School voucher

A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government by which parents can pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they are assigned.

History

The oldest continuing school voucher programs existing today in the United States are the Town Tuitioning programs in Vermont and Maine, beginning in 1869 and 1873 respectively. Because some towns in these states operate neither local high schools nor elementary schools, students in these towns "are eligible for a voucher to attend [either] public schools in other towns or non-religious private schools. In these cases, the 'sending' towns pay tuition directly to the 'receiving' schools."

In some Southern states during the 1960s, school vouchers were used as a method of perpetuating segregation. In a few instances, public schools were closed outright and vouchers were issued to parents. The vouchers, in many cases, were only good at privately segregated schools, known as segregation academies. Today, all modern voucher programs prohibit against racial discrimination.

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. The view further gained popularity with the 1980 TV broadcast of Friedman's series "Free to Choose" for which volume 6 was devoted entirely to promoting "educational freedom" through programs like school vouchers. Vouchers have since been introduced in countries all over the world but are controversial as they reflect political and ideological splits as well as limiting the role of unions in education.

Controversy

Proponents

Proponents assert that voucher systems would promote free market competition among schools of all types, which would provide schools incentive to improve. Successful schools would attract students, while bad schools would be forced to reform or close. The goal of this system is to localize accountability as opposed to relying on government standards.

Under non-voucher education systems citizens that currently pay for private schooling are still charged taxes that are used to fund public schools. Therefore, it seems that their cost for education is doubled as they are funding both public and private schools simultaneously. Vouchers are designed to provide citizens freedom to spend their tax money as they choose for the type of school they want. This causes controversy as it puts public education in direct competition with private education, threatening to reduce public school funding if parents choose to withdraw their children in favor of a private school. Proponents argue that competition through free market capitalism would increase the quality of education for both private and public education sectors as it has for higher education with publicly funded state universities directly competing against private universities. Also, similar competition has helped in manufacturing, energy, transportation, and parcel postal (UPS, FedEx vs. USPS) sectors of government that have been socialized and later opened up to free market competition. Frequently, institutions are forced to operate at higher efficiencies when they are allowed to compete and any loss of supply and demand for public institutions would be offset and equalized by the increased demand for private institutions. For example, if the demand for private schools increased, they would need to hire more teachers and staff to compensate for their increased growth, so any jobs lost from the public sector would be offset by jobs gained in the private sector.

Proponents also note that school vouchers would allow for greater economic diversity by offering lower income students opportunities to attend previously unaffordable private schools. School voucher proponent and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman observed that the poor have an incentive to support school choice, as their children attend substandard schools, and would thus benefit most from alternative schools. Friedrich von Hayek explains:

"As has been shown by Professor Milton Friedman (M. Friedman, The role of government in education,1955), it would now be entirely practicable to defray the costs of general education out of the public purse without maintaining government schools, by giving the parents vouchers covering the cost of education of each child which they could hand over to schools of their choice. It may still be desirable that government directly provide schools in a few isolated communities where the number of children is too small (and the average cost of education therefore too high) for privately run schools. But with respect to the great majority of the population, it would undoubtedly be possible to leave the organization and management of education entirely to private efforts, with the government providing merely the basic finance and ensuring a minimum standard for all schools where the vouchers could be spent." (F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, section 24.3)

Other influential supporters include Newark Mayor Cory Booker, South Carolina's current governor Mark Sanford, billionaire and American philanthropist John T. Walton, Former Mayor of Baltimore Kurt L. Schmoke, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and John McCain, who believed that, "School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded opportunities for our children to get a quality education."

The Liberty and Democracy Party supports vouchers as a stepping-stone to abolishing public schools. LDP spokesman Shem Bennett said, "Initially some public schools would remain. But under the LDP’s plan, schools would slowly privatise and diversify as there’d be no need for government ownership."

Some proponents of school vouchers, including the Sutherland Institute and many supporters of the Utah voucher effort, see it as a remedy for historic cultural genocide committed against demographic minorities by compulsory public schools. During the run-up to the November referendum election Sutherland issued a controversial publication: Voucher, Vows, & Vexations. Sutherland called the publication an important review of the history of education in Utah while critics just called it revisionist history. Sutherland then released the subsequent companion article in a peer-reviewed law journal as part of an academic conference about school choice.

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, founded by Milton and Rose Friedman in 1996, is a non-profit organization that promotes universal school vouchers and other forms of school choice. In defense of vouchers, it cites empirical research showing that students who were randomly assigned to receive vouchers had higher academic outcomes than students who applied for vouchers but lost a random lottery and didn’t receive them; and that vouchers improve academic outcomes at public schools, reduce racial segregation, deliver better services to special education students, and do not drain money from public schools.

