School Vouchers At Center Of Political, Legal Fights

WASHINGTON — Students like Delano Coffy are at the heart of brewing political fights and court battles over whether public dollars should go to school vouchers to help make private schools more affordable.

He was failing in his neighborhood public elementary school in Indianapolis until his mother enrolled him in a Roman Catholic school. Heather Coffy has scraped by for years to pay the tuition for Delano, now 16 and in a Catholic high school, and his two younger siblings, who attend the same Catholic elementary as their brother did. She's getting help today from a voucher program, passed last year at the urging of GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels, that allows her to use state money for her children's education.

"I can't even tell you how easy I can breathe now knowing that for at least for this year my kids can stay at the school," said the single mother, who filed a petition in court in support of the law. The state Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law, which provides vouchers worth on average more than $4,000 a year to low- and middle-income families. A family of four making about $60,000 a year qualifies.

For all the arguments in favor of vouchers, there are opponents who say vouchers erode public schools by taking away money, violate the separation of church and state by giving public dollars to religious-based private schools, and aren't a proven way to improve test scores.

Even among supporters, there's dissension over whether vouchers should only be offered to low-income students on a limited basis or made available to anyone. There's also division among black and Hispanic leaders as to whether vouchers help or hurt kids in urban schools.

Many opponents also dislike scholarship programs that provide tax benefits to businesses or individuals for contributing to a fund to pay for private school. They say those programs undermine public schools by keeping tax revenues out of state treasuries, an important source of education dollars.

Fights about using tax dollars to help make private schools more affordable are popping up around the country.

In Louisiana, Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal won a victory Thursday with passage of legislation that expands statewide a voucher program in New Orleans as part of broad changes to the state's education system.

Virginia lawmakers recently passed a bill backed by Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell allowing a tax credit for contributions to private school scholarship programs, and Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill expanding a similar program. Creating or expanding voucher or certain scholarship programs has been debated in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Ohio, New Jersey and elsewhere.

But school choice supporters have faced roadblocks, too.

Recently, in Arizona, GOP Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have expanded a law passed last year that created education savings accounts for parents of students with disabilities; the money could cover expenses such a private schooling, virtual programs or future college costs.

The vetoed bill would have broadened eligibility to gifted students, children of military personnel or students attending poor performing schools. Brewer said it was too early to consider such proposals before a new budget is approved, and she expressed unease about changing the education system in ways that may make parts of it uncompetitive.

Democrats historically have shunned vouchers, but some are joining the push by many Tea Party-inspired Republicans. The momentum carries over from last year's congressional debate over whether to extend the District of Columbia's voucher program. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other congressional Republicans successfully pushed for that program to be included as part of a last-minute deal to avert a federal government shutdown.

Also last year, the school district in Douglas County, an affluent Denver suburb, adopted a program, now stalled under court order, that would allow up to 500 students to receive about $4,500 each in state money to use toward private school. Legal challenges to the Colorado district's program and the Arizona one are pending at the appellate level.

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, an advocacy group based in Indianapolis, estimates that about 212,000 students are using vouchers or tax scholarship programs through more than 30 such programs, 17 of which provide vouchers. The group said that total has risen from 36,000 students in 2000.

Teresa Meredith, an elementary school teacher in Shelbyville, Ind., and an officer in the Indiana State Teachers Association who is the lead plaintiff to the state suit, said she's not opposed to private schools. But when parents choose to send their kids to one, she said, they are making the choice to pay for it.

"If they're not happy with their local public school, then they need to choose to make their local public school better, not run from it," said Meredith, a mother of four.

Pedro Noguera, a sociologist at New York University who specializes in urban education policy, said even with a voucher, many students still cannot afford or get into or find transportation to more exclusive private schools.

"As a strategy for creating more integrated schools, it hasn't shown that it works at all. So we have to ask ourselves, what is really the goal here?" Noguera said. "If the goal is to increase access to high quality schools, there's no research supporting it. But, there is clear evidence that as you lose children from the public schools, you undermine the fiscal support for public education."

