The Voucher Debate: One Year After the Supreme Court Decision

1. The Voucher Debate: One Year After the Supreme Court Decision Clive Belfield National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education Teachers College, Columbia University www.ncspe.org

2. Cleveland Scholarship & Tutoring Program Almost all the CSTP recipients went to religious schools CSTP potentially offends the Establishment clause of U.S. Constitution In June 2002, U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion declared the CSTP as: • A program of “true private choice”… “neutral in all respects toward religion”… “part of a general and multifaceted undertaking by the state of Ohio to provide educational opportunities to the children of a failed school district” Justice Thomas: • “Failing urban schools disproportionately affect minority children”… “many blacks now support school choice programs because they provide the greatest opportunities for their children in struggling communities”

3. One Year Later: Voucher (choice) programs ‘proliferating’: • CO, TX, DC (LA, Compton, LA) • Growth of Cleveland Program • Consolidation of Milwaukee Program • Strengthening of VT and ME town-tuitioning programs Legal challenges to State Constitutional barriers to vouchers Voucher programs prompted not only by the Supreme Court decision, but also by November 2002 elections ‘Proliferating’ is not a relative term (compared to home-schooling, charter schooling, and intra-district open enrollment programs)

4. What Next? A lot of debate and discussion about vouchers But few programs, and strong regulatory control Understanding two puzzles

5. Puzzle #1: Support without evidence Support for vouchers grows, but the evidence shows few substantial advantages: • Some gains in freedom of choice • Very moderate gains in efficiency • No impairment of social cohesion • ‘Greatest’ gains for low-income families • Losses to home-owning families in wealthier suburbs with high quality public schools; they now face competition/crowding and asset losses Solutions: • Disagreement over evidence? Ignore evidence? Better than nothing? • Keep looking for compelling evidence

6. Puzzle #2: Political Support Political support for vouchers comes from the Right, even though: • Biggest losses for families in wealthier suburbs with high quality public schools Political opposition for vouchers comes from the Left, even though: • Greatest gains for low-income families

7. Answers to Puzzle #2? Confusion amongst constituents: • Low-income families do not realize they will gain • Home-owners do not realize they will lose • Differences in beliefs about efficiency gains Split on the Left/Right: • Teacher union power v. community power • Libertarians v. conservatives v. religious groups v. special interests of producers

8. Answers to Puzzle #2? ‘Big Politics’ strategies of Right: • Acceptance of education freedom legitimizes ‘freedom’ • Attract new political groups • Privatization will eventually be co-opted by supporters (highly educated take advantage of vouchers; vouchers for private school parents; equity analysis of large-scale programs differs from small-scale) • Distraction of political opposition (court cases, political capital, internal struggles) Risky strategy: • Costs first • No guarantee sufficient new supporters will want it (or vote for you even if they do want it) • Traditional supporters do not want it

9. The Future Vouchers will be part of active/urgent reform agenda: Puzzle #1: Researchers seek compelling evidence Puzzle #2: Political agents do/don’t want them So: • A lot of debate and discussion about vouchers • But few programs, and strong regulatory control, to minimize the risks on both sides • Both political parties moving strategically