Florida Strikes Down Nation's First Statewide Voucher Program

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:39 p.m. ET January 5, 2006

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The Florida Supreme Court struck down a statewide voucher system Thursday that allowed children to attend private schools at taxpayer expense -- a program Gov. Jeb Bush considered one of his proudest achievements.

It was the nation's first statewide voucher program.

In a 5-2 ruling, the high court said the program undermines the public schools and violates the Florida Constitution's requirement of a uniform system of free public education.

Voucher opponents had also argued that the program violated the separation of church and state in giving tax dollars to parochial schools -- an argument a lower court agreed with. But the state Supreme Court did not address that issue.

About 700 children are attending private or parochial schools through the program. But the ruling will not become effective until the end of the school year.

''I think it is a sad day for accountability in our state,'' Bush said. He said the voucher program had a positive effect because it ''put pressure on school districts to focus on the underperforming schools.''

The voucher setup was a part of an education program on the governor's part that also includes testing at virtually every level and a school grading system that offers performance-based rewards and punishments.

Bush said he will look for ways to continue the voucher programs, such as finding private money, changing state law or amending the Florida Constitution.

''I don't think any option should be taken off the table,'' the governor said. ''School choice is as American as apple pie in my opinion. ... The world is made richer and fuller and more vibrant when you have choices.''

Under the 1999 law, students at public schools that earn a failing grade from the state in two out of four years were eligible for vouchers to attend private schools.

Chief Justice Barbara Pariente said the program ''diverts public dollars into separate private systems parallel to and in competition with the free public schools,'' which are the sole means set out in the state constitution for educating Florida children.

The ruling was a victory for public schools across the state and nation, said Ron Meyer, lead attorney for a coalition that challenged the voucher program.

''Students using vouchers will now be welcomed back into Florida public schools,'' Meyer said in a statement. ''It decides with finality that the voucher program is unconstitutional.''

Anticipating the possibility of an adverse ruling, the governor has been working on a backup plan to keep voucher students in private schools by providing tax credits to corporations that give students scholarships.

Clark Neily, an attorney who argued the case for voucher advocates, called the decision ''a setback for those parents and children trapped in failing schools.''

The U.S. Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support the state. Voucher opponents included the state teachers union, the Florida PTA, the NAACP and the League of Women Voters.

The ruling did not directly affect nearly 30,000 students in two other voucher programs for disabled and poor children, but it could be cited as a precedent.

United States Supreme Court Takes Up Voucher Case

PEN Weekly NewsBlast
February 19, 2001

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of the debate over school vouchers. Not since the U.S. Supreme Court's "Brown v. Board of Education" decision in 1954 outlawing "separate but equal schools" has there been a controversy of such social and educational impact. Add the importance of church/state issues, and the case is arguably the most important before the Court this term. On February 20, the US Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments. To help clarify some of the key issues regarding the voucher controversy, Rethinking Schools Online has expanded its resources and articles on school vouchers: CLICK HERE

Panels Discuss School Vouchers

November 27, 2001

School Vouchers: Right CHOICE for Education?

On November 27, 2001, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation presented a discussion, "School Vouchers: Right CHOICE for Education." Among the panelists were voucher proponents Kaleem Caire, president and CEO of the Black Alliance for Educational Options; and Michael Franc, policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Voucher opponents were Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the Anti-Defamation League; the Rev. J. Brent Walker, Baptist Joint Committee for Public Affairs; and Delisa Saunders, People for the American Way (PFAW).

Lieberman focused on the public policy reasons to oppose vouchers, stating that limited education resources should not be used to fund programs designed to help only a few, particularly when those programs take money from public education and abandon students to schools expected to improve with reduced resources. He also stated his concern that voucher programs that fund religious schools will inevitably favor larger denominations at the expense of minority religions.

Other panelists opposed to vouchers focused on their unconstitutionality, the lack of evidence that vouchers improve student achievement, and the loss of accountability when public funds are diverted to private and religious schools.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

The Georgetown University Law Center chapters of the American Constitution Society and Federalist Society, along with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, also presented a discussion of vouchers in November, 2001. Their panel focused exclusively on Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Cleveland, Ohio, school voucher case that will be heard by the Supreme Court next year. The Court will decide whether the program in Cleveland has had the effect of supporting primarily religious schools, unconstitutionally endorsing religion.

Panelists Robert A. Destro, counsel for the Center for Education Reform; and Jay Alan Sekulow, counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, spoke in support of the constitutionality of the Cleveland school voucher plan. Charles R. Lawrence III, law professor at Georgetown University, and member of the D.C. School Board; and Elliot Mincberg, general counsel and legal education policy director for People for the American Way, spoke in opposition to vouchers.

National PTA

National PTA has consistently opposed vouchers because, among other reasons, they do not offer parents true choice. The choice lies with private school administrators, who may accept or reject applicants for any reason. National PTA advocates for the use of public funds for public schools only, and opposes vouchers, tax subsidies, and other similar alternative funding programs that divert public money to private and religious schools. "Vouchers do not solve the problems faced by our nation's public schools or the students enrolled in them," said National PTA President Shirley Igo. "Instead, they divert funds from public schools, which are already inadequately funded, to private and religious schools over which the public has no oversight. Ninety percent of our children are enrolled in public schools and that's where we need to focus our resources."

Voucher Opponents File Briefs with U.S. Supreme Court

National PTA, December 14, 2001

This week, opponents of vouchers, including National PTA, filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could decide whether the Cleveland voucher program unconstitutionally supports religion. The Supreme Court case combines three lower court challenges and is commonly referred to as Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, one of those lower court cases.

JUNE 27, 2002:
SEE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION CLICK HERE

The Ohio Pilot Project Scholarship program funds vouchers of up to $2,250 to pay tuition at participating schools, public or private, for kindergarten through 8th grade. So far, no public schools have elected to participate in the program. Of the 56 private schools that participated during the 1999-2000 school year, 46 were church-affiliated. Almost 3,800 students used the vouchers that year, and 96 percent of them attended religious schools. The program gives priority to, but is not limited to, low-income students.

In December 1999, a federal court found the voucher program unconstitutional. An appellate court confirmed that decision by 2-1, finding the program unconstitutional because the majority of participating schools are religious. The appeals court relied on the outcome of a Supreme Court case, Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, which struck down a tuition reimbursement program in New York. Judge Eric L. Clay wrote in the appellate decision affirming the district court ruling that, "There is no neutral aid when that aid principally flows to religious institutions; nor is there truly 'private choice' when the available choices resulting from the program design are predominantly religious."

In September 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the appellate decision. Briefs were filed by the pro-voucher petitioners last month, and by anti-voucher respondents this week. A broad spectrum of organizations that are interested in the outcome of the case have filed "friend of the court" briefs, which support one side or the other.

Governor Rowland introduces voucher bill

February 22, 2002

Governor Rowland has introduced a voucher bill which will be heard before the Education Committee on March 1, 2002. Part of the bill reads as follows:

"If a school district has a school on the list pursuant to this section that fails to make adequate progress for two consecutive years, based on the annual report cards, parents shall have the option to take half of the Education Cost Sharing grant that the school district receives for their child in such school on the list and allow the parent to use these funds for demonstration scholarships. A municipality may provide additional funds to supplement the amount of the Education Cost Sharing grant required under this subsection."

TRACK THE BILL... CLICK HERE

Theresa Duncan & Kevin Day Testify

March 1, 2002

Therese Duncan, VP for Legislation and Kevin Daly, 1st VP, testified before the Connecticut General Assembly’s Education Committee. The public hearing began March 1, 2002 at 1:00pm and CT PTA testified at 6:00pm, the hearing continued until 9:00pm.

Therese’s testimony centered around the PTA’s position (see talking points) on vouchers and Kevin took a proactive role and spoke to the question that Representative Lawrence Cafero from the 142nd district (Norwalk and Wilton), asked of each person who spoke before us in opposition of Governor Rowland’s Voucher Bill; “What would you say to parents of children in failing schools?” Both Therese and Kevin were further questioned by Rep. Cafero and Rep. Blackwell from the 12th district (Manchester) on what we would say to parents of children in failing schools.

Representative Roberta Willis of the 64th District (Cornwall, Goshen, Salisbury, Sharon and Torrington) made the point through questioning Therese that tuition money paid to private schools is not returned to public schools if the private school situation does not work out and the student returns to public schools.

Kevin Daly: I would like the committee to consider the fate of the child who would be left behind in a failing school if we create a voucher system. And call it whatever you will, we’re talking about vouchers.