Opponents

Among the strongest critics are public school teacher unions, most notably the National Education Association (the largest labor union in the USA) who has spent millions litigating and lobbying against vouchers for concern that it could erode educational standards, reduce funding, and ultimately cost public teachers their jobs as students leave public schools for private schools. Critics of the voucher system note that it is possible to have a choice between different schools within the public school system without vouchers. One reason given for being allowed to choose private schools is the belief that private schools offer better education – a belief disputed by the United States Department of Education in their 2006 study of the public education they oversee. This report concludes that average test scores for reading and mathematics, when adjusted for student and school characteristics, tend to be very similar among public schools and private schools although private schools do slightly better in both. One argument against vouchers is that, given the limited budget for schools, a voucher system weakens public schools while at the same time not necessarily providing enough money for people to attend private schools. The opponents assert a tendency of the costs of tuition to rise along with its demand, which would compound the problem. However, that assumes there would not be an increase in supply.

Some critics assert that a voucher is like a discount coupon for those who can already afford the full cost of a private school education. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

In a 2002 case before the US Supreme Court, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the court considered whether school vouchers constituted a violation of the United States Constitution's Establishment Clause, as many voucher programs would allow children receiving vouchers to attend church-run schools. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stated that "The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause, because it passed a five part test developed by the Court in this case, titled the Private Choice Test.

Some economist critics point to the problem of "cream skimming," a variety of adverse selection in the educational market. With a greater pool of applicants, the private schools could be more selective over which students to admit, excluding those who do not belong to a preferred group (for instance, religion or ethnicity), those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis, and those with disciplinary problems. By law, public schools must accept any student. Thus, it has been suggested that a voucher system would lead to such students becoming concentrated within the public school system. This would likely further undermine the reputation and competitiveness of the public schools, leading to a vicious circle that tends toward the total abolition of the public schools and perhaps the end of universal education.

Other opponents in the U.S. object on different grounds. They believe that granting government money, even indirectly, to private and religious schools will inevitably lead to increased governmental control over non-government education, and possibly over the teachings of the sponsoring religious group (most often a church). Individuals who oppose vouchers on these grounds are often libertarian; most also call for the abolition of all state sponsorship of education, which they believe to be wrong in principle. The Alliance for the Separation of School & State opposes education vouchers on the grounds that "if vouchers become commonplace, private and religious schools will become more and more like public schools." Moreover, they suggest that if it is wrong in principle for the government to tax in order to fund public education, then one should not accept any portion of the ill-gotten money to fund private education.

Yet another argument against the implementation of a school voucher system is its lack of accountability to the taxpayer. In many states, members of a community's board of education are elected by voters. Similarly, a school budget faces a referendum. Meetings of the Board of Education must be announced in advance, and members of the public are permitted to voice their concerns directly to board members. Although vouchers may be used in private and religious schools, taxpayers are not able to vote on budgetary issues, elect members of the board or even attend board meetings. Opponents of vouchers assert that this disenfranchisement amounts to taxation without representation.

Implementations

Chile

In Chile, there is an extensive voucher system in which the State pays private and municipal schools directly based on student attendance. This system covers nearly 90% of its students. While studying the private school system, Dr. Martin Carnoy of Stanford, Patrick J. McEwan and others have found that when controls for the student's background (parental income and education) are introduced, the difference in performance between public and private subsectors is not significant.

Europe

In most European countries, education for all primary and secondary schools is fully subsidized. In some countries, parents are free to choose which school their child attends. Schools are often funded on a grant system based on the number of students on their rolls.

Ireland

Most schools in Ireland are State-aided parish schools, established under diocesan patronage but with capital costs, teachers salaries and a per head fee paid to the school . These are given to the school regardless of whether or not it requires its students to pay fees. (Although fee-paying schools are in the minority, there has been much criticism over the State-aid they receive with opponants claiming this gives them an unfair advantage.) There is a recent trend towards multi-denominational schools established by parents, which are organised as limited companies without share capital. Parents and students are free to choose their own school. In the event of a school failing to attract students it immediately loses its per-head fee and over time loses its teaching posts- and teachers are moved to other schools which are attracting students. The system is perceived to have achieved very successful outcomes for most Irish children. The 1995-7 Rainbow Coalition (which contained parties of the centre and the left) introduced free third-level education to primary degree level. Critics of the latter development charge that it has not increased the number of students from economically deprived backgrounds attending university. However, studies have shown that the removal of tuition fees at third level, has increased the number of students overall and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. This concurs with evidence from the UK of a decrease in attendance numbers after the introduction of fees. However, since the economic crisis, there has been extensive talk and debate regarding the reintroduction of third-level fees.

