Keeping Public Schools Public: Voucher Decision Opens Pandora’s Box

The day the U.S. Supreme Court decided to uphold school vouch­ers — and shortly after a federal appeals court had banned the Pledge of Allegiance in schools — my mother called. “I don’t get it,” she said. “One court says we can give all this money to religious schools, no strings attached, and another says we can’t even say the Pledge in our schools. I’m confused.”

“Don’t worry, mom,” I said. “We’re all a bit confused.”

My mother’s bewilderment increased on Aug. 5 when a Florida court struck down that state’s voucher program, based on state constitutional grounds.

Some had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court, in taking up whether Cleveland’s voucher program violated the separation of church and state, would settle the contentious issue of public dollars for private religious schools. While the June 27 decision removed the cloud of federal constitu­tional doubt, it certainly didn’t settle the legal and, policy issues swirling around vouchers.

On the legal level, the majority of states have stricter definitions of church/state separation, which leaves voucher programs open to legal chal­lenges at that level. Perhaps more important, the Supreme Court did not address the overarching controversy: Are vouchers good public policy? Will they help or hurt our public schools?

One thing is certain, however. The court decision was a serious blow to supporters of public education and a boon to the voucher movement. Anyone who tells you different is either a mas­terful spin doctor or an incurable opti­mist.

LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS

Legally, the decision’s legacy may have less to do with education and more with church/state issues, in particular President Bush’s faith-based initiative. Bush’s plan — an attempt to funnel public dollars to religious groups that combine proselytizing with social ser­vices such as welfare-to-work and sub­stance-abuse programs — had been languishing even though it remained a rhetorical cornerstone of Bush’s domes­tic agenda. The Supreme Court’s deci­sion breathed new life into the faith-based path to privatize the public sector. As Michael Joyce, former head of the conservative Bradley Foundation and current leader of a faith-based advocacy group in Washington, crowed on the day of the decision, it is now pos­sible for “a whole host of social ser­vices” be to voucherized.

As if fulfilling Joyce’s prediction, in July a federal district judge in Wiscon­sin cited the Supreme Court decision as she upheld public funding of Faith Works Milwaukee, a program combin­ing “evangelistic outreach” with sub- stance-abuse counseling.

While the decision received scant public attention, voucher advocates and constitutional scholars took note. “This is the first case to come down after the Cleveland voucher decision,” said Jeff Figgatt, director of Faith Works Mil­waukee, of the July ruling. “This is a ground-breaking case that takes the school voucher case and expands it.”

In its school voucher decision, the U.S. Supreme Court laid out a blueprint for constitutional voucher-type pro­grams that fund religious institutions. First, the money must pass through an individual who makes a “true private choice” to use that money at a religious institution, and second, there must be an array of religious and non-religious choices. In the Cleveland case, the 5-4 Court majority ruled that even though more than 99 percent of Cleveland vouchers go to religious schools, par­ents have an array of educational options, including traditional public schools, magnet schools, and charter schools. Thus, the court reasoned, the voucher program does not favor reli­gion. And because the vouchers go to parents, not directly to a religious school, they aren’t a government endorsement of religion.

While Justice David Soutef wrote a sharp critique of the majority’s view, in the end the conservative justices had the necessary votes.

With the federal issue resolved, legal challenges will center on the states. Most immediately, pro and anti-voucher forces are focusing on state constitu­tions that incorporate so-called Blaine Amendments, named after Rep. James Blaine, a Maine legislator and Speaker of the House who in 1875 spearheaded a movement to amend the U.S. constitution to more strictly prohibit government aid to religious institutions. The amendment failed on the federal level, but the stricter wording was adopted by more than 35 state constitutions, such as in Florida.

Voucher supporters have promised to go on the offensive to strike down such amendments, saying they infringe upon religious freedom. And voucher oppo­nents hope to use Blaine Amendments to patch up the crumbling wall separat­ing church and state.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Policy issues will also play out mostly on the state level.

While voucher supporters boast that as many as 20 different state legisla­tures will take up voucher programs in the coming year, it is unclear how suc­cessful those efforts may be. The main stumbling blocks for vouchers have always been policy issues such as money, accountability, and whether vouchers undercut efforts to improve public schools.

In an Associated Press poll on vouch­ers in early August, people initially sup­ported vouchers by a roughly 5-to-4 ratio. But when asked if they support vouchers if they take money from pub­lic schools, they opposed vouchers by a 2-to-l ratio. And in the seven statewide initiatives since 1972 when voters have been asked to approve voucher plans; the initiatives have been roundly defeated by 2-to-l margins.

After more than a decade of unrelent­ing focus on vouchers (and during an era of economic prosperity), the move­ment has only three voucher programs to show for its work — in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Florida.
But that may change: The day of the Supreme Court voucher decision. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) introduced a bill to provide vouch­ers to low-income students in Washing­ton, D.C. President Clinton vetoed a similar bill in 1997.

And then there’s the accountability issue. Private voucher schools do not have to adhere to basic requirements such as releasing information on acade­mic achievement, or suspension and drop-out rates, or even on the racial breakdown of students. Nor are they required to hire certified teachers or provide the same level of special educa­tion or bilingual services as public schools.

Perhaps most contentious: While public schools are being forced to take an ever-broader array of tests to prove academic effectiveness, the voucher schools are exempt from such testing. Even when they do give tests, voucher schools are not required to publicly release the results. In Milwaukee, which has the oldest and largest voucher program, after spending more than $156 million on the 12-year-old program, the public has no data on the academic performance of voucher stu­dents.

WHA’S NEXT FOR THE VOUCHER MOVEMENT?

Clearly, the voucher movement has gained political capital by targeting vouchers to low-income families and portraying itself as sympathetic to African-American and Latino families in urban areas. Just as clearly, the strate­gic goal of the voucher movement is universal vouchers. Tensions exist between the movement’s two wings, and it is too soon to tell how this funda­mental contradiction will unfold. Sig­nificantly, there was nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits vouchers to low-income parents.

For now, most predictions are that voucher supporters will move incre­mentally, proposing targeted programs until they gather enough political sup­port to make a frontal assault and call for universal vouchers.
Voucher supporters currently are hop­ing to please both sides by pushing low- income vouchers in some areas and tuition tax credits in others. As with most tax issues, tuition tax credits play to the middle class; they serve as subsi­dies to more affluent parents with chil­dren already in private schools.

So far, President Bush is emphasizing tuition tax credits over vouchers, as he’s mindful that his voting strength lies with middle-class suburban voters. In visits to Cleveland and Milwaukee shortly after the Supreme Court deci­sion, Bush endorsed state-based plans but stopped short of calling for federal vouchers. Rather, he called on Congress to adopt his $3.5 billion tuition tax- credit plan as part of his 2003 budget.

As schools start this fall, the future of these various initiatives may lie as much in the economy as in education politics. State and federal budgets are being pummeled with growing deficits and the stock market continues its roller coaster ride, which makes legislators nervous about spending money on new programs. You can be sure the voucher controversy is not going away, but it’s too soon to tell who will win the next round.