Issues

The Changing Face of the Three R's: Vouchers and Charter Schools

In the debate around improving education, vouchers and charter schools seem to be all the rage. However, recent polls suggest that while vouchers and charter schools have become the new buzzwords among policymakers and educators, the general public is at best confused about them.

WHAT ARE VOUCHERS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS?

VOUCHERS - Vouchers are tuition subsidies, funded by tax dollars, for students to attend private schools.

CHARTER SCHOOLS - The laws that establish charter schools vary from state to state, but all of them encourage interested groups of people -- teachers, parents, community members and even private businesses -- to start a school or remake an existing school. Charter schools are financed with tax dollars, just like other public schools, but they are not necessarily subject to the same rules and regulations. They can be public or operated by a private company. Depending on state law, charter schools may be free to establish their own curriculums and procedures, hire staff that would not meet the qualifications for jobs in public schools and control the tax dollars they receive without the same oversight that applies to public schools.

THE VOUCHER MOVEMENT

School voucher plans are just a form of privatization. Vouchers take money out of the public school system to fund private education. Vouchers programs have not been shown to be more efficient or effective than public schools.

In 1989, Wisconsin passed the country's first true educational voucher plan - the "Milwaukee Parental Choice Program." The Wisconsin law applied only to children attending the Milwaukee Public Schools. It originally set a ceiling of 1 percent of Milwaukee Public School students (about 1,000 low-income students) who could attend private, non-sectarian schools in the city at state expense. A voucher worth approximately $2,500 was given to each child in the program. The ceiling was increased over the years and, as of the fall of 1998, about 6,000 students attended private schools through the program at a cost of $4,700 per student.

The Wisconsin law did not require that the private schools meet the educational standards that Milwaukee Public Schools had to meet. It did not require that teachers at the choice schools be certified. It did not require that the curriculum of the schools be reviewed, or accredited by any outside agency. Choice schools had to meet only one of four educational requirements:

  1. At least 70 percent of the pupils in the program had to advance one grade level each year;
  2. Average attendance had to be at least 90 percent;
  3. At least 80 percent had to demonstrate significant academic progress, or
  4. At least 70 percent of the families had to meet parent involvement criteria established by the private school.


Choice schools did not have to accept children with exceptional educational needs nor did they have to meet financial disclosure and other record-keeping requirements placed on the public schools.

The Wisconsin Legislature required annual comparisons of the academic achievement of students attending choice schools and comparable students attending the Milwaukee Public Schools. By 1995, four yearly evaluations had been conducted. Because of controversy over conflicting evaluations, in 1995 the law was amended to require that the Legislative Audit Bureau evaluate the program after five years, in the year 2000. The 1995 law also expanded the program to include parochial schools and cover up to 15,000 children. While this sparked an immediate court challenge, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review the constitutionality of the program.

About 45 percent of students participating in the Milwaukee program in 1998 attended Catholic schools, according to a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The newspaper examined records at the state Department of Public Instruction and discovered:

  • 4,000 voucher students attended religious schools and 2,200 attended private, non-sectarian schools.
  • Of the 6,200 voucher students, only 1,400 attended Milwaukee Public Schools in 1997. The majority of voucher students were not new students who could finally afford to leave the public system, as voucher advocates would have us believe.
  • 57 schools participating in the program are religious and 30 are non-sectarian.
  • 2,785 students attend Catholic schools, 561 attend Lutheran schools and 654 attend other religious schools.


In 1995, Cleveland became the second system to begin a voucher program. In 1996, 2,000 students in grades K-3 were eligible for vouchers up to $2,500 for tuition at private secular or religious schools. The state expanded the program in 1998 to 4,000 students in grades K-4 at a cost of almost $9 million annually. In 1997, an Ohio appeals court ruled that the program violates state and federal constitutions on the separation of church and state. At that time, the Ohio Supreme Court allowed the program to continue while it reviewed the decision. However, in December 1999, a federal judge tossed out Ohio's school voucher program. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. said, "the program has the effect of advancing religion through government-supported religious indoctrination." Most of the students in the program attend religious private schools, and most of the 56 schools that participate in the program are parochial schools. The Governor and the Attorney General of Ohio vowed to appeal the decision and all parties agreed to let children continue in the program until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rules. Many believe that this case will be reviewed eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1999, Florida became the first state to pass a statewide voucher program. Students in "failing" public schools will have the option to attend a private school of their choice, including religious schools. The legislature will assign every public school a grade, A to F, based on standardized test scores. Students in F-graded schools can move to a higher-scoring public school or attend a private school with an "opportunity scholarship" (a.k.a. voucher), which averages $4,000 a year. The private schools cannot collect additional tuition for these children, and cannot require them to participate in religious instruction, prayer or worship. This last provision was presumably intended to insulate the law from court challenges. However on March 14, 2000, a state judge struck down as unconstitutional Florida's year-old program of statewide school vouchers. In his ruling, Circuit Judge L. Ralph Smith, Jr. said, "Tax dollars may not be used to send the children of this state to private schools." His decision was based on a 1998 amendment that Florida voters added to the state constitution declaring an "efficient, safe, secure and high-quality system of free public schools" to be "a paramount duty of the state." The state plans an appeal, either to a state appellate court or Florida's Supreme Court.

