Controversy surrounding school vouchers has brought recently renewed public attention. Talk to a public school educator and they will almost certainly speak passionately against school vouchers. Talk to a conservative or Republican and they will likely speak passionately in favor of them. School vouchers are "government grants aimed at improving education for the children of low-income families by providing school tuition that can be used at public or private schools" (Colombia Encyclopedia online, 2001). The idea behind them is to give ‘parental choice’ in education.

An Ohio case is now at the center of the school voucher controversy. On February 20, 2002, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a case on school vouchers involving Cleveland’s private school tuition plan. The Court granted certiorari and will review the US Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit's decision that the plan is unconstitutional.

Cleveland’s public school system is similar to Dayton’s public school system. The Cleveland Public School System consists of urban districts composed mainly of minority students coming from low-income families suffering from poor standardized test scores and a lack of resources. In 1995, Cleveland schools were declared by a federal judge to be poorly managed. The Cleveland school system was then placed under the control of the state superintendent of public instruction. The Ohio General Assembly enacted the Ohio Pilot Scholarship in which elementary school students can use vouchers of up to $2,250 to pay tuition at participating public or private schools. The statute enacted by the Ohio legislature was carefully worded to allow vouchers to be used in any private school in the city, and in any suburban school that would accept them. Low-income students are given priority. Forty six of the fifty six private schools that participated during the 1999-2000 school year were church affiliated with over 96% of the students who participated choosing to attend religious affiliated schools (mostly Roman Catholic).

Begin with the ‘Establishment’ clause. Think First Amendment, think constitutional law.

The Establishment of Religion Clause of the US Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. This is the basis for the Zelman v Simmons-Harris case. The controversy is a result of the fact that the majority of those using the Ohio vouchers are choosing to attend mostly religious schools essentially using government money to fund private, religious educations.

Doris Simmons-Harris was the mother of a Cleveland district student who filed a suit in Ohio state court. Susan Tave Zelman, named in the suit, is the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Ohio. Simmons-Harris challenged Ohio’s pilot scholarship program under Ohio law and under the Establishment of Religion Clause of the U.S. Constitution (mandating the separation of church and state). Teachers unions also claimed the program was unconstitutional because public tax dollars would be diverted to private religious schools and also followed suit.

The two cases were combined and in July 1996 an Ohio judge rejected the arguments
and permitted the program. The following spring, however, a state appeals court found the program unconstitutional. Then, the Ohio Supreme Court in May 1999 held the voucher program constitutional but found it in violation of Ohio’s "single subject" law because it had been enacted as part of a larger budget bill. In response, the Ohio legislature re-enacted the voucher program.

Simmons-Harris filed suit again in July 1999 in federal court. Another group of plaintiffs filed suit several days after Simmons-Harris. The U.S. District Court combined the two cases and in December 1999 the court found the voucher program in violation of the Establishment Clause.

In December 2000, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the program unconstitutional because the majority of participating schools are religious. The appeals court relied on Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, in which the Supreme Court in 1973 struck down a tuition reimbursement program in New York under the Establishment Clause. On Sept. 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the three cases arising from the Ohio dispute. A decision will be decided by June 2002.

Arguments Against Vouchers
The most obvious argument against vouchers involves the legal argument involving the separation of church and state. The objection is that public dollars are being diverted to private religious schools and away from the poor public schools that need them. With public school budgets declining, vouchers take with them part of the per-pupil money given to the district.

Proponents against vouchers state that this nation as a whole has been historically committed to public education. As a result, school voucher proposals are consistently defeated when voted upon by the public. Voucher proposals in Maryland (1972), Michigan (1978 & 2000), Colorado (1992), Washington (1996) and California (1993 & 2000) have all been rejected.

Proponents against also claim that allowing for low-income students to attend other schools essentially because they are ‘better’ sets up a type of two-tiered system that potentially raises the standards for students in private schools while lowering those of the students left behind in the public schools.

It is argued that vouchers not only take away funds and resources from public schools but that the private schools use them to also take the better students leaving behind those less capable of learning or students with behavioral problems without positive peer role models or tutors to help them.

Proponents against vouchers also feel that subsidizing tuition for students in private schools does not expand opportunities for low-income children who either are not taken by the private school of their choice or whose parents have chosen for them to stay within the public schools.

One of the last arguments made are that private school is private choice. Public schools were instituted to provide free education to all. If a parent wants to send their child to private school, then they should have to pay for it themselves without public money.

Those in favor of vouchers bring up the fact that in today’s society it is common to see public funds going to private institutions. Money for college or federal grants allows low-income college students to attend universities whether they are state universities, private universities or catholic institutions.

In response to those against vouchers who argue that public school systems will be weakened, those in favor ask, "What if the student using the voucher just simply left the system and moved somewhere else? Would everyone be complaining then?" They assert probably not.

