Word
Gems
What is a
man but the sum of his thoughts?
Economics:
Milton
Friedman:
Friedman
Foundation
School Choice
In the simplest of terms, it means letting every parent send their child to the school
of their choice regardless of where they live or income. Parents choose schools based on
their child’s needs, not their address.
In 1955, Dr. Milton Friedman proposed the idea of school vouchers, which would separate
the financing and administration of schools, effectively jumpstarting the modern day
school choice movement. But in the 50 plus years, school choice has evolved to include
just more than vouchers.
These programs allow parents to use all or part of the government funding set aside for
their children’s education to send their children to the public or private school of
their choice. In effect, this separates government financing of education from government
operation of schools. Most programs allow parents to send their children to either
religious or non-religious private schools. Participating private schools are required to
meet standards for safety, fiscal soundness and non-discrimination; some programs also
impose additional restrictions.
Universal Voucher Programs
All children are eligible.
Means-Tested Voucher Programs
Children from families below a defined income level are eligible.
Failing Schools, Failing Students Voucher Programs
Children who are performing poorly in public school or who are attending failing public
schools are eligible.
Special Needs Voucher Programs
Children identified as having special educational needs are eligible.
Pre-Kindergarten Voucher Programs
Children in pre-kindergarten programs are eligible.
Town Tuitioning Programs
Children who live in towns that do not operate public schools at their grade levels are
eligible. In a few cases the town picks the schools to which its students will be
tuitioned, but usually the choice of the school is left to parents.
Individuals and/or corporations get a tax credit for making donations to private
charitable organizations, which use the money to fund scholarships for students. These
scholarships can cover the cost of private-school tuition, tutoring and transportation. In
some states, students must meet certain income criteria to be eligible for scholarships.
Scholarship-granting organizations can be started by community groups, philanthropic
organizations or any other group that wants to extend school choice to children.
Participating private schools are required to meet standards for safety, fiscal soundness
and non-discrimination.
Parents are given a tax credit or tax deduction from state income taxes for approved
educational expenses. This usually includes private-school tuition as well as books,
supplies, computers, tutors and transportation. Even when tuition is not eligible for the
credit or deduction, these programs still make school choice easier for parents because
they relieve the burden of non-tuition expenses at private schools. Some programs restrict
the income level of eligible recipients or the amount they can claim.
Why School Choice?
The origins of public schools lie in the belief that they bring
learning and opportunity to all and ensure a stable democracy.
If this were true, then there might not be a need for school
choice.
But it’s not. Public schools are as segregated as ever.
Children, particularly children in urban areas, are dropping out in record numbers and are
getting a quality of education that depends more on where they live than on what they can
learn. Parents, unless they can move or pay private school tuition, have little choice
about the kind of education their children receive.
Public schooling is simply a monopoly that doesn’t fulfill
the ideals of our founding fathers. The tragic irony is that the dream envisioned by the
founders of our public education system is actually increasing the stratification of
society and failing to provide equal educational opportunity.
In 1955, a forward-thinking Milton Friedman foresaw the result of
this monopoly and encouraged a return to liberty through the introduction of school
choice. He argued that it would be much better and more equitable if the government would
“give each child, through his parents, a specified sum [voucher] to be used solely in
paying for his general education.”
The benefits of this idea, which has come to be known as school
choice, are numerous. Studies show that school choice leads to better test scores for all
students and higher graduation rates. They show that parents are more satisfied and
involved with their child’s school, and that school choice saves taxpayers millions
of dollars. And they show that public schools respond positively to competition.
But beyond the theory, what lies at the heart of school choice is
a family’s freedom to choose. It is about the child in the back of the classroom
who is not getting what he needs in his assigned public school. It is about the student
who just doesn’t feel comfortable at her current school. It is about the family that
simply wants a different option.
In the end, the goal of education is to ensure learning and
guarantee a free society and stable democracy. These goals are better met when all parents
are free to choose the school that works best for their child.
So, why school choice? In a word, liberty.
Does school choice help students do better in school?
|
Absolutely! Seven studies using random assignment, the gold standard
for social science, have found statistically significant gains in academic achievement
from vouchers, and no study has ever found negative effects. Random-assignment
methods allow researchers to isolate the effects of vouchers from other student
characteristics. Students who applied for vouchers were entered into random lotteries to
determine who would receive the voucher and who would remain in public schools; this
allowed researchers to track very similar treatment" and "control"
groups, just like in medical trials. Other research establishes positive academic effects
from vouchers as well.
