School Voucher Capstone Paper
Transcript of School Voucher Capstone Paper
Smith 1
Courtney Smith
Dr. Cecil Lawson
CAPS 4360
August 15, 2006
Should School Voucher Programs be passed into law for Texas?
In the last ten years, parents and teachers have focused more on America’s education
system and the government’s role in promoting growth and achievement standards in public
education programs. Concern has risen because American standardized test scores are dropping
and the “performance of US students has been surpassed by those in peer countries like Germany
and Japan, and the cost of private education has sky-rocketed” (“So You Wanna...”). In a recent
speech, Gov. Rick Perry stated, “We still have an achievement gap in Texas schools that will be
an opportunity gap when today’s students become tomorrow’s workers” (Perry). Most
Americans agree that school reforms are needed, but the forms in which these changes should
take place are greatly debated (Bosetti). Some Americans argue that the country should invest in
restructuring the current education system while, others want to have more choices among
existing schools. The debate over educational choices has become more complex as each school
system has opted to address the need for school reforms in its own way, and many systems have
introduced the additional option of using school vouchers, paid for by tax dollars, as partial
payment for private education. This controversy over the use of school vouchers has two sides
with some arguing that vouchers should not be used to cover the cost of education while others
argue that vouchers are the only viable option. The debate has led many to ask: Should school
voucher programs be passed into law for Texas?
Smith 2
The problems of education reform and the current debate over the use of school vouchers
is a socially significant problem affecting all Americans because the availability of free, quality
educational programs for American children is a fundamental benefit of citizenship. Results of a
test scored in February of 2005 showed that “American 12th graders scored near the bottom on
the recent Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS): US students placed 19th out of
21 developed nations in math and 16th out of 21 in science. Our advanced students did even
worse, scoring dead last in physics” (Taking Sides... 174). These results offer belief “that,
compared to the rest of the world, our students lag seriously in critical subjects vital to our
future” (Taking Sides 174). Most previous education reform movements have called for greater
investment in school funding. Recent years have seen an increase in education funding coupled
with a decreasing graduation rate. According to the Department of Education, per pupil
spending in inflation adjusted dollars increased from $4,479 in 1971 to $8,996 in 2001; yet,
graduation rates fell to 72.2% from 75.6% over the same period time period (Stossel).
Moreover, although funding has increased, “since 1983 more than 10 million Americans have
reached the 12th grade without having learned to read at a basic level. More than 20 million have
reached their senior year unable to do basic math. Almost 25 million have reached 12th grade not
knowing the essentials of U.S. history, and those are the young people who complete their senior
year” (Taking Sides 174). In 2004, a Texas state judge said that “if the education gap continues
into the future, the average household income will fall from $54,000 to $47,000;” and “the
percentage of adult Texans without a high school diploma will rise from 18 percent to 30
percent, increasing the need for job training and costly support services” (“District Court...”).
Definitions of special terms used in the debate over school vouchers make the discussion
of this issue easier to understand. School choice is a term often used by education reformers “to
Smith 3
encompass all reform efforts that provide parents with options about where to send their
children” and in the context of this paper, the term voucher refers to a financial grant given to
parents by their state or local government for use towards tuition at any private or publicly
operated school the parent chooses (Furlong and Kraft 299; Gill xi). Both The Charter School
Expansion Act of 1998 and The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 have provided
state education agencies great freedom in how they spend their federally funded education
dollars, as well as choice in the programs they enact to facilitate educational improvements
(Giuliano 118). Finally, unless otherwise noted, references to government throughout this paper
imply state and local entities; and the term federal represents national government involvement.
The controversy over the use of school vouchers has two distinct sides. Proponents want
Texas to institute a tuition voucher program for schools. General parties to the proposition are
Republicans, conservatives, some teachers, some parents, many private foundations and
educational organizations. Specific parties include Governors Rick Perry of Texas and Jeb Bush
of Florida, The Black Alliance for Educational Options, the Texas Public Policy Foundation,
Step up for Students, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options, and the
Children’s Educational Opportunities Foundation (CEO). The supporters are lobbying for school
tuition vouchers, arguing that the vouchers provide true democratic choice, improve educational
quality, and equalize the disparities in academic opportunity. Supporters value equality, choice,
and accountability. They believe that by lobbying and instituting school tuition vouchers,
education in Texas will improve.
Opponents include general parties such as the liberals, teachers unions, Democrats, and
civil rights organizations. Specific parties to the opposition include the National Education
Association (NEA), Texas Gubernatorial candidate Carole Strayhorn, the American Civil
Smith 4
Liberties Union (ACLU), Chief Justice Barbara Pariente of the Florida Supreme Court, the
Albert Shanker Institute, and the People for the American Way (PAW). Opponents to school
tuition vouchers contend vouchers will take money from public schools, decrease the quality of
education, and create a new discrimination gap. Leaders of the opposition too are lobbying to
prevent private school voucher programs. These parties value security, tradition, and uniformity.
They believe that the introduction of tuition vouchers in Texas threatens the quality of education
in public schools, and deem “vouchers [as] a means of circumventing the constitutional
prohibitions against subsidizing religion” (Vouchers).
The examination of school vouchers will be limited to the debate over the use of private
school vouchers. Other educational reforms will not be included in this paper in order to reduce
the materials addressed. Additionally, the various types of vouchers will not be discussed in this
paper. Instead, the debate will be limited to the use of private tuition vouchers. Moreover, the
use of tuition vouchers in foreign schools and ‘tuition towns’ will not be a topic in this paper.