Those in favor will tell you it’s a myth that the most capable students use vouchers leaving the toughest cases behind for the public schools. At least one study has shown that children who use vouchers are rarely any different from their peers in race, income, family background, or academic performance. They claim the programs do not seek out the most capable students and are restricted to families that qualify for the federal school-lunch program or meet some other program guidelines. They state that the worst performing students often use vouchers because their parents are the ones most likely to be unhappy with the public schools.

I don’t personally believe in vouchers but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Establishment Clause and the issues of separation of church and state. For me, it’s about providing educational opportunities to all low-income children and not just a select group.

As a former educator within the Dayton Public School System prior to attending law school, I observed first hand the effect of charter schools on the school system. Some of you may be wondering why I am making the comparison. Vouchers are not conceptually different than charter schools in that they both provide alternative education choices to parents in low-income areas. From what I have observed and read, the result that both have on public school systems in poor urban areas are the same. The parents of the best students in the district take advantage of the alternatives leaving behind the students who struggle without positive peer role models and an increased burden on the teacher. When the charter schools in Dayton began to open, many of the students with disabilities (learning disabilities, physical handicaps, severe language or reading difficulties, etc.) were left behind because typically the charter schools (and this goes for private and parochial schools as well) are not equipped to deal with any type of handicapped students. Private schools and parochial schools are not well equipped to deal with students with disabilities either. Schools participating in the voucher programs have the right not to accept students. Just because a student with a voucher chooses a school to go to does not mean they will necessarily be accepted.

What about equality in education for those students left behind in poor, urban districts? Private and religious schools only accept a certain number of students. Most of the children eligible for voucher programs are going to try to filter into religious schools because the tuition is still somewhat within reason to afford when using a voucher. Private schools that charge tuition anywhere from five to ten thousand dollars a year will not be an option for low income students with vouchers as there is no way their families would be able to make up the difference. Do we allow relatively large numbers of students to suffer for the benefit of a select few? Why not put more money into public school education and make the schools better for all students?

The problem starts with the gap between public school education in low-income areas versus public school education in middle to upper class neighborhoods. I don’t see articles in the paper with middle class parents demanding vouchers for their children. The disparity in the education of these two groups of students begins and ends with money.

Vouchers are not going to fix the fact that public schools in low-income areas receive children at the kindergarten level without a strong foundation of language and problem solving skills to build from. When the family priority consists of providing food, shelter and clothing, playing and providing children with age appropriate toys and a language rich environment falls down to the bottom of the list. These students lacking in the basic foundations of language and vocabulary then enter schools that have only the bare necessities because they receive money per pupil based on the low real estate value of the properties in the district.

Could you imagine how much better these students would learn if given even half the resources and materials students from wealthy districts have? I can. Conservatives want a quick fix; give vouchers and abandon public schools. Public schools should not be abandoned this way. All public schools should be on the same playing field with the same funding and amount of money per-pupil to be spent.

Instead of funding school vouchers, how about early intervention funding for all students in low-income areas to provide them with the basic foundations they are lacking when they enter school? There are some Head Start programs available, but there aren’t enough.

What about the mandatory lowering of maximum class size numbers statewide to allow teachers in low-income districts more time to focus on a smaller number of students? Schools in middle to upper income communities with more funding tend to have smaller class sizes. Instead of the conservatives bashing inner city public schools and supporting vouchers, how about supporting those schools and providing them with the much-needed books, computers and other materials they are lacking to help educate these children?

What about spending some money funding to pay for teachers continuing education in order to maintain their certification and retain the best teachers possible? You will hear parents and conservatives complain about teachers in low-income districts not doing there jobs. As a former Dayton employee, I had little funding to work with and often wound up spending my own money in lesson preparation. Many inner city schools also lack the funding to pay for teachers continuing education credits needed to maintain their teaching credentials and often pay for them out of pocket as well. Teachers who work in these districts are there because they believe they are actually trying to make a difference in the children’s lives.

To view the brief for the Ohio case currently before the Supreme Court go to: http://www.medill.nwu.edu/docket/ and click on ‘tuition vouchers’

To view other Supreme Court cases before the court go to: http://oyez.nwu.edu/

1. National Education Association: Learn about the argument for school choice and read comments on voucher programs made by association president Bob Chase. http://www.nea.org/issues/vouchers/index.html

http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/digests/dig127.html

3. School Vouchers, School Choices: Offers issues and arguments for and against the school voucher movement. http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/vouchers.htm

4. Article: Voucher Issue Is Equality, Not Faith: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpmin052610949mar05.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/26/opinion/26OWEN.html?ex=1016619993&ei=1&en=5f429bfef5b03871

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/25/opinion/L25VOUC.html?ex=1016612037&ei=1&en=43c1dcfd2776c992

7. For more articles, go to www.nytimes.com, under the search topic put in ‘school vouchers.’