Vouchers, choice, privatization, and good old-fashioned free-enterprise competition - it's getting more difficult to tell what these words mean. Interest in unrestricted vouchers (public tax monies flowing directly to citizens and thence to all public, private, and sectarian schools) seems to be on the increase. But a number of fresh combinations of voucher-related concepts may signal a growing acceptance of the need to modify the current governance structure for public education.
When Paul Revere waited for the signal that sent him on his historic ride, he had only two possibilities to watch for. Voucher watchers today can find the enemy coming from every direction. Both friend and foe seem to have changed their lantern codes in the church belfry, and a few individuals have also changed the colors of their arguments.
At least one major education group is now saying that it has always been in favor of within-district parental choice - but of course it remains opposed to unrestricted vouchers. From the other side, some voucher proponents have now taken up the call to reform and restructure the public schools. They offer some variation of a voucher plan as the best way to bring about such fundamental change.
Vouchers for Colorado - Again?
People in Colorado tend to forget how many times Hugh Fowler, a former state senator, has tried to get the voucher idea onto the ballot. This time he has changed his tack a bit, but the goal is still to get 50,000 signatures from registered voters for a place on the 1992 ballot. Fowler is now the executive director of a group called Choice for School Reform, Inc. In a Denver Post editorial - titled "Is 1992 the Year of the School Voucher?" - he said that the education reforms suggested by Gov. Roy Romerand other "educrat gurus" only changed the tunes played for the game of musical chairs called school reform.
Fowler is proposing that parents be given the right to choose any "public, private, government, or non government school" or even to educate their children at home. Parents would receive a voucher worth no less than 50 percent of the average expenditure per child in each district. Fowler says that this arrangement will put parents' hands on the lever that will force schools to change. His appeal for the needed signatures seems aimed at the many adults who don't have children in school but who might by sympathetic to an unrestricted voucher. Escalating the school costs and poor accountability for the use of the money by the public schools will be the theme of the campaign.
Meanwhile, the Colorado State Board of Education approved three "schools of choice" projects authorized by the Colorado legislature in its most recent session. Each of the participating school districts will receive a $90,000 grant to help fund first-year start-up costs, so that tuition will not have to be charged for the enrollment of students across districts.
Another Version
J. Patrick Rooney, chairman of the Golden Rule Insurance Company of Lawrenceville, Illinois, thinks that business involvement in the reform of public education amounts to applying Band-Aids to a hemorrhaging school system. His company has announced that it will begin a $1.2 million voucher program to allow low-income parents to send their students to private schools.
Bearing similarities to the plan initiated in Milwaukee, the new program will start in Indianapolis by awarding private school vouchers for up to 50 percent of tuition (with a cap of $800) to 500 students from low-income families. Golden Rule has established a charitable trust fund with sufficient backing for at least three years and hopes to continue beyond that point with contributions from other corporations.
Polly Williams, a Wisconsin state representative who was instrumental in starting the Milwaukee plan, said of the Golden Rule effort that, if state legislatures won't support a voucher plan, then business should shame politicians into letting the people have choice. Rooney said he isn't interested in taking well-off students out of failing schools. Instead, he wants to give low-income families the chance for upward mobility.
The Federal Agenda
President Bush's America 2000 strategy and the private American Schools Development Corporation may add a new element to the choice/voucher mix. The big question seems to be, What issue will get the most emphasis as corporate support is sought for schools that "break the mold"? If a national test takes precedence, then choice/vouchers will play a lesser role. On the other hand, if the political right presses for a strong voucher/choice program, then broad support could be generated for such voucher programs as the Golden Rule plan. Mixing the testing with a voucher plan might also be possible. If proponents argue that a new national test could show that private schools do a better job, then there could be a call for a full-scale test of the voucher plan.
However, Albert Shanker, president to the American Federation of Teachers uses National Assessment of Educational Progress data to argue that little significant difference can be found between the private and the public schools on math achievement. In fact, he argues that, because private schools can select a higher caliber of student, they may be doing a worse job.
While Shanker used these data to argue against private school choice, they could also be seen as a part of a win/win strategy for a federal government seeking to build support for a stronger national testing program and for a broad conception of school choice. The Administration would then be sure to get some part of its America 2000 plan. In fact, this could be the basis of a new strategy for vouchers; wait until interest in vouchers builds and then support local and state moves to test their efficacy.
However, the pressure of politics could also create some new combinations. A Democratic Presidential candidate will probably have to run to counter the President's actions. This could produce some unanticipated wiggles where vouchers are concerned.
For example, the proposal by the National Commission on Children for a federal tax credit of $1,000 per child to help strengthen families might bring the concept of vouchers in through the Democrats' back door. A political appeal based on the plight of families could also connect education with collaborative efforts involving welfare and social service agencies, thus throwing bipartisan support behind vouchers, which were only a short time ago viewed as the property of the political right.
But President Bush and Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander probably won't let this happen without some sort of tussle for control. As states and school districts smell the new money for the 535 model schools, many political wild cards are likely to be played. Governors jumping out ahead of congressional delegations from their own states, school districts accepting the American 2000 plan as though no state education reform had ever been proposed, and private business coming in behind federal education reform instead of local or state reforms - all of these could produce a new mix of activity. Vouchers and choice could make some remarkable gains and pick up support from unexpected sources in coming months.
State Activity
Since Minnesota passed the first interdistrict choice law in 1988, 10 additional states have enacted similar legislation. In general, the open enrollment laws provide for parents to send their children to schools in any district in the state. Local boards of education cannot block students from leaving or entering a district unless the movement will upset desegregation guidelines or unless space for additional students is unavailable. State aid follows the students to the new school district, and parents are generally responsible for transporting their children to the boundaries of the new school district. However, in a few states some transportation support is given to low-income families.
Preliminary studies show that only a small percentage of families (under 1% in Minnesota) have made use of interdistrict choice. For elementary students, parents usually make changes for convenient day care. At the middle and high school levels, extracurricular or specialized curricular offerings often trigger the decision. Most states, however, have not waived rules governing extracurricular participation. For example, high school students typically are ineligible for athletic competition for one year after transferring, but they are often allowed to practice with the varsity teams during that period.
The number and kinds of options continue to grow. In 1991, Minnesota added charter schools and choice options across state lines. Miami will turn over one elementary school to a private contractor, and discussions are in progress in Cleveland and Detroit to put public school students in private or parochial schools. In countless areas of the country, districts have voluntary agreements with neighboring school districts. The real questions are, Where will all this activity end? And is a voucher program inevitable?.
Few people remember that the federal government sponsored a study of vouchers in several districts in New Hampshire in the early 1970s. Under that plan, public and private nonsectarian schools would have accepted one another's students. However, the local boards voted not to implement the study.
A number of factors complicated the issue of choice/vouchers. The matter of separation of church and state and the potential for litigation in fully implemented voucher plan could slow any move to embrace vouchers. The families left behind when a voucher/choice option kicks in could face the same kinds of problems faced by today's at-risk student populations, and vouchers could inadvertently contribute to the making of a two-class society. Nevertheless, while a full voucher program may not become common in the states, a number of variations on the concept look increasingly possible.