See also: Education in the Republic of Ireland

Sweden

Further information: Education in Sweden

In Sweden, the 1991-1994 government introduced a voucher system at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among public and independent schools (friskolor) in the community.

Over 10% of Swedish pupils were enrolled in private schools in 2008 and the number is growing fast. Sweden is internationally known for this innovative model that provides pupils with the opportunity to choose the school they prefer.

Per Unckel, Governor of Stockholm and former Minister of Education, sums up the advantages of Swedish system: "Education is so important that you can’t just leave it to one producer. Because we know from monopoly systems that they do not fulfill all wishes". The Swedish system has been recommended to Barack Obama.

The Netherlands

Further information: Education in the Netherlands

For more than 80 years, parents have preferred independent schools. Today, around 70% of primary and secondary pupils attend private independent schools.

In the Netherlands, the government funds "bijzondere" ("special") schools, which are run by independent non-profit boards, on the condition that they charge no more tuition than public schools do and otherwise abide by practically the same rules as public schools. Parents are free to choose any public or special school for their children, although in some urban areas, such as Amsterdam, admissions procedures do exist. Many, but not all, special schools are religious in nature. The system arose in the early 1900s after a prolonged political battle known as the Battle of the Schools (in Dutch: "De Schoolstrijd") between religious and secular political parties, and is considered a political third rail even today. The emergence of Islamic schools is putting the issue back into the spotlight, though. Any voucher proposals in The Netherlands, and countries with similar systems such as Belgium, are complicated by the historical background of the Battle of the Schools. For a more detailed discussion, see Hooker in 'Bibliography'.

Hong Kong

A voucher system for 3 to 6 years olds attending non-profit making kindergarten will be implemented in Hong Kong starting 2007. Each child will get HK$13,000 pa. The $13000 subsidy will be separated into two parts. $10,000 is used to subsidize the school fee and the remaining $3,000 is used for kindergarten teachers to pursue further education and obtain a certificate in Education. Also, there are some restrictions on the voucher system. Parents can only choose those non-profit making with yearly fee less than $24,000. It is hoped by the government that by the year of 2011-2012, all kindergarten teachers can obtain a certificate in Education and the government will adjust the subsidy amount to $16000 for each students and all of the money is for the school fee subsidy.

Milton Friedman criticised the system, saying "I do not believe that [CE] Mr. Tsang's proposal is properly structured". He said that the whole point of a voucher system is to provide a competitive market place, therefore, it shouldn't be limited to non-profit kindergartens.

After protests by parents with children enrolled in for profit kindergartens, the program was extended to children in for- profit kindergartens, but only for children enrolled in or before September 2007. The government will also provide up to HK$30,000 subsidy to for profit kindergartens wanting to convert to non profit.

United States

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed for vouchers, as did the George W. Bush administration in the initial education-reform proposals leading up to the No Child Left Behind Act. This year, it is estimated that nearly 171,000 students will benefit from 18 existing school choice programs in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these programs are offered to students in low-income families, low performing schools, or special-education programs.

The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin led the way in 1990 and now has nearly 15,000 students using vouchers. The 2006-2007 school year will mark the first time in Milwaukee that more than $100 million will be paid in vouchers. Twenty-six percent of Milwaukee students will receive public funding to attend schools outside the traditional Milwaukee Public School system. In fact, if the voucher program alone were considered a school district, it would mark the sixth-largest district in Wisconsin. St. Anthony Catholic School, located on Milwaukee's south side, boasts 966 voucher students, meaning that it very likely receives more public money for general school support of a parochial elementary or high school than any before it in American history. Under the current state formula for paying school vouchers, however, Milwaukee residents pay more in property taxes for voucher students than for students attending public schools. This imbalance has received considerable criticism, and is the subject of 2007 legislative proposals designed to alter the formula.

The school voucher question in the United States has also received a considerable amount of judicial review in the early 2000s.

A program launched in the city of Cleveland in 1995 and authorized by the state of Ohio was challenged in court on the grounds that it violated both the federal constitutional principle of separation of church and state and the guarantee of religious liberty in the Ohio Constitution. These claims were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court, but the federal claims were upheld by the local federal district court and by the Sixth Circuit appeals court. The fact that nearly all of the families using vouchers attended Catholic schools in the Cleveland area was cited in the decisions. In a 2002 ruling in the case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 vote that the Ohio program was constitutional. The justices cited the private choice made by the parents and affirmed that the ultimate purpose (improving elementary education) was secular.

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court struck down legislation known as the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which would have implemented a system of school vouchers in Florida. The court ruled that the OSP violated article IX, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution: "Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools."

Political support for school vouchers in the United States is mixed. On the left/right spectrum, conservatives are more likely to support vouchers. Some state legislatures have enacted voucher laws. As of 2006, the federal government operates the largest voucher program, for evacuees from the region affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Federal government also provides a voucher program for 7,500 residents of Washington, D.C. - the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. However, in early March 2009 congressional Democrats were moving to close down the program and remove children from their voucher-funded school places at the end of the 09/10 school year under the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009which, as of March 7 had passed the House and was pending in the Senate. The Obama administration stated[14] that it preferred to allow children already enrolled in the program to finish their schooling while closing the program to new entrants. However, its preference on this matter does not appear to be strong enough to prevent the President from signing the Bill.[15]

Some public opinion surveys show that support for vouchers has increased in the last few years, although just how much is debatable. Majorities seem to favor improving existing schools over providing vouchers, yet as many as 40% of those surveyed admit that they don't know enough to form an opinion or don't understand the system of school vouchers.

In November 2000, a voucher system proposed by Tim Draper was placed on the California ballot as Proposition 38. It was unusual among school voucher proposals in that it required neither accreditation on the part of schools accepting vouchers, nor proof of need on the part of families applying for them; neither did it have any requirement that schools accept vouchers as payment-in-full, nor any other provision to guarantee a reduction in the real cost of private school tuition. The measure was defeated by a final percentage tally of 70.6 to 29.4.

A state-wide universal school voucher system providing a maximum tuition subsidy of $3000 was passed in Utah in 2007, but voters repealed it in a statewide referendum before it took effect.

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania the privately funded Extra Mile Education Foundation has had very positive results with using private donations to pay the tuition for low income African-American children to attend private Catholic schools. No tax money is used for the vouchers. Most of the students who are enrolled in the program are non-Catholic. 70% of the students come from families whose income is low enough to qualify for free or reduced priced lunches. Of the students who graduate from the program (i.e., from 8th grade), not a single student has ever failed 9th grade, and 96% of the students graduate from high school within 4 years.

See also

• School choice
• Daniel E. Witte
• Milton Friedman
• Timothy Draper

References

Bibliography

• "Voters Repeatedly Reject Vouchers, National Education Association". Retrieved 2006-04-21.
• "What about tax-funded vouchers, tax credits and charter schools? Alliance for the Separation of School & State". Retrieved 2006-04-21.
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. Economics of the Public Sector (3rd ed.). Stanford University. ISBN 0-393-96651-8.
• "West, Edwin G. "Education Vouchers in Principle and Practice: A Survey" The World Bank Research Observer, February 1997" (PDF).
• Hooker, Mark (2009). Freedom of Education: The Dutch Political Battle for State Funding of all Schools both Public and Private (1801-1920). ISBN 1440493421.

External links

• The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has substantial information on school vouchers.
• [16] Alliance for School Choice, Leading U.S. Pro-Voucher Organization
• The Ten Principles of School Choice The Heartland Institute.
• National Education Association, School Vouchers (NEA's position)
• School Vouchers: The Wrong Choice for Public Education (The Anti-Defamation League's position)
• Wikipedia--Daniel E. Witte--(Under "Clerkship, Early Career, and Collaboration with Dr. Milton Friedman"). Friedman's views about economics of home education and school choice.
• Voucher Strategy Center The National School Boards Association provides information including the legal and educational arguments against vouchers, as well as state-by-state data on the status of voucher legislation.
• Peabody, Michael. "The Lure of School Vouchers," Liberty Magazine, July/August 2000. Argues that acceptance of vouchers would introduce governmental regulation of parochial school curriculum.
• "On Thin Ice: How Advocates and Opponents Could Misread the Public's Views on Vouchers and Charter Schools," Public Agenda, 1999 Public opinion study that concluded most Americans did not understand the voucher concept, even in communities that already had such programs.
• Milton Friedman, "Public Schools: Make Them Private," 1995
• [17] 20/20 Report on the American public school system
• [18] The Great School Voucher Hoax - article on the "discount coupon" effect of school vouchers.
• 700-word op-ed 2007 Salt Lake Tribune op-ed by attorney explaining why Utah’s controversial school voucher law was not a violation of the federal or state constitutions
• faircompare, "What's up with Utah Referendum 1?," 2007