Milwaukee
Milwaukee has been studied twice with top quality random-assignment methods:
• A 1998 Harvard study found that after four years of participation, voucher students
gained 11 points in math and six points in reading compared to the control group.
• Another 1998 study by Cecilia Rouse of Princeton found that voucher students
improved more than the control group by eight points in math over four years.
In a 2004 study, Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute found that vouchers improve
graduation rates:
• In the graduating class of 2003, private schools participating in the voucher
program had a graduation rate of 64 percent, while Milwaukee's public high schools had a
graduation rate of 36 percent.
• Even at academically selective Milwaukee public schools, the graduation rate was
only 41 percent, still well below the rate for schools participating in the voucher
program.
Florida
A 2003 Manhattan Institute study by Jay Greene and Greg Forster found that:
• 93 percent of McKay participants are satisfi ed with their McKay schools, while
only 33 percent were similarly satisfi ed with their public schools.
• Only 30 percent of current participants say they received all services required
under federal law from their previous public schools, while 86 percent say their McKay
schools provide all the services they promised to provide.
• 47 percent of participants were bothered often and 25 percent were physically
assaulted at their previous public schools because of their disabilities, compared to 5
percent bothered often and 6 percent assaulted in McKay schools.
• More than 90 percent of former McKay participants who have left the program said
the McKay program should continue to be available for those who wish to use it.
New York
A privately funded voucher program in New York has been studied twice with top quality
random-assignment methods:
• A 2002 Harvard study found that, after three years, African-American voucher
students improved 9.2 percentile points more than the control group in combined reading
and math scores.
• A 2003 study by four researchers from Harvard, Columbia and Johns Hopkins
universities found that after only one year in the program voucher students improved 4.7
percentile points more than the control group in math.
Dayton
A 2002 Harvard study using random-assignment methods found that, after three years,
African-American voucher students receiving a privately funded voucher improved 6.5
percentile points more than the control group in combined reading and math scores.
Charlotte
A 2001 study by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute using random-assignment methods
found that, after only one year, students receiving a privately funded voucher improved
six percentile points more than the control group in combined reading and math scores. |
| Conclusion: A large number of high-quality studies
show that vouchers improve academic achievement. No empirical study has ever found that
vouchers hurt academic achievement. |
|
| Doesn’t school choice drain
resources from public schools? |
Absolutely not! No state or city with school choice has seen its public
school budgets go down. When Milwaukee's school choice program was founded in 1990-91, its
public schools spent $6,316 per student; by 2003-04 that had risen to $10,375. Cleveland's
public school spending rose from $6,616 in 1996-97, when its choice program began, to
$10,420 in 2003-04. And these fi gures include only the portion of school budgets known as
"current expenditures"; figures for total education spending would be even
higher.
Why have cities with school choice seen such large increases in per-student spending?
Believe it or not, school choice is one of the reasons. The claim that choice drains money
may sound plausible; schools are funded on a per-student basis, so fewer students means
less money. But a growing body of research fi nds exactly the opposite: school choice
programs actually improve public school financing. school choice gives the public school
system more money to educate each student.
The amount of money spent on the voucher or scholarship for each participant in a school
choice program is less than what would have been spent on that student if he or she had
remained in public schools. That means states save money that can be plowed back into
their education budgets and spent on the students who remain in public schools:
• While the average public school spends about $10,000 per student, the average
private school charges about $5,000 in tuition. That's the fundamental reason school
choice saves money – private schools
do a better job at about half the cost.
• A 2006 joint Friedman Foundation/Cato Institute study finds that Washington D.C.'s
voucher program saves the city over $250,000 due to the greater efficiency of school
choice.
• A 2005 joint Friedman Foundation/Goldwater Institute study finds that Arizona
spends between $8,500 and $9,000 on each student in public schools, but students using
tax-funded scholarships receive only
$3,500 to $4,500. The authors project total savings of $32 million if 5 percent of Arizona
students used scholarships.
• A 2005 Friedman Foundation study of a proposed voucher program in Minneapolis finds
that the city's public schools spend $13,600 per student. Since the voucher program would
cost only $4,600 per student, the potential savings would be quite large – more than
$16 million annually.