But Pennsylvania Sen. Anthony Williams, a Democrat, says too many low-income kids stuck in persistently failing schools in some of the neighborhoods he represents in Philadelphia go to unsafe schools and can't wait for a change. He calls the private boarding school he attended in high school on a private scholarship a "lifesaver," and he's advocating for legislation that would create a voucher program. He said even if a public voucher wouldn't cover all the tuition, private scholarships can help fill the void.

"I believe a child should not be required to go to a place like that," Williams said of low-performing schools. "They should have options just like anybody else in America does and it will serve us better in the long run as opposed to requiring them to go to a place that we know they don't get the rudimentary skills."

Whether to offer school vouchers is one of the most contentious issues in education. Some of the first programs were rolled out in the 1990s in Milwaukee and Cleveland, although the debate goes back decades and President Richard Nixon was a fan of vouchers, according to the Center on Education Policy, which advocates for more effective public schools. Those on both sides of the issue have won court victories and cite research to back up their cause.

In recent years, the message among voucher supporters has shifted to one where it's not just about helping poor students, but empowering parents with choice valued and their satisfaction emphasized, said Alexandra Usher, a senior research assistant at the center.

With state budgets facing in recent years a "fiscal buzz saw" and education frequently about half a state's budget, there's a recognition that better value is needed, said Robert Enlow, the president of the Friedman Foundation.

"People are beginning to see that allowing families the ability to choose is giving them access to quality education they would not otherwise have had," Enlow said.

Michelle Rhee, the former superintendent of schools in the District of Columbia who founded the advocacy group StudentsFirst, believes vouchers should be made available only to low-income students assigned to low performing schools, and that private schools must show they are effective. She said doesn't support the idea that "every kid just has a backpack with their money in it" to go anywhere because she has not seen an economic model where that is sustainable.

"I very much feel our time and effort and resources should be focused on, as it pertains to vouchers, on what we're going to do with low-income children who otherwise would be trapped in nonperforming schools," Rhee said.

___

Online:

Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice: http://www.edchoice.org/

Indiana State Teachers Association: http://www.ista-in.org

Center on Education Policy: http://www.cep-dc.org/

StudentsFirst: http://www.studentsfirst.org

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[pjlim]

10:40 PM on 04/10/2012

My tax dollars will NOT go to fund religious education! If I choose to drive my own car to work, I don't expect vouchers to help fund it from those who choose to ride the bus..........separation of church and state. If you choose to indoctrinate your offspring with gods and prophets, please do so on your own dime, not mine. How many blue ribbon schools are going to be willing to take in students from failing inner city schools? My guess....none. It is happening right now in Pennsylvania.

[vonbek]

10:10 PM on 04/10/2012

One issue I have with the voucher system, we gut public schools and go with a voucher program. Then we decide we can't afford these free loading poor people and we need to cut the voucher system to balance the budget.

[uncle buc]

05:25 PM on 04/10/2012

If vouchers ever goes nation wide, public schools will go dark, BK, ghost towns, game over.
I wonder why?

[frohbinich]

03:38 PM on 04/10/2012

If the public school system cannot deliver a quality product, then families should have the choice to send their children to a better school--Catholic, or otherwise. Even without vouchers, many non-Catholic families make the sacrifice to send their children to Catholic schools. If the voucher system will help them, so be it!!

[eceresa]

01:18 PM on 04/11/2012

If the public school system couldn't deliver a quality product, the best answer would probably be to fix it, since vouchers come with so many other problems.

But as it CAN and DOES deliver a higher quality product, on average, than do private schools, that's not really an issue.

[stopnlisten]

10:04 AM on 04/10/2012

GOP's greed is endless. Tax cuts, corporate welfare, and now lets pay for their private education. Time to stop the elitist gravy train.

[Hammer of Truth]

06:19 PM on 04/10/2012

Thank you!

