----

##  Educational Vouchers. ERIC Digest, Number 137.                               

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 ac atalyst 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." RESOURCESAdelsheimer, 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. EA 536 268. 
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. 
A Product of the ERIC Clearinghouse             on Educational Management, College of Education, University of                  Oregon, Eugene, Oregon  97403-5207. 
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 OERI, ED, or               the Clearinghouse. This Digest is in the public domain and may be               freely reproduced. The text of this Digest may be viewed                        electronically at http://eric.uoregon.edu.                                   **Title:** Educational Vouchers. ERIC Digest, Number 137.                               **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of                Oregon, Eugene, OR 97402-5207; Tel: 800-438-8841 (toll-free). For               full text: http://eric.uoregon.edu.                                          **Descriptors:**  Educational Vouchers, Elementary Secondary Education,  Equal                   Education,  Government School Relationship, Private Schools, Public             Schools,  School Choice, Socioeconomic Influences, State Church                 Separation,  Tuition Grants                                                  **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]