• A 2005 joint Friedman Foundation/Maryland Public Policy Institute study of a
proposed voucher program in Baltimore fi nds that even a hefty $7,000 voucher still would
save public schools money, since the city spends $8,900 on each public school student.
Annual savings would total $9 million for every 1,000 enrollees.
Facing numbers like this, the teacher unions usually retort that they don't account for
fixed costs. If a student leaves a public school, that school still has to spend some of
the money it did before to cover costs that don't vary much with enrollment levels, such
as
building maintenance. But studies show that schools' fixed costs aren't big enough to
offset the huge savings from school choice:
• A 2005 Clemson University study finds that, even after accounting for fixed costs,
a proposed voucher program for South Carolina (offering $4,000 to $4,600, compared to
public spending of $8,300) would save $594 million over its fi rst fi ve years.
• A 2004 Utah State University study fi nds that a proposed school choice program in
Utah would save between $26 million and $144 million every year, even after schools' fi
xed costs were taken into account.
• A 2005 Friedman Foundation study fi nds that tax-funded scholarships in New Mexico
would save $63 million over 10 years.
• A 2004 joint Friedman Foundation/Josiah Bartlett Center study fi nds that a
proposed voucher program in New Hampshire would save $9 million annually.
|
| Conclusion: School choice programs do not drain money
from public schools. Actually, they leave more money behind to educate fewer students. No
state or city with school choice has seen its public school budgets go down. |
|
| Does school choice make public
schools better? |
A large body of evidence says yes. If all schools compete for students,
public schools will not be able to take students for granted, as they do now; they will
have to improve to prevent students from walking out the door. In practice, it is becoming
clear that this is exactly what is happening. Not one empirical study
has ever found that outcomes at U.S. public schools got worse when exposed to school
choice, and numerous studies have found that they improve.
Florida
A 2004 study by Jay Greene and Marcus Winters of the Manhattan Institute, published in the
journal Education Next, found that:
• Low-performing schools facing the threat of vouchers made significantly greater
test-score gains than similarly low-performing schools not facing the voucher threat.
• The closer a school was to having vouchers offered to its students, the more
dramatic the gains.
• Schools already facing competition from vouchers showed the biggest improvements,
outpacing other Florida schools by a full 15 points.
A study by Rajashri Chakrabarti of Cornell, published in the same issue of that journal,
found that schools given F grades under the A+ system made greater-than average gains,
while schools given F grades under Florida's earlier system (which had no vouchers or
other accountability sanctions) made no gains relative to other Florida schools.
Milwaukee
In a 2001 study, Caroline Hoxby of Harvard found that public schools more exposed to
voucher competition had test-score gains over a three-year period that outpaced other
public schools by 10.2 percentile points in math, 9.3 points in language, 16.2 points in
science and 8.1 points in social studies. A 2003 Manhattan Institute study found that
fourth-grade test-score gains were much bigger in schools in which more students were
eligible for vouchers, such that a school with 100 percent of students eligible would have
test-score gains 15 points higher than a school with only 50 percent eligible.
San Antonio
A 2003 Manhattan Institute study by Jay Greene and Greg Forster found that a San Antonio
school district facing competition from a privately funded voucher program outperformed 85
percent of Texas districts in its achievement gains.
Maine and Vermont
A 2002 Friedman Foundation study by Christopher Hammons found that tuitioning introduces
healthy competitive incentives that improve public schools:
• Public high schools closer to tuitioning towns had better test scores than other
public high schools, controlling for school spending and student demographics.
• The effect is large enough that if a town a mile away from a school decided to
tuition its students, we would expect the percentage of students passing the state test at
that school to increase by 3.4 points – a gain of 12 percent over existing scores.
• If a state wanted to purchase the same test score gains by increasing per pupil
spending, it would have to spend an extra $909 per student.
Residential Choice
A large body of studies on residential choice confi rms the positive effects from school
competition. Public schools perform better in cities with a large number of small school
districts, where it is easier for people to choose the district in which they will live. A
2002 review of all the available research by two professors at Columbia's Teachers College
found that the evidence strongly supports a positive effect from school competition caused
by residential choice; this has been further confi rmed by recent studies conducted by
Harvard's Caroline Hoxby and the Manhattan Institute's Jay Greene and Marcus Winters. |
| Conclusion: A large body of studies shows that
competition from school choice improves public schools. No empirical study has ever found
that school choice hurts public-school outcomes. |
|
| Are private schools that
participate in school choice programs held accountable? |
Not only are private schools accountable for the job they do, they're
much more accountable than public schools are. Private schools are primarily accountable
to parents, who can pull their children out of a school that fails to serve them.