The special education student. The student with special needs. Private schools typically don’t accept these students because they don’t have the resources to meet their needs. Except for a handful of private schools specifically for children with learning difficulties that exist in the state.

If we create a voucher system, the high performing and typical students will be able to leave a failing school. But the students with special needs will be left behind. What do you say to the parent of a special education student who is trapped in a failing school and can’t get out because the private schools won’t accept him or her? Do you tell the parent to wait? That it will get better? Is this voodoo education?

After Therese Duncan and Kevin Daly gave their testimony, committee member Representative Lawrence Cafero (R-142nd) asked Kevin to answer the question he posed to the Education Committee.

Kevin replied, “I wish I had an answer to that question. But I don’t. We are depending on you and our legislators to answer it. But I know what the answer isn’t. The answer isn’t to erode the failing school by giving most of the students vouchers to leave and keeping the students with special needs behind. Vouchers are not the answer to the problems of public education. We are counting on you and our legislators to do the right thing on this issue. The fate of public education is in your hands.”

CT PTA belongs to a coalition, CAPE, aimed at keeping tax money in public schools. A press release was issued today by that organization.

TO VIEW THE PRESS RELEASE... CLICK HERE

The United States Supreme Court today declared the voucher program in the state of Ohio constitutional.

June 27, 2002

National PTA and CT PTA vow to continue fighting private school vouchers, and expressed disappointment with the decision by the United States Supreme Court.

National PTA President Shirley Igo, joined by all 54 state PTA presidents, will continue their unequivocal opposition to private school vouchers, and urge Congress to oppose any legislation that includes a voucher.

“Vouchers divert funds from public schools that are already inadequately funded,” said Igo. “We will continue to fight voucher programs and advocate for programs that improve education for ALL children.”

National PTA has consistently opposed vouchers because, among other reasons, they do not offer parents true choice. The choice lies with private school administrators, who may accept or reject applicants for any reason. Accordingly, National PTA signed on to a brief that urged the Court to reject the Cleveland voucher program as unconstitutional.

“Vouchers, particularly the Cleveland program, fail to offer meaningful choice, fail to improve student achievement for participating students, and fail to improve public education for nonparticipating students,” Brief of Amici Curiae National School Boards Association, et.al., in Support of Respondents.

“These policy reasons to oppose vouchers remain as valid now as they were before the Court reached its decision,” said Igo.

PTA'S OPPOSITION TO VOUCHERS REMAINS FIRM DESPITE SUPREME COURT RULING

July 12, 2002

On Thursday, June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio does not violate the constitutional separation between church and state, even though over 96 percent of the children using vouchers to attend private schools in that city go to religious schools. A letter signed by the presidents of 53 state Congresses was delivered to every member of Congress that afternoon expressing National PTA's disappointment with the decision. The presidents reaffirmed in that letter their intent to continue to fight vouchers because they divert public funds from public schools to private schools that are not accountable to the public, do not increase parents' choices, and do not improve student achievement. Congress also received a letter, signed by nearly 900 delegates at National PTA's convention, affirming PTA members' opposition to vouchers.

Writing for the 5-4 majority in the case, known as Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Chief Justice Rehnquist reasoned that the program does not favor religious schools because the benefits received by religious schools are the result of parents' private choices. To reach that conclusion, however, Rehnquist included public school choices such as charter and magnet schools, which are not part of the voucher program. Justice Souter wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. He criticized the Supreme Court majority for including public school options in its analysis of whether parents have nonreligious choices. "The majority has confused choice in spending scholarships with choice from the entire menu of possible educational placements, most of them open to anyone willing to attend a public school" and not requiring a voucher for payment. Souter also wrote that Ohio's goal of providing an adequate education to children in Cleveland is no excuse to violate the Constitution, and the long-standing legal principle that no tax money should be applied to support religious activities or institutions.

In addition to the Cleveland program, publicly funded private school voucher programs are also in place in Milwaukee and Florida. Voucher proponents say they will seek to enact voucher programs in other states. Voucher programs are still unconstitutional under most state constitutions, which contain more stringent restrictions on public aid to religious schools than the federal constitution does.

DC VOUCHER BILL INTRODUCED

Immediately after the Supreme Court announced the decision in the Zelman voucher case, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5033. The Armey bill would divert $45 million in public funds over five years to pay for tuition, fees, and transportation costs at private schools or public schools in the District of Columbia or neighboring counties in Maryland and Virginia. Vouchers could be used to pay for students currently attending private school.