Other states are looking to follow suit. Efforts are underway in several states to place the issue before voters via a referendum in 2000. In 1999, bills favoring vouchers or tuition tax credits were introduced in 40 states. So far during the 2000 legislative session, almost 600 bills, either supporting vouchers or favoring tuition tax credits, have been introduced in 42 states.

Despite the hoopla, evidence suggests that many private schools would not participate in a choice program. A 1992 study of 1,000 private schools in California found that the majority would not accept significantly more students under a voucher program. In fact, 25 percent would not participate at all while 70 percent indicated they would expand their enrollment by no more than 15 percent.1

This suggests that voucher program would benefit only a small percent of students. A 1993 article further suggests that middle and upper class students are most likely to benefit. The article argues that disadvantaged students and their families are less likely to have access to information about their choices. In addition, most vouchers do not cover the entire cost of private schooling so, without additional assistance, few low-income families can afford a private school.2

THE CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT

Like vouchers, there is much debate on the pros and cons of charter schools. Advocates claim that charter schools will:

  • Encourage innovation;
  • Be accountable and focus on results;
  • Expand school choice;
  • Require little or no additional funding; and
  • Act as a catalyst to improve the public school system overall.


Those opposed to charter schools believe they will:

  • cream off affluent and academically gifted students, leaving other public schools with fewer resources and the responsibility to
  • educate high-risk, high-cost students;
  • be no more innovative than existing schools;
  • rely on cheap labor, and exploit school staff;
  • be less accountable than public schools.


The first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1991. According to the Center for Education Reform, as of September 1999, 1,682 charter schools were operating in 31 states and the District of Columbia, serving approximately 350,000 children. Another five states (Arkansas, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wyoming) had authorizing legislation but did not yet have any charter schools. While the current number of charter schools pales in comparison to the 87,000 public schools that educate 47 million children, it's certainly a movement that's gaining momentum.

At first glance, charter schools would seem to be bad news for school employees and the children they educate. And if not properly structured, in fact, they are. They may ultimately have the same effect on public school employees' jobs as privatization; that is, they may serve to put downward pressure on wages and labor standards. However, charter schools can be structured so that they facilitate innovation while still meeting standards that ensure fairness and accountability.

First and foremost, charter schools must be held to the same standards that apply to public schools. Charter schools that operate under less stringent conditions than public schools may serve a political purpose; but they serve no educational purpose.

  • Standards for student achievement should be equal for charter schools and public schools.
  • Collective bargaining rights that cover public employees should apply to charter school employees as well.
  • Any certification or other qualifications required for jobs in public schools should be required for comparable jobs in charter schools.
  • Local school districts should have the right to approve — and disapprove — charter schools operating within their boundaries.


Finally, so that fact rather than ideology can inform the debate on charter schools, charter schools should make information available to the public. They should be covered by open records and open meetings laws that apply to other taxpayer-funded public services. They should be required to report demographic information on students and staff, financial information, information on student achievement and attendance, student and staff turnover, and other information that will enable comparison of charter schools and public schools.

CONCLUSION

The public school system educates 96 percent of the country's school children. Under the guise of reform, voucher programs take money out of that system to subsidize private education, with little or no accountability. It is privatization under another name. And, like privatization of other services, it does not lead to quality improvements. Any evidence that students in voucher programs fare better than they did in the public system is inconclusive, at best.

Charter schools, if properly crafted, may offer more promise. However, because they are relatively new, the jury is still out on whether they offer a viable reform alternative. In order to protect students and school employees, where charter schools are being considered, they should be required to meet the same academic, public disclosure, equal access and worker protection standards as the public schools.

FOOTNOTES

  1. R.R. Dianda and R.G. Corwin. The Private Sector Considers Educational Vouchers in California. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory, 1992.
  2. Valerie E. Lee. "Educational Choice: The Stratifying Effects of Selecting Schools and Courses." Educational Policy (June 1993): pp. 125-148.


March 2000
AFSCME
Public Policy Dept.

Print Version