[murfiani39]

06:58 PM on 04/09/2012

No public monies to private education. Let the church pay for the education

[gdatomic]

05:56 PM on 04/09/2012

Vouchers sound great, but seem to be (in reality) a way Republicans funnel government funds into private (especially religious) schools.

[Hlynn]

05:12 PM on 04/09/2012

Failing schools are often in failing neighborhoods. Why are so many concerned about where children spend about 7 hours a day, 180 days a year when they spend most of their days in those crime-ridden, high unemployment neighborhoods? Do they really think a fraction of the time spent in schools can overcome the majority of the time spent out of schools?

I would like the governors to spend at least as much time improving the neighborhoods as they seem to spend trying to improve the schools.

[Janna03]

06:13 PM on 04/09/2012

What you bring up, is one of the reasons why education in this country has become so expensive. Schools are very much a safety net for many children, and are often the place that families turn to first for help, if they need it. Some kids eat two meals a day and a snack at school. The kids in question depend on that food because they don't get enough to eat at home. Hungry children don't learn as well as those that aren't. Most schools also provide before and after school care for working parents. Schools help some kids get glasses or hearing aids, if thy need them but can't afford them. They usually have a social worker on staff to work with families who need help. My point being that public schools are central to many communities, and they do deal will all the problems that kids bring to school. Not every child comes to school ready to learn, without some serious help. Schools are a reflection of our society whether we want to admit that or not. I absolutely agree that we need to work on neighborhood improvement but part of having a strong neighborhood is having strong neighborhood schools.

[Hlynn]

06:29 PM on 04/09/2012

The problem is they turned schools into social service agencies without the necessary money. Children who need glasses and clothing and schools supplies get them because people in the community are generous. It's not unusual for people to drop by pencils, paper, and crayons at the beginning of the year, nor is it unusual for school staff to pool money to buy glasses and clothing for students. But people do get weary of having to shell out their money all the time, so what happens when people won't/can't contribute any more? Communities (and I mean politicians who should provide funding) need to do more and stop expecting people who work at schools to fill every gap.

[pooka47401]

03:41 PM on 04/09/2012

In Indiana, the vouchers have gone to Religious Schools, many Catholic. The "Demand" for the Vouchers is not high.
As a Taxpayer, I find it appalling that my tax money can be funneled away from Public Education and to the Catholic Church. There is a concerted effort to defund and privatize Public Education by the Republicans. Take down Public Education, the Post Office, privatize them, and let the Corporations charge what they will. After all, prior to WWII's GI Bill, only 6% of Americans had a college degree and most had not finished high school. An informed Public is a demanding Public so why not dumb them down again. Mitch Daniels proposed to end public school classes for History and Government. He wants to push post high school students to go Vocational.
The Catholic Church does not need my tax money and those who wish to go to their schools can ask the church for assistance. After all, religious classes are mandatory so why should I pay for students to become indoctrinated Catholics??

[ContrarianLibertarian]

04:40 PM on 04/09/2012

I'm confused: is public education being outsourced to for-profit corporations or the Catholic Church?

I guess you could answer "They're one and the same." But, then, Catholic dioceses and parishes typically subsidize their schools. So, not only do the schools not run at a "profit", they run decidedly at a loss (which must be covered by the collection plates).

So what exactly is your beef here: that kids are being "indoctrinated" (by the church of their parents' choice -- hello, Free Exercise clause) or that schools will become for-profit institutions (in which case, they'd probably no longer be affiliated with any religion)?

Or, a third option, are you just invested in the sacred cow of a government-run, public school monopoly that is at the same time grossly overpriced and depressingly mediocre?

[eceresa]

05:48 PM on 04/09/2012

If it's grossly overpriced, why is it cheaper than private schools' total cost (and good for you that you accurately admitted that religious school tuition doesn't cover the whole cost)? If it's depressingly mediocre, why do public schools generally outperform private schools when studies control for student demographics?

[mangez merde]

03:36 PM on 04/09/2012

Everybody wants to argue about the quality of education in public versus private schools.

It is a non factor. There are great private schools and terrible private schools that indoctrinate instead of educate. There are great public schools and horrible public schools.