A nonprofit corporation would administer the program. Six members of the corporation's board of directors would be appointed by the U.S. president, with the mayor of the District of Columbia allowed to appoint only one. Although the bill prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, it permits gender discrimination that is consistent with the religious tenets of participating private schools, and explicitly allows participating religious schools to discriminate in admissions and in employment on the basis of religion, and to use voucher funds for sectarian educational purposes. Although participating private schools must report annually on student achievement, and undergo an independent evaluation that would include a comparison of test scores between voucher students and public school students, private schools are not required to administer the same tests that are required of public schools, making an accurate comparison of student achievement impossible.

The U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce has scheduled a hearing for July 23 on "What's Next for School Choice?" Rep. Armey is expected to testify on behalf of his bill.

National PTA opposes H.R. 5033, and is working with DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton to defeat the measure.

AMERICANS CONFUSED & DIVIDED ON VOUCHER ISSUE

USA Today
August 21, 2002

SCHOOL VOUCHERS: A SMALL TOOL FOR A VERY BIG PROBLEM

NY Times, August 5, 2002

The Supreme Court decision upholding the school voucher program in Cleveland has generated a burst of hyperbole among hard-core voucher advocates, the most ideological of whom view the ruling as the first step toward dismantling public education as we know it today. Hijacking the language of civil rights, many advocates are portraying the Cleveland case as the second coming of Brown v. Board of Education, suggesting that vouchers will somehow rescue millions of black and Latino children who are trapped in failing schools all across the United States.

According to Brent Staples, the idea that a voucher program so limited in scope somehow equals Brown is preposterous on its face. By desegregating public schools and colleges - and integrating the professions as well - Brown reshaped the civic climate and signaled the end of a Jim Crow rule that had dominated the country since the Civil War.

WHAT YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT VOUCHERS

September, 2002

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS HEARING ON VOUCHERS

SEPTEMBER 17: The U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on Sept. 17 to examine the constitutional boundaries of voucher programs, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Simmons-Harris v. Zelman. The court held that in order to be constitutional, a voucher program must:

National PTA, along with dozens of other education, labor, civil rights, and religious organizations, wrote to the subcommittee to remind its members that constitutionality does not mitigate the multiple policy reasons for Congress to continue to reject these proposals. The Rev. Timothy McDonald testified that these reasons should overwhelmingly outweigh the mere fact that such programs may be permitted under the federal Constitution. He also questioned the subcommittee's decision to consider new education programs, when newly enacted reforms have not yet been implemented and are not being adequately funded. National PTA opposes the funneling of public money to private and religious schools through such mechanisms as tuition tax credits and vouchers.

Although the subcommittee does not generally consider legislation affecting education, it does have jurisdiction over a proposal to open federal funding of social services to religious institutions, found in the Community Solutions Act (H.R. 7). This bill would authorize the "voucherization" of a wide variety of federal programs. Some proponents of this initiative believe the Supreme Court's decision in Simmons-Harris v. Zelman means that this indirect government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations would also be constitutional. A witness cautioned the subcommittee that without sufficient funding for universal access to services, it would be difficult to demonstrate the truly genuine and independent choice required by the Supreme Court.

National PTA opposes government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations and other organizations and programs that may discriminate on the basis of religion in employment and in delivery of services, including making religious instruction, worship, or proselytization part of the services or program.

Complete text of all testimony is available on the subcommittee website.

GAO Releases Study on Privately Funded Voucher Programs

National PTA, October 4, 2002

A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that privately funded voucher programs do not significantly improve academic achievement for most recipients. The study examined 78 privately funded voucher programs, but focused on those in New York City, Washington, DC, and Dayton, Ohio. These findings reinforce those of an earlier study of publicly funded voucher programs in such areas as Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Florida, in which the GAO found little or no difference between the performances of voucher and public school students.

Researchers also found that privately funded voucher programs often face uncertain financial futures due to unpredictable funding sources. For example, in many cases donors had agreed to provide funding for only four years, so students receiving such vouchers might not be able to rely on them to fund their entire education through graduation.

