School Vouchers

Background

One of the primary indictments of the public school system is that it denies parents the ability to determine where their children go to school. Furthermore, the education finance monopoly provides literally no option to families that cannot afford private education. The education finance monopoly means that all public education funds for grades K-12 go only to public schools. Although public education grants free education to students, the government, not parents, decides where the students go to school. Furthermore, public schools currently lack any outside competition for students and education funds.

Vouchers grant parents government money to send their children to the school of their choice. The voucher system thereby dismantles the public shool monopoly on government education money. Voucher programs developed both as a way of insuring parental freedom in the choice of schools and as a method of providing outside competition to public schools. The goal is to create incentives for the public schools to improve themselves through the use of free market principles. The important issues raised in the voucher debate are questions of constitutionality and potential effectiveness of such programs.

The idea of granting families public money for use at private schools of their choice is not a new concept. In 1962, Milton Friedman argued for a voucher system in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman proposed that government should provide parents with funds to send their children to the private school of their choice. Friedman likened his voucher proposal to the system used by the U.S. for veterans of World War II for college education, the "G.I. Bill" (Friedman, 1962, 89-90). Friedman pointed out that the U.S. government had provided veterans with public money to use at the school of their choice. He also cited similar systems already in existence in both France and Great Britain as models for the U.S. to follow (Friedman, 1962, 90).

The state of Vermont has granted students some public money for use at the school of their choice since 1869. "Approximately 95 of the 246 communities in Vermont have no public high schools," (Walberg & Bast, 1993, 110). The program started so that Vermont residents would not have to pay for the construction of local public high schools. Essentially, taxpayers pay a minimum tuition, which students can us at the public or private high school of their choice, while the parents make up the difference. However, the program is relatively limited in terms of student participation. Although the program has existed for over a century, it is interesting to note that no formalized studies have ever been done to measure its effectiveness (Walberg & Bast, 1993, 110).

Another significant development in the movement toward school vouchers occurred in Minnesota. In Mueller v. Allen (1983), the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that established a tax deduction for parents who sent their children to private schools. "Minnesota's tax deduction was the first state policy subsidizing private school tuition costs to pass judicial review at all levels," (Kirby, 1988, 507). A study of the Minnesota tax deduction program concluded that the tax deduction plan for private school parents was excessively costly and benefitted "primarily upper-income households and parents who would have made the same schooling choices in the absence of the deduction," (Kirby, 1988, 515). While a tax deduction primarily benefits families in upper-income brackets, vouchers "would be accessible to far more parents," (Kirby, 1988, 507).

Even though both Vermont and Minnesota presented school choice in limited form, no state would provide public money for use at private elementary and secondary schools until 1990. In that year, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and State Representative Annette "Polly" Williams effectively sponsored a bill that created the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The program, though initially miniscule in scale, has expanded in the past several years. The program grants vouchers to a relatively small percentage of poor families to send their children to the school of their choice. Originally, the program granted vouchers for use only at nonsectarian schools. Additionally, the private schools enter the program on a voluntary basis.

The most recent development involves the proposed expansion of the Milwaukee program to include religious schools. The proposal has created a firestorm of controversy over the constitutionality of the voucher program. Furthermore, in an effort to determine the overall effectiveness of the program, a number of notable scholars have recently published studies with conflicting results.

Cleveland, Ohio has also instituted a similar voucher program that officially began in September of 1996. The Cleveland program warrants examination because it permits vouchers to be used at religious schools. The Cleveland Voucher program is currently being challenged in Ohio State Supreme Court. The issue is whether the Cleveland law violates the separation of Church and State provided for in the Constitution.

The goal of this section is to examine the key issues of the voucher debate within the framework of two case studies - the Milwaukee and Cleveland programs. What follows is a background summary of the specifics of each program, a discussion of the studies done on the Milwaukee Program, and the critical Constitutional questions raised by the Cleveland Program. The analysis of these two case studies will help the reader to better understand the issues of effectiveness and constitutionality of school voucher programs.

Further Information

The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

Brief History

Over the past decade, the Milwaukee public school system was a virtual disaster. A report in a 1995 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pointed out that the "overall grade point average in (Milwaukee) high school(s) is below 1.64 on a 4.0 scale," with a tremendous disparity between black and white students (Mitchell, 1996, 2). Meanwhile reform efforts within the public schools proved futile as conditions worsened. On a 1995-96 Wisconsin Student Assessment System testing series, Milwaukee was the second lowest scoring district in the state (Mitchell, 1996, 2). Public clamor for structural reform had already reached its peak in 1990, when Wisconsin Governor Thompson and State Representative Annette "Polly" Williams proposed the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The program provided low-income families with a legitimate alternative to the existing public school system. It represents the first major provision of public money to fund private elementary education in the United States.

The Milwaukee Program, interestingly enough, is actually not a voucher program in the traditional interpretation of the term. "Instead, funds go directly to schools that (voluntarily) sign up for the program and report qualified student enrollment," (Walberg, 1993, 106). Essentially, "the state will issue a check payable to the parent or guardian of a participating student. The check will be mailed to the private school selected by the parent, who will endorse it for use by the school." (Mitchell, 1996, 13)

Specifics of the program:

"Participating schools may not charge in excess of the $2,500 state grant (Walberg, 1993, 107)
Families eligible for the program must be at or below 175% of the federal poverty line ($22,715 for a family of three, increasing $4585 for each additional family member). (Mitchell, 1996, 13)
Choice students can only make up 49% of any one private school's enrollment. This means that of all students enrolled in any one private school, only 49% of those students can be voucher recipients. It is illegal, for example, for more than half of any private school's student body to receive vouchers.
Private schools "share some of the regulatory and reporting burdens of public schools, but most get by on about half of the funding public schools receive." (Walberg, 1993, 107)
In the beginning, only 1% of Milwaukee public school enrollment, approximately 1,000 students were allowed to participate in the program. Eventually the enrollment was increased to 1.5% or 1,500 students. This left about 65,000 students who met the program's low-income eligibility requirements out of the program. These 65,000 students represented 97% of the otherwise voucher-eligible student population. (Mitchell, 1996, 3).

Expansion of the Program

Originally, only private non-sectarian schools could receive vouchers, thereby severely limiting the program's scope. In 1995 the program was expanded to include religious schools, since most private schools in Milwaukee are sectarian. Wisconsin stopped this expansion of the program on August 25, 1995 (Mitchell, 1996, 6), due to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU argued that granting public money for use at religious institutions violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. Currently, the case is still in the state courts. In the meantime, business and civic leaders developed a coalition called PAVE (Partners Advancing Values in Education) to provide private vouchers to students. "In 1995-96, PAVE scholarships were awarded to about 4,300 low-income children, more than three times the (Milwaukee Public Schools) participation," (Mitchell, 1996, 4). By the second year of the newly expanded Milwaukee program, the program will include include 15% of Milwaukee Public School students, or approximately 15,700 students.

Studies of Effectiveness and the War of Statistics
Perhaps the most fascinating development in the Milwaukee program is the controversy surrounding the studies of the program. Professional researchers have come to markedly different conclusions as to its overall effectiveness. The first research on the outcomes of the program was done Professor John Witte of the University of Wisconsin. He has conducted studies of the program every year since its inception. Witte's fifth year study has raised a bit of controversy among academic scholars even though his essential conclusion has remained the same from year to year. The conclusion of Witte's fifth study recognized no recognizable reading or math test gains for choice students. However, Witte did point out, through survey analysis, that choice parents believed that they were much better off as a result of the program.

The main problem that researchers had with Witte's research involved his treatment of the comparison groups in both the Milwaukee Public Schools and the Voucher program. A team of researchers led by Professor Jay Greene of the University of Houston and Professor Paul Peterson of Harvard University argued that Witte did not adequately control for family income. According to his critics, Witte's sample of Public School students was taken from higher income families than his sample of Choice students. By not controlling for income, Witte may have overstated the achievement level of the MPS students compared to the Choice students. Peterson and Greene conducted a study of their own in August of 1996, which sought to correct this perceived flaw.

The Peterson and Greene study arrived at quite different conclusions. After controlling for family income, the study concluded that the test scores of choice students improved dramatically over a two year involvement in the program. The study found that by the second year of the program reading test scores improve 3 to 5 percentage points, while math test scores increase 5-12 percentage points. Although the implications of this new research may appear profound, the results are not without their critics (See Witte's response to the Peterson and Greene study).

Promising Recent Analysis

Most recently, Cecilia Rouse of Princeton University published a study of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program that corrected for perceived flaws of both Witte's fifth year study and the Peterson & Greene study. In a phone interview she pointed out the flaws in the prior research. In addition to pointing out Witte's weakness of not correcting for family income among his samples, Rouse observed that Peterson & Greene had also committed a crucial flaw. Peterson & Greene's research team had apparently not taken into account Choice students who had originally been in the program and had dropped out of it. Rouse referred to this group as the "attrition factor". The attrition of the program developed as students either dropped out of the program or merely returned to the public schools. It was therefore difficult to determine choice student test scores and make conclusions based on those scores. Rouse pointed out that the attrition rate made solid research on the program rather difficult at times (Rouse, 1997). However, Peterson & Greene, by disregarding the attrition factor in the calculation of students' test scores, had overstated the achievement gains of choice students. Rouse corrected for these flaws in her recent study. Although Rouse's conclusions may present a faint glimmer of hope for choice advocates, the results from her findings remain largely inconclusive (Rouse, 1996, 31-32). She did point out in her conclusion that choice students achieved math test gains of 1.5 - 2 percentage points per year (Rouse, 1996, 32). However, her findings for reading test results were mixed and inconclusive. Rouse believes that the program is both too young and too small to determine whether it increases student achievement, or whether it provides incentives for public schools to improve (Rouse, 1997).

The Cleveland Voucher Program

Brief Overview

The Cleveland program currently grants 1,900 families vouchers for use at 51 private schools, the first ever large scale voucher program for religious schools. The vouchers are a $2,500 value each. The state of Ohio pays 90% of the tuition at the schools while the parents pay the remaining 10%. Furthermore, the program only includes grades K-3 (Walsh, 1997).

Although no formalized studies have been done on the fledgling Cleveland school voucher program, the program warrants special attention. The most controversial feature of the Cleveland program warrants special attention. The most controversial feature of the Cleveland program is that it grants parents vouchers which can be used at any private school. The program therefore allows vouchers to be used at religious elementary schools. What is even more significant is the fact that an Ohio State Court has already upheld the policy. Nevertheless, the ACLU is appealing the decision, meaning the case may find its way into the Supreme Court of the United States.

Constitutional Issues Raised by the Cleveland Case
Vouchers have historically raised constitutional issues. "Voucher plans were tried in the South after 1954 as a means of supporting segregated schools, but these were found unconstitutional," (Pulliam, 1995, 186). Since that time period, however, most voucher proposals have "guarded against racial discrimination," (Pulliam, 1995, 186).

The most important reason that the Cleveland case is so critical is that it may lead to a Supreme Court decision. The potential decision will determine finally whether vouchers will go to religious schools. At the core of this case is a bitterly divisive debate over the relationship between the government and religious institutions. An analysis of past court cases relating to church and state issues will provide a framework for determining how the Court might decide.

Perhaps the most significant precedent relating to the Cleveland case was established in Witters v. Washington Department of Services (1986). In that case, a unanimous Supreme Court decided that "the state could provide funds for vocational rehabilitation services to a blind student pursuing studies at a Christian college to become a minister," (479 U.S. 481 1986). The Court pointed out that to grant state money to a student which the student chooses to use at a public or private religious school "is not an impermissible state endorsement," (Kermerer, p. 308). However, the Court has historically drawn a distinction between higher education and secondary or elementary schools (Kermerer, p. 308). At any rate, an analysis of this case in particular demonstrates that "public monies used to finance private choices do not create an inference that the government endorses religion," (Kermerer, p. 308).

The Supreme Court could essentially go either way on the Cleveland case, if it sticks to constitutional precedents. Although the Court upheld free choice of individuals who receive public money to use at the school of choice, this was only done in the case of higher education. Perhaps the Court may point out this distinction as grounds for claiming that the Cleveland program is unconstitutional. If the Court decides to use this rationale, the provision of public money for individual use at religious elementary schools (the Cleveland Program) would amount to de facto endorsement of religion by the state. However, if the Court does not draw this distinction, and instead uses the rationale of the Witters case, the Court may uphold the Cleveland case as constitutional. In that case, the Court would have to defend the decision to use a voucher at a religious school as a free choice by a parent that would not equate to state endorsement of religion. What makes the case of Cleveland all the more exciting is that the separation of church and state has not been clearly defined in the past. The case gives the Supreme Court considerable latitude of judgment based on some seemingly conflicting precedents. Regardless of its potential outcome, the Cleveland case is important because it will clearly define the meaning of the separation of church and state in the United States.

Government 375: Educational Reform and Ideology