That's a freedom that parents stuck in the public school monopoly don't have.
If a public school fails to perform, parents have no way to hold it accountable; they're
out of luck. But private schools are not just accountable to parents, they're also
accountable to the public. Private schools in every state comply with a vast array of
health and safety regulations, antidiscrimination laws and even rules covering the minimum
number of school days. In addition, most private schools already undertake yearly
fi nancial audits and evaluate their children using nationally recognized tests, for the
simple reason that parents expect and demand it.
Private schools that participate in school choice programs are required to be safe,
non-discriminatory and fiscally sound and to fi le regular reports and disclosures.
Teacher unions argue that this isn't enough; in the name of "accountability,"
they say private schools should have to submit to a giant mountain of red tape and
regulatory burdens if they want to participate in school choice programs. But one of the
most important reasons private schools do a better job than public schools is that they're
free from these restrictions. They can be creative in the classroom and more open to
trying different approaches to help children learn.
There is a big difference between the current rules governing private schools and the
teacher unions' desire to burden private schools with excessive and pointless regulations.
Private schools are good largely because they are free to innovate.
Forcing them to use the same standards as public schools, to take mandatory tests based on
curricula chosen by the state rather than parents or to comply with unnecessary red tape
is bad news.
More regulations do not always mean more accountability. Ultimately, the thing that gives
the concept of "accountability" real teeth is the ability to choose your child's
school. With that ability, you can take your child out of a school that isn't doing the
job and fi nd a school that will. Without that ability, stuck in your assigned school,
your child can be taken for granted and your concerns can be ignored.
|
| Conclusion: Private schools are accountable to both
parents (through choice) and the public (through existing accountability rules). Piling on
burdensome regulations in the name of accountability would only hamper their ability to
teach kids better. |
|
| Will school choice turn a
private school into an over-regulated public school? |
Not if we are vigilant! One reason private schools do so well is that
they don't have to deal with the same over-the-top bureaucratic red tape as public
schools.
Some worry that school choice will endanger this freedom. They fear the teacher union
argument that, if school choice is funded through tax dollars, private
schools should be heavily regulated in the name of accountability. This kind of thinking
could give government a green light to regulate away the very freedom that makes private
schools better than public schools.
However, we have to keep pointing out the simple truth: private schools already are
accountable. They're accountable to parents, who can pull their children out
of a school that fails to serve them – a freedom that parents stuck in the public
school monopoly don't have. And they're also accountable to the public, through health and
safety regulations, antidiscrimination laws and other state rules, as well as widespread
voluntary fi scal audits, accreditation and testing.
The good news is that the teacher unions can be beaten. For 15 years, union-sponsored
attempts to add unnecessary red tape to the voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland
have failed. Every year, opponents have tried to increase the regulations on private
schools participating in these programs, and every year parents and supporters have
defeated them. Instead, these programs have adopted reasonable accountability rules in
cooperation with school choice advocates.
But couldn't these efforts at sabotage someday succeed? That's unlikely, given that the
power of the teacher unions is on the wane. If they didn't succeed in sabotaging school
choice programs 10 years ago, it's unlikely they will succeed now. As long as supporters
of school choice remain vigilant, private schools will continue to enjoy the freedom that
allows them to educate kids better than public schools. |
| Conclusion: Attempts to transform private schools into
over-regulated public schools through school choice programs have failed, and with
vigilance we can continue to see to it that they fail. |
|
| Does the public really want
school choice? |
No doubt about it! Numerous polls fi nd that most Americans express
support for school choice:
• 62 percent agreed, two years in a row, that "parents should have the option of
sending their children to non-public schools, including those with a religious affi
liation, using vouchers or credits provided by the federal government that would pay for
some or all of the costs" (First Amendment Center 2003 & 2004).
• 56 percent said they would select a private school if offered a full-tuition
voucher; 48 percent said they would do so even if only offered a half-tuition voucher
(PDK/Gallup 2004).
• 61 percent supported, and 27 percent opposed, school vouchers allowing parents to
move their children from under-performing schools to more successful schools (Sacred Heart
University 2005).
• 63 percent supported "allowing poor parents to be given the tax dollars
allotted for their child's education and permitting them to use those dollars in the form
of a scholarship to attend a private, public or parochial school of their choosing"
(Zogby 2002).