The GAO also reviewed student retention rates in the private schools and found that in most programs, at least 20 percent of voucher recipients leave the program each year. Cost is a major reason for this low retention rate. The GAO found that most programs required a minimum family contribution toward the tuition of at least $500, with the amount being higher in most areas. For example, in Atlanta, the average tuition is approximately $4,300, while the average voucher amount was $1,663, with the maximum voucher amount set for $2,100. The average amount of tuition covered ranged from 20 percent in Pittsburgh, to 65 percent in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Although voucher programs provide families with tuition assistance, they rarely cover the full cost of tuition, and also do not provide families with the extra money private schools often require for books, activities, and uniforms. Many families are forced to drop out of the private schools because of these additional costs.

Another cause of student attrition is dissatisfaction with the private schools themselves. Based on parents' reports, the private schools were less likely than the public schools to have a nurse's office, a cafeteria, and to provide services and programs for those students with learning disabilities, or who are English-language learners. Parent satisfaction with private schools could be traced to the characteristics of the private schools that also exist in successful public schools, such as smaller class size, individual tutoring, and better communication between parents and teachers.

National PTA opposes vouchers, and instead supports efforts to reduce class size, and to improve parent involvement so that quality education is available to all children.

Report Offers Caution on Costs Of Operating Voucher Plans

Education Week
November 5, 2003
By Olivia Doherty

Voucher programs may cost more, and require more administrative work, than policy makers believe, a recent study concludes.

The report, "Administrative Costs of Education Voucher Programs," is available online from the Center on Reinventing Public Education. A summary is also available. (Full report requires Adobe's Acrobat Reader.)

Contrary to the notion that voucher systems could simply reallocate existing money, additional funding and staffing would be required to run such programs, says the report by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education.

The study, "Administrative Costs of Education Voucher Programs," delves into the specific structural and financial changes that would be required to operate a voucher program authorized by state law and financed by state and local public money.

Given the complexities, the report questions the readiness of school districts to deal with the changes necessary to run voucher programs, which give families public aid to use toward tuition at private schools.

"A lot of communities really haven't done a lot of things that have to be done," said Paul T. Hill, the author of the report and the director of the center.

Mr. Hill estimated the financial costs that state and local education agencies would have to face by examining a hypothetical voucher system comparable to the system in place in Cleveland.

State government agencies, local education offices, special voucher-program offices, and private schools each hold responsibilities in implementing voucher programs, he said, and need to have sufficient administrative support in several areas.

But an area that many districts have difficulty with, Mr. Hill said, is in tracking student records. Primitive data-keeping systems, often found in large city school districts, pose serious hurdles in verifying the eligibility of student applicants and in transferring information between schools-functions crucial to making a voucher program work, the report says.

"Choice only makes it more evident they don't have those competencies," Mr. Hill said, "when they should have had them anyway."

While various voucher programs may assign duties in different ways, the report says, the many functions that must be performed do not change. They include qualifying private schools for participation, conducting lotteries to select students, and evaluating achievement results.

In addition to requiring accurate and easily accessible records, a voucher program demands additional human resources and changes to existing district structures, the report says.

Unless districts prepare for real administrative changes, such as setting up a central voucher office, Mr. Hill said, costs will run high.

According to Mr. Hill's estimates, with 2,000 students each receiving tuition vouchers averaging $4,000, and allocating $500 in categorical money for each student and $600 in transportation costs per student, state and local agencies would face more than $10 million in annual gross costs. That figure also includes management and evaluation expenses.

Even after considering possible reductions in public school spending brought about by shifts in enrollment to private schools, the net costs would come to $3.2 million, the report says.

"There is a real cost to local districts," said Marc Egan, the director of the voucher strategy center at the National School Boards Association, which opposes publicly funded tuition vouchers. He said lawmakers should consider the effects a voucher program would have on public school funding.

But assessing the costs of a hypothetical voucher system might be harder than it seems, said Lawrence Patrick, the president of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, which supports vouchers. That is because of the wide variety of forms a voucher program could have, he said.

"Administrative costs are inextricably linked to how the voucher program works," Mr. Patrick said. "It really does depend on the way it's designed."

Still, Mr. Hill said, the analysis could help states considering voucher programs to identify potential costs and their implications.

"With the exception of a couple places that have tried out programs for themselves, nobody has figured out what this implies for the school district budget and the state budget, and what new capacities have to be built," he said. "So this was just an effort to get people thinking about it."