The paper will focus on the proposed use of tuition vouchers in the state of Texas and only
materials that offer insight into the Texas debate will be used. The analysis will explore
qualitative and quantitative measures of tuition vouchers’ success and failure. Secondary
questions that will be addressed in this paper include: how will tuition vouchers impact the
quality of education? What is the effectiveness of school tuition vouchers? What is the impact
of the tuition vouchers on taxpayers?
Although solutions for educational reform vary widely among interested parties, there are
two basic assumptions that provide a foundation in their arguments. First, our nation’s school
system is failing to meet the goals of academic excellence recent legislation has demanded,
especially in urban areas (Sarason viii). Secondly, unless the education we provide our young
Smith 5
people undergoes radical improvement, we will not produce a workforce able to compete in the
global economy. Many have suggested a market approach to educational policy; thus, the
argument for school choice has become the focal point of many reform discussions, eliciting a
complex question of freedom and how it applies to governments’ educational obligations.
The Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik I, in 1957, initiated the so-called ‘space race’; and
“to prevent the nation from falling behind in the technology competition, American leaders
called for improved educational techniques and student performance” (Giuliano 117). This focus
on education remained on the minds of Americans, and became of further concern in 1983 with
the release of A Nation at Risk, a report on education in the United States. The report showed
test scores of American students on performance tests had actually decreased since 1957
(Giuliano 117). These results posed fears of national economic consequences, fueling further
agenda to improve our education system. Two decades later, “the risk posed by inadequate
education has changed. Our nation does not face imminent danger of economic decline or
technological inferiority. Yet the state of our children’s education is still far, very far, from what
it ought to be” (Taking Sides 174).
Some states have enacted ‘school-choice’ programs allowing parents to send their
children to schools outside their neighborhood school district. Such ‘parental choice’
alternatives include open-enrollment, allowing parents to send their child to any public school in
their state; public funding of charter schools, which are supported by government but
independently operated; magnet schools, public schools operated by a local school board that
focus on a specific area of instruction; and school voucher programs, in which the state offers
parents monetary assistance towards private tuition costs (Williams 53). Of these, school
voucher programs have received the greatest attention, and perhaps the most contention, with
Smith 6
recent U.S. and State Supreme Court rulings concerning the constitutionality of government
funding religious schools (Richard). “State-enacted voucher programs exist in Milwaukee,
Cleveland, and Florida, and all three have undergone or are still involved in court challenges”
(Giuliano 121).
Voucher programs are still in experimental stages and “evaluation of existing evidence
suggests many of the important empirical questions regarding vouchers have not been answered.
In fact, some of the strongest evidence is based on programs that have been operating for only a
short period of time with a small number of participants,” leaving both sides of the argument
filled largely with theory, rather than fact (Gill xiv). The lack of empirical evidence to date on
the success of these programs insures this issue is not close to resolution (Bosetti). Moreover,
the contention over accountability standards, from which most private schools are currently
exempt, creates an even greater obstacle in achieving aggregate acceptance for vouchers.
Milwaukee was the first city to implement a limited voucher program for students from
low-income families (“Zelman v. Simmons-Harris...”). To date, Milwaukee’s program is the
largest experimental case on means tested school voucher programs with nearly 15,000 students
currently eligible for voucher assistance up to $6,000 per student (Richard). Initially, the
“program provided vouchers up to $2,500 to a maximum of 950 low-income families to be used
only at non-religious schools” (Jost). Since then, however, both the number of vouchers
provided and the number of recipients eligible has increased immensely; and in 1995, religious
schools were allowed participation in the program (Jost). Though it has been plagued with
various opposition and court intervention, “the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in Jackson v. Benson,
ruled that inclusion of religious schools in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program does not
violate U.S. federal or Wisconsin state constitutional prohibitions against government support of
Smith 7
religion” (Giuliano 122). The court justified its decision on the basis that “the program’s
expansion was driven largely by a ‘secular purpose’ – to expand educational opportunities for
poor children” (Furlong and Kraft 301).
In June 2001, Florida lawmakers approved a plan to give students in the state’s lowest
performing schools taxpayer-funded tuition payments to attend qualified public, private, or
religious schools” (Giuliano 121). Yet, a subsequent ruling this January by the Florida State
Supreme Court deemed voucher, or so-called ‘scholarship’, programs violate Florida’s
constitution. The statewide program, known as Opportunity Scholarships, “provided about
$4,350 per child in tuition aid for eligible student to use at secular or religious private schools;”
and the Florida Court ruling will “likely force many of the roughly 700 students who attend
private schools with state money” to look elsewhere for educational opportunities (Richard).
Unlike many school-choice cases, this decision “did not hinge on the public use of funds at
religious schools. Instead, justices ruled that school vouchers violate the ‘uniformity’ clause of
Florida’s Constitution,” which “mandates a ‘uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high-quality
system of free public schools that allow students to obtain high quality education” (Coulson).
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente of the Florida Supreme Court represented the majority opinion
when stating that “vouchers violate the state constitution’s provision that requires a ‘uniform’
system of public schools for all students,” supporting her argument with claims that “the
program diverts public dollars into separate, private systems…parallel to and in conjunction with
the free public schools” (Richard).
Following trends of other school-voucher programs, Cleveland’s program too has faced
legislative appeal, with voucher opponents calling to the U.S. Supreme Court for relief.
Challenge to the voucher system came from a group of parents in early 2000, arguing the
Smith 8
program was a violation of our Constitution’s Establishment Clause (“Zelman...”). And, in
December of that year, “the Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit in Ohio concluded there was
probable cause that the Cleveland voucher program, which gives low-income students
scholarships to attend private secular or religious schools, violated the constitutional separation
of church and state” (Giuliano 121). For while voucher awards do offer secular options for
parents, “as a practical matter, the majority of private schools that participated in the program
were religious” (“Zelman...”).
