the aid as part of a broad educational assistance program” (Weil

107). Here the benefits of improving education are given greater

consideration than the cost to church-state separation freedoms.

The rational for allowing the use of federal monies at sectarian

institutions comes from moral reasoning approach to policy,

giving greater consideration to the long-term societal benefits

these institutions can provide than the threat such laws pose to

church-state separation. Such approach to policy can be seen in

many federal aid programs, including Pell Grants, where students

can use the money they receive to attend any public, private, or

religious college of their choice (Federal).

The issue of equality among school choices exists because of

the lack of aggregate quality in America’s school system. And

despite differences in the basis of their arguments, what all

proponents of [school choice] have in common is an emphasis on

choice and competition as a means of increasing educational

performance and parental and student satisfaction (Gillespie).

Smith 20

Among vouchers supporters, however, there lie different

perspectives about which types of voucher programs are best

suited for success. Most will agree that our nation’s prosperity

has persisted because of the free-market economy underlying all

aspects of American life and business; so why now are we just

realizing that an economic approach to education may provide

solutions to improving quality? To judge the merits of these

perspectives, though, is simply to evaluate what kind of success

one values most.

The value of equality permeates discussions of school choice

policy, underscored by the obligation of government to provide a

quality education to all of its citizens. School vouchers cases

complicate the social contract between government and society to

provide universal access to a quality education; and policy

makers face an enormous task in fulfilling these obligations.

The most recent initiative, Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, has faced

serious hurdled implementing its goals and ensuring cooperation

among states. But the plan recognizes that education is first

the responsibility of state and local offices; thus giving an

advantage in the program’s inherent incremental adoption of

Smith 21

policy. Still, the greatest obstacle the No Child Left Behind

movement faces is its provision for religious schools to be among

the choices available to parents when faced with an

underperforming public school district.

“The new law gives communities and parents increased local

control and more opportunities for faith-based and community

organizations to aid in improving student academic achievement;”

and the President contends “that it is only in partnership with

these community leaders that we can truly ensure that no child is

left behind” (The Facts About Faith-Based Efforts).

Smith 22

Works Cited

Bosetti, Lynn. “School Choice: Public Education at a Crossroad.”

American Journal of Education. 111.4 (2005): 435-442.

Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Scarborough-Phillips

Library, Austin, TX. 31 Jan. 2006.

“Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results

from the 2001-2002 Private School Universe Survey.”

National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. U.S.

Department of Education. 2 May 2006.

<http://www.nces.ed.gov/private/tuition>.

Coulson, Andrew J. “War Against Vouchers.” Wall Street Journal. 9

Jan. 2006, eastern ed.: A13. ProQuest Newspapers. EBSCO.

Scarborough-Phillips Library. Austin, TX. 28 Jan 2006.

“Court Backs Vouchers for Religious Schools: Supreme Court OKs

Vouchers That Send Kids to Religious Schools.” ABC News. 27

June 2002. 25 Jan. 2006. <http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?

id=91506>

“District Court Demands Increased State Investment: All Our

Children Deserve an Excellent, Equity Education.”

www.irda.org. 27 Sept. 2004. Intercultural Development

Smith 23

Research Association. 4 May 2006.

<http://www.idra.org/alerts/dietz.htm>.

“Federal Government History of Support To Private and Religious

Groups: Expanded Educational Opportunities For Americans.”

ED.gov. 27 June 2002. U.S. Department of Education. 4 May

2006.

<http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/06/06272002b.html

>.

Furlong, Scott R. and Michael Kraft. Public Policy: Politics,

Analysis, and Alternatives. Green Bay: CQ Press, 2004.

Gillespie, Nick. “The Father of Modern School Reform.” Reason.

37.7 (2005): 44-47. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

Scarborough-Phillips Library. Austin, TX. 28 Jan 2006.

Gill, Brian P., et al. Rhetoric Versus Reality: What We Know and

What We Need to Know About Vouchers and Charter Schools.

Santa Monica: Rand, 2001.

Giuliano, Gina. Education: Reflecting Our Society? The

Information Series on Current Topics. Detroit: Gale Group,

2002.

Smith 24

Glen, Charles L. “The Debate Over Parent Choice of Schools.”

Journal of Education. 184.1 (2004): 89-100.

Jost, K. “School Vouchers Showdown.” The CQ Researcher 12 (2002):

1-144. 25 Jan. 2006

<http://library.cqpress.com/cqpac/cqresrre2002021500>.

Lubienski, Christopher. "Public Schools in Marketized

Environments: Shifting Incentives and Unintended

Consequences of Competition-based Educational

Reforms." American Journal of Education   111.4 (August

2005): 464(23).  Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac.

Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 31 Jan. 2006.

Merrifield, John. The School Choice Wars. Lanham: Scarecrow

Press, 2001.

Peterson, Paul E., ed. The Future of School Choice. Stanford:

Hoover, 2003.

Richard, Alan. “Fla. Court: Vouchers Unconstitutional.” Education

Week. 11 Jan. 2006: 1-12.

“20/20: Stupid in America.” ABC News. 24 Jan. 2006

<www.abcnews.go.com/2020>

Smith 25

“Stupid in America -- Viewer Q&A.” ABC News. 23 Jan. 2006. 2 Feb.

2006. <http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1532494>

Swindell, Bill. "Education: GOP Majorities Could Make the Grade

On School Choice This Year." CQ Weekly 22 Feb. 2003: 450. 25

Jan. 2006. <http://library.cqpress.com/

cqweekly/weeklyreport108-000000605475>.

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Education Issues.

13th ed. Ed. James Wm. Noll. Dubuque: Dushkin/McGraw Hill,

2005.

Weil, Danny. School Vouchers and Privatization: A Reference

Handbook. Contemporary Education Issues. Santa Barbara: ABC-

CLIO, 2002.

Williams, Mary E.,ed. Education. Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego:

Greenhaven Press, 2000.

“Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: Opinion Expert.” Historical Document

of 2002. Washington: CQ Press, 2003. CQ Electronic Library,

CQ Public Affairs Collection. 5 May 2006.

<http://library.cqpress.comcqpac/hsdc02-151-7412-397210>.