The system does NOT matter. The individuals in the system matters.

No one is discussing the ACTUAL problem with education today.

Educators can NOT fix the problems NOR are they responsible for the problems, so quit attacking overworked and underpaid teachers.

The problems negatively affecting education are societal problems and politics. Educators have no control over poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, segregated communities that lead to segregated schools, redlining, unequal distribution of public monies funneled to rich suburban schools leaving inner city schools with inadequate funding.

When we start to address these larger issues, education will improve. If we don't nothing will change. Most posters are arguing about symptoms not solutions.

62% of funding for public schools come from property taxes. This is the source of the inequality. Children do NOT chose their parents. The way we divide public funding is both immoral and unconstitutional. Suburban schools spend 3x, 4x or more than inner city schools because of their more affluent tax base. But that discriminates against inner city poor, mostly minority children which is a violation of the 15th amendment.

All schools should receive the exact same amount per pupil. Civility, humanity, morality, and the Constitution of the United States demands equal opportunity.

[Suresp77]

04:09 PM on 04/09/2012

f+f! well said!

[murfiani39]

07:01 PM on 04/09/2012

Amen well said

[makeck]

03:29 PM on 04/09/2012

In 2015 we will celebrate the 50th Anniversary of LBJ signing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This was part of his "Great Society" legislation by which he intended to reshape the entire American landscape and make things equal. The KEY tenet of the law was that for the FIRST TIME EVER, the Federal Government would provide funds DIRECTLY to American Schools. A key provision of the act was that the Governmenet was BARRED from instituting any type of centalized testing to actually compare students, or to guage the effectiveness of the program. We still live under that rule.

So in true American fashion, for nearly fifty years we have been throwing money at a problem, that we have DELIBERATELY put measures in place which banned the collection of statistics to determine if the program was working.

Now here's the REAL kicker. Ask anyone involved in Education and they will say we are dire straits right now. But how? How could we have spent (borrowed) TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and be WORSE off than we were 50 years ago? If things are not SUBSTANTIALLY better than they were 50 years ago, then I think we need to declare the entire effort a failure and stop spending the money. Linacy is doing the same thing over and over (spending this money) expecting a differernt outcome.

[mangez merde]

06:11 PM on 04/09/2012

Several parts of your commentary are very wrong.

01. The Federal government has NOT spent trillions and trillions on education in the last 50 years. The Fed provides ~ 7% of the monies spent on public education.

02. Schools are not worse than they were 50 years ago. In fact they are considerably better. It would take a book to support this statement, not enough space here, unfortunately.

03. There were great benefits from the legislation you mentioned in the 1960's and 70's. However things began to change in the 1980's under Reagan. Monies were diverted to suburban schools and taken away from inner city schools. This was done by local communities mostly controlled by the GOP, but the Reagan Administration were willing conspirators.

04. Much of the decline that has happened since the 1980's (see my other posts) have to do with societal issues such as the white flight to the suburbs.

05. You can not blame a 50 year old piece of legislation because it was bastardized by mostly Republican negative influence and a slow methodical attempt by the GOP to subvert and destroy its original intent.

[makeck]

07:40 AM on 04/10/2012

1. Your wrong about the money. Excel Spreadsheet in attached link shows something like $1.3T being spent since1980. There was 15 years of spending before that. My "ballpark" estoimate is pretty accurate.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html

2. If schools are SO much better than they werer 50 years ago (and frankly I agree with you), then why do we continually have the discussion of how wew are failing our kids. Was education somehow THAT pathetic 50 years ago that even though we have come so far, we are nowehre near good enough?

3. I'll take your word for it about reagan, I don;t know enough detail on that to make a valid counter argument.

4. I would agree with you on the societal issues, I think they ARE the root cause. Where we would disagree (I think) is I don't beleive you can alleviate those root causes by continuing to spend the money that we are spending, or actually increase the funding as many advocate.