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
“that the school-voucher program in Ohio did not violate the Constitution’s ban on the
‘establishment’ of religion” (Taking Sides 206). Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the
court majority opinion that “indirect aid to religious schools involved in the voucher plan was
permissible because the money was given to individuals who made a genuine and independent
private choice, and the incidental advancement of religion is attributable to the individual
recipient, not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits” (“Zelman...”).
This ruling followed a series of court “decisions that somewhat loosen the restrictions on
government programs that benefit religious schools. For instance, the court in Mitchell v. Helms
in 2000 approved a federally funded program for lending computers and other equipment to
parochial schools” (Jost). President Bush has built on these precedents through his “No Child
Left Behind” philosophy and programs. The most recent initiative, Bush’s No Child Left
Behind Act, has faced serious hurdles implementing its goals and ensuring cooperation among
states. But the plan recognizes that education is first the responsibility of state and local offices;
thus giving an advantage in the program’s inherent incremental adoption of policy. As a result
many school systems have begun consideration of using taxes for school tuition vouchers.
Smith 9
As stated above, the controversy over the school tuition vouchers has two distinctive
sides. Supporters include conservatives, Republicans, educators, parents, and private
organizations. Specific parties include Children First America (CFA), Supreme Court Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor Delaware Governor Pete DuPont, the Milton & Rose D. Friedman
Foundation for Educational Choice, the National Center for Policy Analysis, Parents for Choice
in Education, Mayor Anthony Williams (Wash. DC), and US Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal).
Proponents have three major arguments supporting their position. First, supporters argue
that competition among schools will lead to improvement. Nearly six decades ago, Milton
Friedman argued that universal vouchers for lower schools would “usher in an age of educational
innovation and experimentation, not only widening the range of options for parents and students
but increasing all sorts of positive outcomes” (Gillespie). In his article entitled The Role of
Government in Education, Milton Friedman referred to voucher programs as the
‘denationalization’ of education. Stern maintains that “public school failure results not from lack
of resources—the conventional view—but from the system’s monopolistic nature.”
Economically speaking, American school systems face no real competition and, therefore, offer
the lowest quality product permitted by the school district. Stern explains further, “enterprises
that never need to worry about losing customers and face no consequences for bad performance
will usually deliver shoddy products.” If opponents to the school voucher programs really want
to keep students in the local public schools, argue voucher enthusiasts, then educational reforms
must be made to improve the quality of education within the schools. “Through this ‘market
mechanism,’ inferior schools will be forced out of business, superior schools will flourish, and
the bureaucratically organized public school system will come under pressure to improve school
quality” (Glen).
Smith 10
The overall view of school choice proponents is belief that without the threat of losing
funding, public school education will not improve (Gill xi). These reformers attribute the
“growing disparities in educational achievement among the middle class, the socio-economically
disadvantaged and racial minority groups [to the] inefficiency of a monopolistic and bureaucratic
education system” (Bosetti). Voucher programs, defenders say, will challenge the current
system using a free market approach, and thus motivate and strengthen the quality of educational
institutions from within. Gillespie points out, “Private initiative and enterprise would quicken
the pace of progress in this area as it has in so many others.” Supporters argue that ultimately the
students and school systems would gain great benefit. Parental involvement has also been shown
to improve student grades and learning. Jay Green and Marcus Winters (Manhattan Institute)
conducted a study in 2004 that revealed that of Florida schools participating in the study: “the
closer a school was to having vouchers offered to its students, the more dramatic the gains” in
test scores and performance (“ABC’s...” 54).
Second, supporters argue that school tuition vouchers will provide an opportunity for all
children to attain access to quality education. They see the use of school vouchers as a means of
narrowing the equality gap between families who can afford to send their children to any school
they choose, and the families who must accept the public school choice in their district.
According to Jost, “Given the continued failure of many urban public schools systems to deliver
quality education, parents want alternatives. Those with means can find them by moving or
putting their children in private school. Those without means are trapped unless they can access
resources to do the same.” These proponents assert that the separations of church and state
should be put second to the value of providing equitable access to opportunity. They “argue that
students using vouchers would be able to attend more-effective and more-efficient schools; that
Smith 11
the diversity of choices available would promote parental liberty and, if properly designed,
benefit poor and minority youth” (Gill xi). Vouchers, they say, should be an alternative given to
families wanting to find an equalized playing field (Jost). Their argument is based on the
principle of human well-being, with concern for equivalent access to quality education for all
parents, regardless of income.
School systems already using school vouchers show that the system does level the
playing field for students. The state of Florida has instituted a system whereby schools are
graded based on the performance of students taking standardized tests. Students in schools
where testing has been shown to make failing grades are given vouchers (Kinnan). A study by
Drs. Greene and Winters found that “Florida public schools improved with this competition, and
that the public schools facing failing grades improved the most.” In this way the students are
allowed to attend “better” schools if theirs does not make the grade and the schools are forced to
improve or lose students (Kinnan). Additionally, school systems in San Antonio, Texas and
Washington DC have also instituted a scholarship program to bring low income students into the
superior school systems. The program in Washington DC is called the DC Parental Choice
Incentive Act and allows students in failing school systems to attend private schools for a better
education (Kinnan). San Antonio’s Horizon program provides tuition vouchers to any student
living within the Edgewood school district, and does not maintain any further criteria for voucher
eligibility. Edgewood ISD, the only Texas “district where public schools [are] exposed to a
large-scale privately funded voucher program, did as well or better than 85% of Texas school
districts after controlling for demographics and local resources” (Rising to the Challenge...).