• 53 percent agreed, and 42 percent disagreed, that "the federal government
should set aside public funds for students enrolled in public schools that are considered
to be failing; the money will then be used to pay for the students to attend their choice
of public, private, or parochial school" (Zogby 2002).
• 51 percent favored, and 40 percent disfavored, the idea of school vouchers to help
send children to private or parochial schools (Associated Press 2002).
• 69 percent supported vouchers even if public schools got less money: "What if
that meant the public schools in your community would receive less money, then would you
agree or disagree that parents should get taxfunded vouchers they can use to help pay for
tuition for their children to attend private or religious schools instead of public
schools?" (CBS/New York Times 2001).
• 54 percent said yes, and 38 percent said no, when asked: "Would vouchers
improve the public school system?" (CNN/USA Today/Gallup 2001).
• Five polls using various question wording all found support for vouchers in 2000:
• 64 percent agreed, and 34 percent disagreed, that "parents should have the
option of sending their children to religious schools instead of public schools using
'vouchers' or 'credits' provided by the government that would pay for some or all
costs" (University of Connecticut).
• 56 percent preferred the position that "government should give parents more
educational choices by providing taxpayer-funded vouchers to help pay for private or
religious schools," compared to 38 percent who preferred the position that
"government funding should be limited to public schools" (NBC/Wall Street
Journal).
• 53 percent favored, and 44 percent opposed, "federal funding for vouchers to
help low- and middle-income parents send their children to private and parochial
schools" (Pew/Princeton Associates).
• 50 percent favored, and 45 percent opposed, "establishing a school voucher
program that would allow parents to use tax funds to send their children to a private
school" (University of Maryland).
• 49 percent favored, and 47 percent opposed, "providing parents with tax money
in the form of school vouchers to help pay for their children to attend private or
religious schools" (Washington Post/Kaiser/Harvard University).
Unfortunately, not all polls are created equal – some use slanted questions that
produce biased fi ndings. The most frequently cited education poll, the annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup poll, contains a voucher question that has been proven to be extremely
sensitive to small changes in wording. In 2004 and 2005, the Friedman Foundation
commissioned a poll that asked 500 people the PDK/Gallup question, and 500 people the same
question with two small changes. The results shifted dramatically both times – by 22
and 23 points, respectively.
The methodological problems of the PDK/Gallup voucher question were originally documented
by Terry Moe of Stanford University in the Spring 2002 and Fall 2002 issues of the
academic journal Education Next.
Many other polls are equally questionable. In Florida, one poll produced the appearance of
61 percent opposition to vouchers by misleadingly defining "vouchers" as
"giving state funds to private schools" (St. Petersburg Times 2006). Another
poll taken in the same month, which didn't defi ne what vouchers are but simply asked
whether people supported the governor's proposed voucher legislation, found 48 percent
supported it and 41 percent opposed it (Tampa Tribune 2006).
In Utah, one poll found 54 percent opposed to vouchers "for parents who send their
children to private schools," a description that would lead many respondents to think
that vouchers would only go to parents who currently send their children to private
schools (Desert Morning News 2005). Another poll taken only three months later, by the
same polling company, said that "some have proposed that the government provide a
certain amount of money for each child's education. The parents can then send the child to
any public, parochial, or private school they choose. This is called the 'voucher
system'"; this poll found 56 percent favored vouchers and 24 percent opposed them
(Brigham Young University 2006).
|
| Conclusion: A majority of the American public supports
school choice. Most important, parents of all backgrounds support school choice, because
they know it is best for their children. |
|
| Do a wide spectrum of Americans
want school choice? |
Yes, they do! Contrary to the myth propagated by teachers' unions,
school choice has a broad base of support across all points on the political spectrum and
among people of all backgrounds.
It's true that the guardians of the education status quo have bought themselves a lot of
influence in the Democratic Party. But more and more Democrats are seeing past the
propaganda and realizing that the government school monopoly is the single biggest
obstacle to their goals of social justice and empowerment of the poor. Milton Friedman
himself says that "vouchers should have been a Democratic proposal."
