School vouchers - Panacea or Pandora's box?

This article discusses the controversial use of school vouchers as a vehicle for public funding of private choice in education today. As the public outcry for more school accountability has increased, so has the debate over the most effective use of taxpayers' funds for education. This growing debate has brought the voucher issue to the forefront of mainstream educational consciousness.

Proponents of the system argue that its implementation will raise student academic proficiency levels, increase parental involvement local neighborhood school districts, and serve as a much needed catalyst for widespread educational reform. In addition, they argue that teacher expertise will increase, student interest will grow, and public education itself will be forced to either "shape up" or go out of business. Advocates of this system claim that the effective use of a voucher system will eliminate the same old academic "business as usual" mentality that has relegated our school children to a worldwide second class status.

On the other hand, critics contend that the voucher system presents the most serious threat to public education in decades. These same critics prophesies that widespread voucher use will create a two tiered educational system that will penalize the poor, reestablish a segregated school structure, and in the long run inevitably destroy the current public education system nationwide.

Through a scholarly review of current and ongoing research on the issue, this article attempts to take a closer and more in depth look at the rationale that drives these two opposing schools of educational thought. Through this review historical patterns are identified, current trends are discussed, and possible future scenarios are explored.

On the surface the concept of a voucher system appears ideal. It seems to offer a unique opportunity for parents to become directly involved in their children's education at an important decision level basis. As Ogawa and Dutton (1994) point out, the process in itself appears deceptively quite simple. Parents looking at both public and private educational options simply select the school whose curricula best meet the needs of their child. With no district boundaries to worry about and with monies provided by the school district parents are freed from monetary constraints.

It all seems quite ideal. The possibilities for educational reform and student growth seem unlimited. No longer will children from small privately funded schools have an advantage over students housed in large publicly run school systems. Now that all children have the opportunity to attend either public or private institutions the playing field will be made more equal. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily true. Although there have been isolated attempts to introduce the voucher system into select school systems, as Witte (1990) has pointed out, there has been no real large scale voucher movement enacted that has involved both public and private schools. In fact, historically, such attempts have met with failure. For example, both Colorado, in 1992, and California, in 1993 defeated just such initiatives.

In addition, for the voucher system to be truly effective certain major assumptions must be validated. Paramount among these is the belief that parents will actively make informed choices concerning their children's educational options. The literature, however, does not support such a contention. In fact, studies suggest that only parents with certain characteristics will make any choices at all. One such characteristic is the tendency to be among the better educated in the district. A detailed study involving a large district in Alum Rock, California bears this out. The researchers, Bridge and Blackman, (1978) discovered that despite the district's attempt to disseminate information equally, the better educated parents within the district were more informed regarding the options offered by the voucher plan and were able to obtain more detailed information through a wider array of sources. In another study conducted by Nault and Uchitelle ( 1982) it was again determined that parents with lower educational levels were less knowledgeable about options and alternatives offered by a local choice plan.

The findings of these two studies were consistent with data gathered from the Milwaukee Public Schools' Parental Choice Program which allowed low income families to sent their children to private schools at public expense. Here the researchers discovered that those parents who chose to avail themselves of this option were the better educated in the district (Witte, 1991; Witte, Bailey & Thom, 1992). In fact, a national survey aimed at determining how a federally funded tuition plan might affect parental choices discovered that the more afluent and better educated parents were significantly more likely to become actively involved in school choice plans (Williams, Hancher, & Hunter, 1983).

Studies have also indicated that another important shared characteristic among parents who are more likely to opt for a voucher plan is an overall dissatisfaction with the current education their children are receiving. For example, a Minnesota study which focused in on predominately Caucasian, fairly affluent, and largely Protestant parents discovered just such a significant school dissatisfaction rate among those parents who actively participated in the choice option available to them through their local school districts (DarlingHammond & Kirby, 1985)..Data gathered from a Montgomery County, Maryland survey supported this fact by showing that parents there who chose to transfer their children to other schools held high levels of dissatisfaction with the education their children were receiving (Frechtling & Frankel, 1982).

With knowledge of such data it is hard then to justify the basic premise that the majority of parents are informed enough to make crucial decisions regarding their children's education. In fact, the evidence shows quite clearly that many will choose to make no decision at all, thus dooming their children to be left behind in inferior schools (Moore & Davenport, 1988).

A second major assumption regarding the voucher system is predicated upon the belief that more parental choice will inevitably result in school systems that are more responsive to parental preferences and student needs. This will be accomplished by proving more innovative curricula and instruction. Once again though, the data do not support such as assumption. Kemerer and King (1995) noted that 85% of all private schools are religiously affiliated. Such schools are innately very conservation regarding their curricula choices and instructional methodologies. Concurring, a RAND corporation study looking at a California intradistrict public school choice program also concluded that the voucher system did not generate any truly major educational alternatives within the district (Barker, Bikson, & Kimbrough, 1981).