5. A purely partisan comment. Keep in mind that Reagan and Bush had Democratic legislature, and the legislature passes the laws, not the president. To blame this on 2 or 3 guys out of the entire governmnet (or population even) is a lazy mans argument. But I did enjoy the rest of your post.

[eceresa]

07:42 PM on 04/09/2012

How does the existence of NAEP fit into your little dreamworld there?

[The Awkward Educator]

02:21 PM on 04/09/2012

Let us be honest: as it stands, private schools are far out performing low-income public schools in all areas of measure. So, why should a low-income student be banished to a life of low-expectations because his family cannot afford to live in a decent district or fund a private school. It is confusing those on the left are against these provisions, yet support things such as universal health care and food voucher programs. Is education not as much a right as food and health? Until we fix the broken public school system (and more money will not be the sole answer) we should allow low-income students to attend high quality institutions. http://www.solutions-for-schools.com/

[Janna03]

03:20 PM on 04/09/2012

I assume you are talking about a kid with no behavior problems or special needs who wants to learn because otherwise private schools don't have to take them. If the private school has a scholarship or financial aid program and any transportation problems can be worked out, I don't see why these kids couldn't go to private schools. The issue you are going to run into though is how many poor students these private schools will be willing to actually accept. They don't take federal money, and don't have to follow federal guidelines. Most also have some type of entrance exam to determine if a child is a good fit for their school. It isn't just a question of poor students being allowed to attend private schools, it's whether those schools will accept the students in question because they don't have to.

[Suresp77]

04:15 PM on 04/09/2012

as the product of a loud, big public school- I reject your argument. The presence of kids like me with parents who earned well and were educated helped boost the academic expectations and investment for all kids at my school. If we could learn with no computers, no calculators, 50-55 kids in 1 classroom why can it not be done here? Parental interest, that's why!

Education is a community endeavor, and investment of time, money, support, interest comes from the parents who make the school the center of the community. Inner city schools lack funding and lack many other things, but most of all, they lack involvement from parents who can actively change the situation around.

[The Awkward Educator]

05:00 PM on 04/09/2012

This is exactly why you would send students to a community where active parental involvement helps sustain an environment where learning can prosper. I do agree, however, that we should begin mixing different backgrounds within our school systems. http://www.solutions-for-schools.com/

[Le Nwwaert]

01:56 PM on 04/09/2012

Liberal Democrats mantra...Keep them ignorant,keep them dependant,keep them voting Democratic..Liberal teachers union constantly blocking reforms,blocking voucher programs,why? Liberal teachers union,largest donor to Democratic party. Liberal teachers union,biggest obstacle to education reform in this country,why?

[mangez merde]

03:43 PM on 04/09/2012

Yes you are so wrong.

Yes it was liberals who refused to educate black children in the south. NOT

Yes it was liberals who constantly cut funds for education. NOT

I could go on like this forever, but you and tour drivel are not worth the effort.

Keep posting your insanity though. We all need a good laugh.

[Brian Gilmer]

04:07 PM on 04/09/2012

So what is the solution to Liberal Teacher's Unions? Maybe states shuld outlaw collective bargining for teachers. If that happens the unions will go away. Along with the demise of the unions liberals will stop going into the teaching profession. I wonder where the teachers will come from?

[am10]

01:50 PM on 04/09/2012

I don't want to pay for someone who doesn't want her kids in public schools and is too lazy to get involved. I realize she is a single mother but this article states nothing about the father. Where is he? Has she had his check garnished. And if he is not supporting his kids, why should I pay for a luxury because she had four kids with a loser?

[Suresp77]

04:16 PM on 04/09/2012

because if those kids are starving and desperate, they will turn to crime- and you could well be the victim- think of it as safeguarding yourself, maybe that will be more palatable? (sarcasm, your comment is dispic@ble)

[am10]

05:16 PM on 04/09/2012

Feed the kids and nurture them. Why is private school a necessity?

[ContrarianLibertarian]

12:05 PM on 04/09/2012

Whoops -- I mean Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris. Mixed up the names there.