In the past few years we have seen this trend bear fruit in the increasing number of
Democratic politicians who support school choice – either out of conviction or
because too many of their own Democratic constituents are choice supporters for them to
keep resisting it. The first high-profi le instance was in 2004 when Congress
enacted school vouchers for Washington D.C. with the support of both Democratic city
officials, including Mayor Anthony Williams, and national Democratic leaders like Diane
Feinstein and Joe Lieberman. In 2005, Ohio enacted a new voucher program sponsored by
Democratic Rep. Dixie Allen, while Missouri debated a prominent school choice proposal
supported by a number of top state Democrats.
But 2006 marked an irreversible turning point. First, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) signed
a big expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program. Then Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D)
allowed the creation of a tax-credit scholarship program. Later she signed two new voucher
programs into law, and also doubled the size of the new scholarship program, throwing in a
provision expanding it by 20 percent every year through 2010 for good measure. In Iowa, a
new tax-credit scholarship program gained overwhelming Democratic support. The state
Senate, divided exactly in half between Republicans and Democrats, passed it by 49-1; the
House, where Republicans have only a one-vote majority, passed it by 75-19; and Gov. Tom
Vilsack (D) signed it into law. Rhode Island's Democratic Senate passed, and Gov. Don
Carcieri (D) signed, a provision creating a new tax-credit scholarship program. Finally,
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) signed a $10 million expansion of his state's tax-credit
scholarship program.
After this banner year, trying to maintain the myth that Democrats can't support school
choice will be like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
School choice also has diverse popular support. Polls show that Hispanic Americans want
school choice:
• 57 percent of Hispanic Americans supported "allowing low-income parents to use
taxpayer-funded vouchers to place their kids in private or church-run schools"
(Latino Coalition 2003).
• 52 percent of Hispanic Americans agreed, and 39 percent disagreed, that
"parents should get tax-funded vouchers they can use to help pay for tuition for
their children to attend private or religious schools instead of public schools (CBS/New
York Times 2003).
• 64 percent of Hispanic Americans supported "allowing poor parents to be given
the tax dollars allotted for their child's education and permitting them to use those
dollars in the form of a scholarship to attend a private, public or parochial school of
their choosing" (Zogby 2002).
Polls also show that African Americans want school choice:
• 77 percent of African Americans supported school vouchers allowing parents to move
their children from under-performing schools to more successful schools (Sacred Heart
University 2005).
• 72 percent of African Americans supported "allowing poor parents to be given
the tax dollars allotted for their child's education and permitting them to use those
dollars in the form of a scholarship to attend a private, public or parochial school of
their choosing" (Zogby 2002).
• 57 percent of African Americans supported, and 43 percent opposed, "a voucher
system where parents would get money from the government to send their children to the
public, private, or parochial school of their choice" (Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies 2002).
|
| Conclusion: School choice has strong support across
political and demographic groups, because it brings together all people who want to
empower parents and students rather than a government school bureaucracy. |
|
| Is school choice constitutional?
|
If the program is well designed, it probably is! This question was
answered resoundingly in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision
upholding the constitutionality of Cleveland's voucher program. By a 5-4 vote, the
justices made it very clear that when an individual uses public funds to make
a private choice – in this case when a parent uses a voucher to send his or her child
to a private school, including religious schools – it does not violate the First
Amendment. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained in the majority opinion, voucher
programs such as Cleveland's are "neutral in respect to religion (because they)
provide assistance directly to a broad class of citizens, who, in turn, direct government
aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private
choice."
This landmark decision is in line with a long series of high-court decisions. For example,
in 1983 the court upheld Minnesota's income tax deduction for educational expenses,
including private-school tuition. In 1993, the court unanimously upheld the use of public
funds by a blind student pursuing a divinity degree at a religious college. Moreover, the
court did not strike down the G.I. Bill or Pell grants, both of which are voucher programs
allowing college students to attend the public or private school of their choice,
including religious colleges.
While recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings favor vouchers, some state constitutions also have
language prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to support religious schools.
However, as the Institute for Justice argues, "many court decisions interpret state
constitutions to parallel the First Amendment. If so, the recent First Amendment cases
discussed above should control state constitutional interpretation. If the state
constitutional provision is more restrictive, advocates may have to challenge such
restrictions under the federal constitution."
In the end, whether or not voucher or school choice legislation is constitutional depends
on how well the bill is designed. If parents make a truly private choice of which school
their child attends, if there is no fi nancial incentive to attend a religious school over
a non-religious school and if the program does not allow undue government interference
with religious schools, chances are the bill will be looked on favorably by the court.
|
| Conclusion: Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court strongly
favor school choice. Because parents make a truly independent choice of where to send
their children to school, there is no violation of the U.S. Constitution if they freely
choose religious schools. |
|
| Does school choice help
special-education students? |
Definitely. Providing school choice to special-education students
allows families unhappy with their assigned public school to fi nd a program that meets
their child's individual needs. The McKay program in Florida is used by more than 15,000
of the state's special-education students. A 2003 Manhattan Institute study by Jay Greene
and Greg Forster found that:
• 93 percent of McKay participants are satisfi ed with their McKay schools, while
only 33 percent were similarly satisfi ed with their public schools.
• Only 30 percent of current participants say they received all services required
under federal law from their previous public schools, while 86 percent say their McKay
schools provide all the services they promised to provide.
• 47 percent of participants were bothered often and 25 percent were physically
assaulted at their previous public schools because of their disabilities, compared to 5
percent bothered often and 6 percent assaulted in McKay schools.
• More than 90 percent of former McKay participants who have left the program said
the McKay program should continue to be available for those who wish to use it.
The success of the Florida program and growing desire of parents wanting options for their
special-needs children have led to the creation of a similar program in Utah and
consideration in several other states. |
| Conclusion: School choice for special education allows
parents to fi nd a school that matches their child’s individual needs. The evidence
shows that disabled students using school choice are getting better services. |
|
| Does school choice really lead
to more integrated schools? |
Years of teacher-union propaganda have conditioned the public to think
that private schools are more segregated than public schools. However, the best available
studies show that the opposite is true. Private school classrooms are more integrated than
public school classrooms, and school-choice programs put kids into more integrated
schools.
Our nation's public schools are heavily segregated. According to a Harvard University
study, "more than 70 percent of the nation's black students now attend predominately
minority (public) schools." Public schools are so segregated primarily because of
residential segregation. Attendance at public schools is determined by where people live,
which guarantees that segregation in housing patterns will always be reproduced in public
schools. Desegregation efforts have largely failed because they are geographically
limited; white families who move to the suburbs can't legally be forced to bus their
children across municipal lines.
Private schools, by contrast, can draw students from anywhere. In fact, because they offer
a superior education and other attractions that parents want for their children but can't
get at public schools, private schools typically draw from a much larger geographic area
than public schools. That means private schools can mitigate the effects of residential
segregation in a way public schools can't match. What's more, the superior desirability of
private schools gives parents a reason to overcome any qualms they may have about
desegregation. Because private schools are better, parents are more likely to trust them
to handle the challenges of a multiracial classroom environment. For these and other
reasons, private schools succeed at integrating where public schools fail.
Many studies that purport to measure segregation in schools use inadequate methods, such
as failing to adopt an objective standard of what counts as "segregation." There
have been only seven studies comparing segregation in voucher-participating private
schools to segregation in public schools using valid empirical methods. All seven find
that students using vouchers are attending private schools that are less segregated than
the public schools they would otherwise attend:
• A 2006 Friedman Foundation study found that private schools participating in the
Milwaukee voucher program are 13 points less segregated than Milwaukee public schools on a
"segregation index" that compares the racial composition of each school to the
composition of the greater metro area.
• A 2002 Marquette University study found that Milwaukee public school students were
more likely to attend racially homogeneous schools than voucher students, both in
elementary schools (58 v. 50 percent) and secondary schools (44 v. 29 percent).
• This result confi rmed Marquette University studies in 1999 and 2000 that produced
similar fi ndings.
• A 2006 Friedman Foundation study found that private schools participating in
Cleveland's voucher program are 18 points less segregated than Cleveland public schools on
the segregation index.
• A 1999 University of Texas-Austin study found that among Cleveland elementary and
middle school students, public school students were less likely than voucher students to
attend schools whose racial composition was similar to that of the metro area (5 v. 19
percent) and more likely to attend racially homogeneous schools (61 v. 50 percent).
• A 2005 Manhattan Institute study found that Washington D.C. public schools differ
from the racial composition of the metro area by a greater amount than private schools
participating in the city's voucher program (40 v. 34 percentage points) and that public
school students are more likely to attend racially homogenous schools than voucher
students (85 v. 47 percent).
|
| Conclusion: Contrary to the claims of opponents,
school choice leads to more integrated schools. Research shows that children using school
choice attend more integrated schools than their public school counterparts. |
|