A third major assumption regarding a viable voucher system is the belief that school districts will mandate the necessary funds to allow parental choice. Here though voucher systems face quite significant opposition to any such redistribution of public funds. This challenge comes from critics who attack the very constitutionality of any such plan.

Looking to the courts for guidance in this matter reveals the judicial system's apparent ambiguity regarding the subject. Rulings have been inconsistent. In Wisconsin for example, the Supreme Court there refused to allow a public voucher plan to be expanded to include private schools. Basing their decisions on state constitutional restrictions, other courts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have also dealt severe setbacks to voucher plans which would channel public funds into private institutions of learning. However, in 1994 a case brought before the Vermont Supreme Court, which was argued on the basis of federal rather than state law, resulted in a ruling by that court that a voucher system, which would require public reimbursement of up to 75% to parents of students attending private schools, did not violate the First Amendment establishment clause of the United States Constitution.

It is also quite apparent then that the legality of a voucher system pivots on several factors including the wording of its provisions, variations in the design of the program, the jurisdictional basis of the law, and judicial preferences. All of these can impact upon a court's decision. Other factors can play prominent roles as well. Plans for example that would funnel money directly into schools are more constitutionally vulnerable than those which establish a scholorship system distributing monies to the parents first. This premise was reinforced by a recent 1983 United State Supreme Court ruling in the case Mueller & Allen. In this case the court, by a slim 5 to 4 margin, upheld a Minnesota law that allowed parents to claim tax deductions for tuition, textbook, and transportation expenses for children in private schools. The lesson here is clear. With the absence of a clear cut mandate from the courts, advocates of the voucher system are forced to proceed with extreme caution.

Finally, one last important assumption concerning vouchers claims that the system provides better opportunities for student interactions and more exposure to diverse cultural groups bears closer scrutiny. Critics such as Maria Montecel, executive director of the Texas based Intercultural Development Research Association in San Antonio disagree. She contends that minimally funded voucher systems will not provide all students with access into better schools. The result in her opinion will be the creation in essence of a two tiered system of education.

I tend to agree. I believe that the system would simply subsidize parents who could already afford private school education. In addition, I do not believe vouchers would provide expanded opportunities for all students, including those who would not normally be able to afford such institutions, nor would they guarantee a more diverse student population. Private schools could simply adjust tuition rates upward to ensure exclusion. As a result private school parents, their children, and the schools would benefit from additional state financial support while those students whose education the funds were designed to enhance would accrue no measurable benefit.

In conclusion, it has been shown that most parents, regardless of their income or educational level, hold high educational hopes and expectations for their children. Therefore, it is imperative that state educational systems be very careful before implementing any wide reaching choice programs based upon voucher funding. Any such system can be wrought with problems that range from simple transportation needs, to complicated transfer procedures, to the establishment of an underclass of students. Selective use of vouchers to meet specific student population needs and implemented only after extensive research can pinpoint areas of positive impact on student performance should be the guiding principle behind any such experiment. If not, this possible panacea will most assuredly become a Pandora's Box with those must adversely affected the least able to correct the ills it will produce.

References

Barker, P., Bikson, T., & Kimbrough, J. (1981). A study of alternatives in American education: Vol. V. Diversity in the classroom. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Bridge, R., & Blackman, J. (1978). A study of alternatives in American education. Vol. IV. Family choice in schooling. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Kirby, S. (1985). Tuition tax deductions and parent school choice: A case study of Minnesota Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Frechtling, J., Frankel, S. (1982). A survey of Montgomery County parents who transferred their children between public and private schools in 198081. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.

Kemerer, F., & King, K. (1995). Are school vouchers constitutional? Kappan, 77 (4), 307-311. Moore, D., & Davenport, S. (1988). The new improved

sorting machine. Chicago: Designs for Change. Nault, R., & Uchitelle, S. (1982). School choice in the public sector: A case study of parental decision making. In M.E. Manley-Casimir (Ed.), Family choice in schooling (pp. 85-98), Lexington MA: Lexington Books.

Ogawa, R., & Dutton, J. (1994). Parental choice in education. Urban Education, 29 (3), 270-295.

Williams, M., Hancher, K, & Hunter, A. (1983). Parents and school choice: A household survey. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Witte, J. (1990). Choice in American education. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs.

Witte, J. (1991). First year report: Milwaukee parental choice program. Madison: University of WisconsinMadison, Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs.

Witte, J., Bailey, A., & Thorn, C. (1992). Second year report; Milwaukee parental choice program. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs.

Copyright Project Innovation Winter 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved