Who's Vouching for Vouchers? | The Nation


Who's Vouching for Vouchers?

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size

§ Lesson Number Four: Voucher schools do not necessarily serve all children. One of the most contentious issues in Milwaukee has involved special education. By law, the private schools are not required to provide the same level of special-education services as public schools. According to the Legislative Audit Bureau report, in 1998-99 only 3 percent of the voucher students had been previously identified as requiring special services, compared with about 15 percent of public school students. The report went on to note that voucher students are more likely to receive services that are relatively low in cost, "such as those needed for children with speech and language disabilities or learning disabilities."

About the Author

Barbara Miner
Barbara Miner is managing editor of Rethinking Schools (www.rethinkingschools.org), an education reform journal based...

Also by the Author

Ever since the 1954 Brown decision outlawing "separate but equal" schools, various popular movements have upheld a vision of public schools as essential to democracy and have demanded legal protections for those previously marginalized--from Title IX prohibitions against gender-based discrimination, to the right to a bilingual education, to the inclusion of students with disabilities in public school classrooms, to the demand that public schools respect the rights of gay and lesbian students. On February 20 the Supreme Court took up a case that could lead to an about-face on this half-century of struggle.

The Justices heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of a school voucher program in Cleveland in which tax dollars pay for tuition at private schools. Roughly 4,300 Cleveland students currently receive vouchers, and 99.4 percent of them attend religious schools. The case's significance goes beyond vouchers to whether public education will be replaced by a marketplace system in which the role of the public is limited to making an individual "choice" to attend a particular school. The case also holds enormous potential to further George W. Bush's "faith based" initiatives promoting religious groups in the redefinition and privatization of the public sector.

The legal heart of the Cleveland case is whether the voucher program violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. The Justices are sharply divided, and many observers expect the Court to issue a narrow ruling on the specifics of the Cleveland case. But even a narrow holding would have broad ramifications.

Vouchers have been a bedrock of the conservative agenda to privatize education and provide public dollars for private religious education. The ability to move that agenda forward, however, has been hampered by the legal cloud over vouchers. To gain support, voucher supporters have fostered the image that vouchers are merely a way to provide options to low-income minority parents whose children are trapped in failing urban schools. But if the Court accepts the pro-voucher argument that there is no government endorsement of religion because the voucher goes to parents, that reasoning can extend to all parents regardless of income. It can also extend to social services other than education.

Should the Cleveland case pass constitutional muster, one of the immediate issues facing the voucher movement is how to make the move to universal vouchers without jeopardizing the political capital it's gained by seeming to befriend low-income minorities. The perception is that the Cleveland voucher program is aimed at African-Americans, but that's wrong. African-Americans constitute 71 percent of the students in the Cleveland public schools, yet they account for only 53 percent of voucher students. Whites, meanwhile, make up 19 percent of Cleveland's public school students but 29 percent of voucher students.

For voucher opponents, a Supreme Court decision upholding the Cleveland program will move the battle from the courts to the policy arena. Two issues will immediately come to the fore--money and accountability. The money issue is simple. Taxpayer support for education is limited, particularly during recessionary times, and the money that goes to private schools will reduce taxpayer willingness to fund public schools. This will undercut the movement for funding equity for urban public schools and diminish funds for such important reforms as smaller classes, improved teacher quality and reducing the achievement gap between whites and African-Americans and Latinos. Vouchers also undermine the calls for greater accountability. If the government tries to impose the same accountability on voucher schools as on public schools, it runs the risk of excessive "entanglement" in religion, violating church/state separation.

As voucher attorney Clint Bolick has argued, regulation of voucher schools "should be limited. It should not include any state oversight of curriculum, personnel or administration. Any program that creates extensive involvement by the state in the schools' internal affairs is likely to be found an unconstitutional excessive entanglement." In Milwaukee, home to the country's oldest and largest voucher program, accountability is so lax that no academic data have been collected from voucher schools for more than six years. As a result, no one knows how students in voucher schools are performing academically. Furthermore, the voucher schools don't have to provide the same level of services for special education students or students who don't speak English. Because constitutional rights like due process are not applicable in private schools, voucher schools can suspend or expel students at will.

Many people don't appreciate the threat vouchers pose. Who can disagree that public schools, particularly in urban areas, fail too many students? But it would be shortsighted to abandon public education and accept the myth that vouchers and privatization are the answer. Public education tries to fulfill our vision of a more democratic America, with public institutions responsible to, and controlled by, the public. The voucher movement betrays that vision. It treats education as a mere consumer item and asks us to settle for the "choice" to apply to a private school that itself does the choosing.

Only two of the eighty-six voucher schools studied in the report provided bilingual education. And only about 38 percent of the voucher schools provided transportation for students, which helps insure equal access. James Hall, a board member of the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP, fears that in the long run "the public school system will be a last-resort dumping ground, or at least it may be perceived that way. And perception unfortunately can become reality."

§ Lesson Number Five: Parents do not necessarily want to abandon the public schools--they want them to work better. Despite ten years of vouchers, African-Americans and Latinos have not flocked to the private schools. In Milwaukee there are only 1,359 more blacks in private schools than four years ago; during the same period, the number of African-Americans in the public schools increased by 4,419. Nor did the voucher schools, as a group, enroll as many students as their capacity would have allowed, according to the Legislative Audit Bureau report.

It's revealing that a large number of African-American parents have exercised their choice to attend a suburban public school rather than a private school within Milwaukee, under a state-funded desegregation program known as Chapter 220. Currently some 5,500 students take part in the program. During 1998-99, there were three times as many applications from students of color as available seats in the suburban districts. The continuing popularity of the program, which began in 1976 and is the longest-running "choice" program in the state, demonstrates that African-American parents do not necessarily dislike public schools per se but want their children to attend well-funded, quality public schools. In the Milwaukee area, as in most urban areas, suburban schools spend significantly more per pupil than city schools.

Advocates of public school reform find themselves in a complicated position. On the one hand, they must continue to expose the problems in public schools and demand that they provide a quality education to all children. On the other hand, they must defend the institution of public education as a public good and expose voucher plans for what they are--essential building blocks in a conservative agenda to privatize our schools and remove them from public oversight and responsibility.

Currently there are three voucher programs in this country--in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Florida--in which public dollars are used to pay tuition at private schools, including religious schools. But voucher bills are on the docket in more than twenty states this spring. At a time when our urban schools need to commit themselves to equity and high standards for all children, vouchers promote a mentality of escape, individualized advancement and abandonment of responsibility for the collective good. African-Americans would be among the first to lose under such a system. At best, vouchers are a temporary solution for a limited number of children--but with no accountability, even that is not guaranteed.

Milwaukee Democrat Gwen Moore, one of two African-American state senators, argues that until now, there's been a "feel good" approach to discussions about vouchers, keeping the discussion at the level of pleasant soundbites. "But I think the morning after is coming, after this big party.... We're feeding on our public institutions, and it's the public schools that are the only guarantee that all children are going to have some basic level of education.

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size