Third, supporters argue school tuition vouchers give parents the opportunity to choose the
best education program for their children. Advocates insist that parental tax dollars carry some
Smith 12
entitlement to choose: “Competition for enrollment is the strongest form of educational
accountability and will improve government-operated, as well as private, schools” (Patterson).
Advocates of school choice programs call for the introduction of a competitive educational
market; and believe “liberated parental choice and increasingly autonomous schools that
compete for students and the per-pupil funding they bring would create necessary pressure and
incentive to leverage innovation and improvement in education for all children”(Bosetti).
Supporters argue that since parents retain the greatest interest in their children’s education, they
should have more input into where the child attends school.
Parental involvement has also been shown to improve student grades and learning.
Sarason mentions that Americans in their “interpersonal, social, working lives outside the
political arena… do not take kindly to the actions and decisions which others take which affect
us in some negative way” (74). Parents want to be directly involved in school choice and in
many cases, “the parents [who] have the money to pay tuition to attend a private or parochial
school or in the case home schooling can meet reasonable criteria for establishing the conditions
of the child’s education. Parents are the ultimate decision makers in these instances…” (Sarason
74). Furthermore, Sarason remarks that the more highly educated the parents are, the more
loudly they will criticize the school system when the expectations of “good” schooling are not
met (Sarason 75).
Proponents value excellence and equality. They believe that the use of the school tuition
vouchers will stimulate excellence within school systems through economic competition. They
perceive this competition as closing the discrimination gap and creating equality of opportunity
for all American children. The supporters base these values on the normative Principle of
Liberty. As such, each student should be afforded the “maximum liberty compatible with that of
Smith 13
others;” and vouchers, they assert, create a system of education that becomes blind to socio-
economic differences, and presents each citizen the same opportunity for personal advancement,
thus control over personal destiny (Capstone Handbook 73). The normative Principle of Rule
Utilitarianism further underscores proponents’ belief that a voucher system will produce the
greatest good for the greatest number of people, if fully utilized and accepted into law. In this
sense, the greatest good is being measured as an average aggregate, respecting the fact that all
will not use vouchers, but those who do will produce gains great enough to increase society’s
aggregate utility (Mitzel 596).
Those supporting vouchers also value accountability and choice. The supporters believe
that each school should be accountable for providing quality education and that parents should be
able to choose the school their children attend. The parents perceive these choices as reflecting
their personal value systems and that the education will also socialize children into accepting
parental values. These values are based on the normative Principle of Rationality where all
legitimate moral acts must be supported by generally accepted reasons. The supporters perceive
the legitimacy of accountability as fundamental to any governmentally supported program.
Like the supporters, the opponents to school tuition vouchers also have general and
specific parties. The general parties to the opponents include many educators, many liberals, and
teachers’ unions. The specific parties include The Coalition for Public Schools (CPS), the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
of the US Supreme Court.
Opponents also have three major arguments to back their position. First, opponents argue
that voucher programs leech funding from the public school system where the majority of
Smith 14
children will remain. In Ohio, for example, “studies indicate that most of the students currently
using the vouchers have never attended Cleveland public schools;” and in Florida, voucher
eligibility is not means tested, leading many to argue the program is simply a form of welfare for
the rich (Jost). Some critics have gone as far as to say, “If the goal of the program was to
subsidize an economically failing parochial school system, then it’s succeeding” (Jost).
Opponents of choice programs claim these policies would take money away from schools
already struggling, leaving a great negative impact on the students left in these districts that
outweighs any individual gains (Peterson). Opponents argue “there is no evidence school
systems already using vouchers increase performance, and insist the programs hinder public
schools by stripping them of badly needed funds” (Dizikies). “Vouchers might be good for the
few poor kids who can take advantage of them,” says Theodore Shaw, associate director of the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (Jost). “But systemically, they are going to
further undercut public education, where the vast majority of [minority] and poor children are
going to remain” (Jost).
As for the fiscal impact, critics insist funding school voucher programs drains money
away from the public school systems entitled to those dollars. While supporters counter that
school systems continue to receive more per capita state aid than the cost of vouchers, and that in
any event the schools save money by having fewer students to educate; voucher opponents
contend that vouchers divert energy and attention, as well as money, from more productive
education reforms. These concerns are furthered by the fear that competition will change the
focus of school administrations: “Competitive education markets encourage schools to focus on
marketing, public relations, and the symbolic management of the school’s image, rather than
inducing innovation and improvements in teaching and learning” (Lubienski).
Smith 15
The second argument presented by the opposition is that the use of school tuition
vouchers will further exploit the gap between rich and poor, as well as create a new
discrimination gap between students who receive vouchers and those who do not. Many have
raised the argument that “voucher programs do not provide enough money to pay for private-
school education” (Jost). And “because the voucher only pays for partial tuition, many low-
income students cannot take advantage of the program, since they simply do not have the funds
to supplement the cost of tuition” (Weil 161). Opponents further warn that private schools will
raise tuition to secure elitist status; ensuring vouchers will not cover the costs to students electing
private choice. They also contend that many schools will discriminate against students based on
social and economic status, thus exploiting the disparities in private and public school
populations. The National Education Association (NEA) argues “that parental choice is really
misleading. The real choice lies with the schools, not the students” (Weil 161).
Opponents purport that private schools are by definition discriminatory in nature, relying
on criteria to “reject or cream students” (Weil 161). According to Weil, “Creaming is the not-so-
blatant practice of admitting the ‘best’ students to private choice schools and excluding other
based on student characteristics” (Weil 157). Opponents point out that voucher schools “just
take the best students, [leaving] public schools with the more difficult students -- behaviorally
and academically” (Stupid in America -- Viewer Q&A). Voucher critics worry that “schools left
behind after the disadvantaged depart might be weakened as educational institutions, and the
children in those schools, disproportionate numbers of whom would be from low-income and
minority families, would receive worse instruction after than before” (Glen).
Enveloping this debate is the fundamental argument over separation of church and state
power (Swindell). Opponents base their third, and perhaps greatest, argument on the violation
Smith 16
of religious establishment, they say, vouchers represent. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
voucher programs constitutional because they do not limit parents from choosing secular
institutions; however, 96.6% voucher money goes to religious schools (“Court…”). Opponents
argue “the program inevitably operates to channel students to parochial schools because of the
relatively low limit on tuition that participating schools can charge. Catholic schools -
subsidized by church funds - typically have a significant lower tuition than secular private
schools” (Jost). In this way, school vouchers used to attend a religiously based school is directly
in contravention to the separation of church and state, as the state funding is used to pay for the
non-secular education.
In fact, secular private school tuitions are roughly three times that of sectarian schools,
and more than twice the amount of other religious elementary and secondary private institutions
(“Characteristics...”). Critics maintain that “when the government sets up a program and says
that you can spend money this money only in the limited universe of schools - the majority of
which are religious - that’s not a free independent choice by the parents. It’s a choice dictated by
the government” (Jost). Still, some place blame for “the high proportion of students attending
religious schools on the failure of elite private schools or suburban public schools to participate;”
and maintain, “it’s not that parents are looking to send their children to a religious school” (Jost).
Opponents value uniformity and security. They perceive the vouchers as a threat to
homogeneity within American schools claiming vouchers will create a wider gap between the
haves and the have-nots. The opponents also trust in the secular nature of public schools systems
to socialize children in ways that do not accept discrimination. Detractors base these values on
the normative Principle of Utilitarianism; and deem moral reasons and actions being right if the
consequence of such behavior produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Smith 17
They believe the current system of public schools will uphold this moral stance. Critics also
value the job security status quo educational methods provide teachers and administrators.
Vouchers interfere with the rights of such employees to maintain the life-style they have become
accustomed to; and threaten the assurances of financial and political support, a bureaucratic
monopoly provides. The value base for these assertions is the principle of human well-being,
which entitles every citizen to attain a standard of living, consistent with human necessity.
Opponents also value tradition and religious freedom. They do not want public schooling
in the United States to be controlled by any religious affiliation, and see traditional public
schooling as a way to safeguard the secular nature of our educational system. If a country’s
public schooling is intertwined with religious based schools, then the non-sectarian nature of
public education will be lost. Furthermore, opponents believe that by providing private tuition
vouchers, traditionally free public education will no longer be considered a ‘free’ program, thus
violating our constitutional provision for gratis quality education. They criticize vouchers as
mimicking Aristotle’s Principle of Justice, which “treats equals equally and unequals unequally,”
and insist the greatest threat is to those children, the ‘unequals’, who will remain in public
schools. The opponents base these values on the normative Principle of Less Harm: when
citizens choose between evils, they should select the least harmful choice. Antagonists concur
our schools need reform, but they do not believe school vouchers will bring about a better system
than currently available.
Those in favor of and against school tuition vouchers supply strong arguments for their
stance; however, supporters seem to have slightly stronger evidence for their claims, and more
compelling counterarguments to opposing allegations. The proponents’ first argument about the
use of vouchers reflects economics 101, where competition results in better production. They
Smith 18
counter opposing claims about loss of students and quality of schooling by arguing that
competition will force schools, failing to give students a decent education, to improve or close.
Using a market approach to education, a school deemed unfit in educating its students “must
provide better educational services, or risk losing students to school choice” (Forster and Green).
Proponents demonstrate that many schools cannot provide “good” education, and therefore
should not receive funding; instead, that money should be distributed to the schools that are
effectively educating students. Advocates maintain that vouchers will allow students to attend
those schools that are providing high-quality education. This argument comes from their belief
that mediocrity should not be rewarded in the same way as excellence, and reflects the
supporters’ value of educational accountability.
The second argument of proponents, that vouchers will close the quality gap between
schools and the income gap among students, also has strong merits. Arizona’s school choice
programs are closing the achievement gap, between public and choice school students, within
three years. Additionally, “students in public schools that compete with private schools for
students achieve levels of performance almost thirty-percent higher than the performance of
public school students living in areas without school choice” (Patterson). Finally, countering the
opponents’ claim of private school ‘creaming’, advocates of school vouchers assert “that voucher
schools do not discriminate in the admission of students. From their point of view, private
schools are more successful at integration than public schools, partly because” residency
restrictions are removed (Weil 157).
Despite differences in the basis of their arguments, what all proponents have in common
is an emphasis on choice and competition as a means of increasing educational performance and
parental and student satisfaction (Gillespie). Even among vouchers supporters, though, there lie
Smith 19
different perspectives about which types of voucher programs are best suited for lasting success.
This is because voucher programs represent the greatest redistribution of power our nation has
ever experienced in lower-education fiscal policy. Some believe voucher programs should be
universally available to anyone dissatisfied with their public school’s education; others contend
that vouchers should be income-based to avoid creating so-called ‘welfare for the rich’. Others
still propose voucher systems that target students who present the greatest academic need for
improvement; and finally, there are those who believe the programs should be lottery-based
presenting every American child in a poorly performing school equal probability in receiving
assistance. The best of these approaches depends on the desired outcome of the program,
demonstrating the confounding of ideological influence evident in voucher discussions.
Those in opposition of the voucher programs also have some strong points. Critics argue
by saying “that in a voucher system, individual choice is little more than a figure of the
imagination, because often no openings are accessible for the many students who wish to take
part in the voucher program” (Weil 161). Good reason “for this opposition is the relatively small
number of student that private schools can currently handle, which around six million. In
comparison, public schools enroll about forty-six million students” (Furlong and Kraft 304).
Still, as Smith noted in our interview, a voucher program “might increase the number of students
applying for a private education. [And] perhaps even create the need for more private schools.”
Secondly, when making their case against vouchers, antagonists often refer to the
constitutional provision for uniformity in public schools, and cling to this term in defense of
competition. I do not believe, however, that this term was ever meant to infer acceptance of
mediocrity, or prohibit improvement in substandard schools, and most certainly not to encourage
the deterioration of excellence on the basis of ‘fairness’. The call for uniformity has been
Smith 20
answered and its consequences are apparent in public school districts across the nation.
Academic testing and accountability standards are diluted because of the de facto segregation of
many school districts where there is no existence of excellence to compete with or provide a
benchmark for quality. The environment this produces becomes one of survival rather than
improvement, a message that propels these communities into a destructive cycle, instilling
acceptance of lower standards, the levels of which would be considered failure to most outsiders.
Quick to attack the validity of voucher programs, as a means for low-income parents to
enjoy equitable choice opportunities, voucher detractors are slower to recognize the undeniable
progress minority groups have demonstrated using vouchers. Although data is limited on the
effects of vouchers, small but significant academic gains have been seen in the students’ who use
them. And despite the relatively brief presence of voucher programs to date, there has been
extensive research conducted on the programs in existence. Those experiments show significant
positive results on behalf of voucher recipients, particularly for minority students.
The effects of vouchers on public school improvement, however, has been less clearly
identified; although initial results from a few studied districts suggest validity in the argument for
‘competitive improvement’. In fact, San Antonio’s “Edgewood ISD students have improved
their standardized test scores, the district has a higher total and per-pupil budget, and Edgewood
teacher salaries have increased” since launch of the Horizon’s school choice program (Aguirre
and Ladner). And in Florida, public schools exposed to vouchers showed similar responses to
the threat of losing students, with direct correlation between the degree of threat and the extent of
improvement. The closer a public school was to a voucher school, and then the number of
voucher schools represented within that distance, proved to be highly related to the parallel
improvement public schools produced. It should, therefore, be noted that when considering a
Smith 21
market approach to policy, full considerations must be given to the fundamental assumptions
behind such theory. The first of these defines the market as being comprised of many substitutes
to any one product. Consequently, the argument for school choice too exhibits a flaw in its claim
to abrogate the deficiencies currently present in public school policy; because in areas where
there is no existence of excellence to compete with, the theory that choice fuels improvement is
null. Such situations as this are present in urban cities across America, and represent the need for
comprehensive effort to improve our nation’s public schools through an integral set of policies
that address that acknowledge the multitude of specific situations apparent across the country.
The strongest “opposition to vouchers focuses on the use of public monies to fund
religious schools,” and the threat such policy would be to the constitutional separation of church
and state (Weil 101). Opponents urge that voucher programs are “so heavily skewed toward
religion that [vouchers] violate the Establishment Clause;” but “pro-voucher allies insist that the
program in religiously neutral” (Jost). Barry Lynn, executive director of American United for
Separation of Church and State, calls voucher programs “a direct subsidy of the educational
mission of religious denominations. And in the same way that one should not expect tax-payers
to support churches; they should not be expected to support church-related educational facilities
either” (Jost). Anti-voucher groups argue that money distributed by the government which goes
toward tuition at a parochial school, is clearly a form of direct aid. Government “is prohibited
from giving direct support to religious institutions; and when the Court has supported the
granting of public money to religious schools, that support has always been described as indirect
or targeted” (Weil 107). The key distinction between views is whether governmental distribution
of voucher payments are a form of direct or indirect aid to the school the student chooses to
attend.
Smith 22
Supporters maintain that school voucher programs “leave it up to parents to decide where
to use the tax-paid stipends;” and that “funds are directed to religious schools only through the
true private choice of individual parents, therefore, satisfying the Establishment Clause
requirement” (Jost). Moreover, “the federal government has a long history of giving private and
religious groups taxpayer support when they serve the secular public interest” (“Federal…”).
Thus supporters argue the validity of voucher monies “to religious schools under the theory of
neutrality, which [views] the aid as part of a broad educational assistance program” (Weil 107).
Here the benefits of improving education are given greater consideration than the cost to church-
state separation freedoms. The rational for allowing the use of federal monies at sectarian
institutions comes from a moral reasoning approach to policy, giving greater consideration to the
long-term societal benefits these institutions can provide than the immediate threat such laws
pose to constitutional adherence. Such approach to policy can be seen in many federal aid
programs, including Pell Grants, where students can use the money they receive to attend any
public, private, or religious college of their choice (“Federal...”). That being said, however, the
rational presented in the opposing argument has sound political and societal significance, and
should not be regarded lightly, even with the current prospect of an inferior future labor force, to
that of our global competitors. Nonetheless, current Supreme Court Law declares voucher
programs within the constitutional boundaries set to safeguard the establishment of religious
power. Ultimately, I put faith in our country’s justice system and their ongoing responsibility to
handle these issues with delicacy, to continue to uphold the sanctities of our constitution.
The value of equality permeates discussions of school choice policy, underscored by the
obligation of government to provide a quality education to all of its citizens. School vouchers
cases complicate the social contract between government and society to provide universal access
Smith 23
to a quality education; and policy makers face an enormous task in fulfilling these obligations.
The greatest obstacle the No Child Left Behind movement faces is its provision for religious
schools to be among the choices available to parents when faced with an underperforming public
school district. “The new law gives communities and parents increased local control and more
opportunities for faith-based and community organizations to aid in improving student academic
achievement;” and the President contends “that it is only in partnership with these community
leaders that we can truly ensure that no child is left behind” (“The Facts…Faith”).
Proponents perceive the public school system as having an obligation to provide quality
education. They also believe that the government has a duty to produce public school systems
that can meet the obligations of quality, free education. Since tax money pays for the public
school system, supporters view the government as having a responsibility for hiring school
system employees that can teach well, run organized schools, address the needs of students, and
provide socialization and accountability for schooling. Each teacher needs to be able to meet
such basic criteria just as each school must. Schools, like teachers, should meet minimum
requirements so that all students get educational opportunities equal to that of their peers. If the
voucher program is implemented, consequentially schools will be forced to meet higher levels of
accountability than in the past. Moreover, the quality of education in public schools overall may
improve. Some schools may be forced to close because they cannot meet the heightened
standards; more importantly, though, schools will be measured more on student achievement
than on population size.
Opponents to school vouchers also perceive the government as having an obligation to
provide quality education. Their definition of equality, however, is more one of uniformity than
achievement. They demand that the school systems produce the same number of classes and
Smith 24
accept that there will be a gap between student achievement levels. The opponents want public
school systems to focus money and efforts on raising test scores, increasing class materials, and
teacher pay. In Texas, one consequence of accepting the opponents’ solution has been the Robin
Hood policy that takes tax money from the wealthier districts and spreads the money equally
over the districts in the state. And although the Robin Hood system is no longer in place, state
funding of public schools has increased significantly in the recent years. Unfortunately, many
schools have been unable to fully utilize this funding in a manner that produces higher
achievement levels, and continue their cries for increased salaries and class materials.
Analysis of both sides’ arguments suggests voucher promoters offer a better alternative;
although neither side has a solution that would completely improve the current school system
problems. There is no question that vouchers are not a panacea for assuaging income
inequalities in our society; nor will they, independently, transform our education system to one
with outstanding rank among international peers. By implementing school vouchers, however,
perhaps public schools will be forced to seek reforms that facilitate progress and enrichment,
improving the prospect of a superior American school system.
To further investigate how this issue is perceived outside the scholarly world, field
research in the form of interviews was conducted to evaluate my tentative conclusion. I
interviewed a group of teachers and parents, using the same eight questions for each participant.
Two-thirds of the teachers and every parent believed vouchers should be used in Texas, citing
competition and the success of free-enterprise as their primary reason for supporting such
programs. When asked in what ways public education should be reformed, those in favor of
vouchers blamed the bureaucratic mentality of public education for the low levels of
achievement, and sub-standards performance requirements, Texas currently exhibits. With
Smith 25
standards as low as we currently employ in Texas education, “the lowering of expectations goes
through all levels of education. We must stop the ‘dumbing down’. If you don’t expect
anything, you won’t get anything” (Potticary). “The system needs an overhaul,” said Nance of
the changes needed to afford students more opportunity. “Many teachers are just playing a role
[because] the public sector sucks the life out of teaching. Without teachers who love their
students and have a passion for what they teach, we’ll have students who don’t love themselves
or what they can learn,” Nance explained; and “the system as it exists does not provide an
environment that fosters passionate loving teachers.”
Ann Potticary, a teacher opposed to using tax dollars for voucher programs, noted that “if
private schools don’t want the government telling them what to do, then they can’t take the
money.” She also brought to attention the possibility of vouchers being used at non-Christian
sectarian schools; and said very honestly: “I do not want to support a Muslim School, a Jewish
School, etc, with my tax dollar. Similarly, I do not believe people of other faiths want to support
a Christian school with their tax dollars.” Of all the arguments against vouchers I’ve heard in
my research thus-far, I feel Potticary presents the strongest ones. Nevertheless, after careful
analysis of the opinions I received through my interview process, I uphold my prior conclusion
that a school voucher programs should be adopted in Texas, and suggest its policy introduction
be that of a pilot program.
As stated in the beginning of this paper, two basic assumptions underlie the controversy
over school vouchers and other reform proposals: serious deficiencies exist in today’s elementary
and secondary public schools; and mediocre education will create an inferior workforce. Given
these general agreements, it would appear that all parties could work together for the greater
good of future generations. However; education reform strategies, particularly school tuition
Smith 26
vouchers, present a tremendous chasm in members of society. This is because voucher programs
represent a complete relocation of control in educational establishments. The bureaucracy of
public education guarantees an institutional focus on increasing producer benefits. This can be
seen in the multitude of union like educator associations whose objective is to maintain
ownership and administration of schools, not how to better the education of students or improve
the quality of product. Some have felt so strongly of this idiosyncrasy as to establish private
scholarship programs that provide tuition vouchers to children in districts without such options;
recognizing the need to restore the focus in education back to the children, and parents, it serves.
“Instead of throwing more money at an unaccountable system, these reformers decided to bypass
it entirely and give private school tuition to the families most victimized by bad public schools”
(Stern).
Just last month, parents in New Jersey brought forth a lawsuit against their state
government demanding the authority to receive governmental support to send their children to
whichever school they, as parents, deem best for their children’s education. Crawford v. Davy
would provide parents access to the money being used for their children’s public schooling and
require it be placed at whatever school, private or public, they choose to send their child
(Graham). Graham writes: “The schools listed on this lawsuit are educational train-wrecks...
[and] it demonstrates New Jersey’s failure to provide a constitutionally required ‘thorough and
efficient education’ for all students”. The suit, which was brought against twenty-five public
school districts on behalf of over sixty thousand students attending failing schools, has faced
opposition from the obvious anti-voucher parties, its fiercest challenger being the New Jersey
Education Agency (NJEA).
Smith 27
The NJEA condemned this lawsuit as greed rather than demand for accountability: “This
is not about making a difference in the lives of these children,” they said, “this is about people
trying to get their hands on that public money” (qtd. in Graham). To those who proclaim
voucher supporters are only interested in their own political agenda, I challenge them to look in
the mirror and examine their own positions on the issue. Democratic senator John Kerry
recognized the contradictions being made by groups denouncing vouchers. During a speech at
Northwestern University in 1998, he said, “Shame on us for not realizing that there are parents in
this country who today support vouchers not because they are enamored with private schools but
because they want choice for their children” (“About School...”). A representative from New
Jersey’s Camden school district, one of the twenty-five districts listed in the lawsuit, expressed
disappointment in the accusations being raised. “We are in the business of public education,” he
explained, “and the call for vouchers is contrary to what we believe is best for public school
children” (Graham). When did it become about public interests and private interests? Under
which demographic does a nine year old child fall under? The answer is simple; neither. The
values of our bureaucratic public school system put students second to their first obligation –
supporting teacher associations that contribute greatest during campaign time. Because of this,
millions of children absorb the consequences of a custodial system that failed to put their
interests first in its policy objectives.
One of the most peculiar aspects in the arguments surrounding vouchers is the absence
more of parents demanding quality, the absence of liberals demanding choice, and the absence of
conservatives demanding tax reductions. Instead you have judges deciding educational policy,
Republicans demanding equal protections of choice, and democrats arguing against the chance
for minority opportunity at the expense of state tax dollars. The ideological differences that
Smith 28
politicize educational debate ensure selective publishing of voucher program results, often
presenting data that supports whichever side of the argument the writer aims to strengthen. For
example, a recent study was released by the American Federation of Teachers suggesting that
previous beliefs of private school superiorities are wrong and in fact, public schools perform just
as well or better than their private counter-parts. To the detriment of readers, the study skillfully
veils the fact that every aspect of what makes private schools different was controlled for in their
research. Purposely “the study controls for variables that are ‘endogenous’, meaning they are
systematically related to the categories of public or private schools” (Story). The fallacious
reasoning they use is as absurd as studying the effect of race on employment, controlling for the
color of participants’ skin. Such application is inadmissible in research, and falsifies conclusions
made from the data. The consequences of such practice are, at best, confusion of the general
public and, at worst, deliberate deception of public opinion.
Rather than trying to continually reform our current school system we should look for
alternatives to the failing system. I believe Texas should enact a school voucher pilot program as
part of a comprehensive strategy to reform and rebuild our current public school system. Any
business man will tell you there are clearly identified ways to identify and improve upon the
quality of any product. First, supply what your consumer desires by listening and adapting to
their demands; and second, benchmark your product against leaders in the industry. Supplying
consumer demand entails knowing your customer by listening and watching the choices they
make, practicing continuous improvement on your product to provide what the customer wants.
The only reason any entity would fear such practice in education would be if they believed their
product uncompetitive to alternative substitutes. In the context of benchmarking public schools
to other educational systems, there is undisputable evidence that private school achievement
Smith 29
levels out-rank those of comparable public districts. To have this data available and demand the
two systems remain divided, to me represents commitment to a two-tiered system of education;
ironically, the same fear posed by opponents of a voucher system. School tuition voucher
programs, and similar alternatives such as public and charter school choice programs, would
allow these strategies to be implemented in education. Again, the sole reason to fear
benchmarking a product would be from the knowledge one’s own is inferior.
Though using business strategies to improve public education may seem, to some, a far-
fetched idea, history has proven time and time again that ‘drastic times call for drastic measures’;
and such a time has come for education that we begin testing alternative policies to traditional
public school funding. In a statement published in the Wall Street Journal, Arthur Levine,
President of Columbia University Teachers College, said, “After much soul searching, I have
reluctantly concluded that a limited voucher program is now essential. To force children into
inadequate schools is to deny them any chance of success,” he explained (“About School...”). A
new system needs to be developed to handle both the complaints of the supporters and the fears
of the opponents. This new system should be a collection of strategies that can be operated on
both independent and interdependent levels, interchangeable and adjustable to account for
unforeseen or unprecedented outcomes. The ‘pursuit of ‘quality’ alone is inefficient and has
connotations relative to interpretation. Efforts need to have indissoluble standards with
distinguishable measurements for success. No public school system should operate under a
regime not proven to provide measurable and sustainable improvement. The NCLB act has
opened the door for public schools to have enormous flexibility and local control in initiating
new programs; and I challenge Texas to use this opportunity to institute programs, with higher
standards, that encourage ingenuity and create greater incentives for outstanding performance
Smith 30
(“The Facts…Local”). The current state of America’s public schools is inadequate and demands
we reconstruct our national education policies; if for no other reason, to ensure we’re never
forced remove the promise of ‘quality’, from our constitutional provisions for education.
Smith 31
Works Cited
“20/20: Stupid in America.” ABC News. 24 Jan. 2006 <www.abcnews.go.com/2020>.
“The ABCs of School Choice: 2005-2006 Edition.” The Friedman Foundation. 24 May 2006.
The Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation. 20 July 2006.
<http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/ABCs.pdf>.
“About School Choice: Frequently Asked Questions.” The Friedman Foundation (2002). The
Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation. 20 July 2006. <http://
www.friedmanfoundation.org /schoolchoice/faqs.html>.
Aguirre, Jennifer O. and Matthew Ladner. “Choice, Change, & Progress: School Choice and the
Hispanic Education Crisis.” (2003). Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation.
Bolick, Clint. Voucher Wars. Washington D.C.: Caio, 2003.
Bosetti, Lynn. “School Choice: Public Education at a Crossroad.” American Journal of
Education. 111.4 (2005): 435-442. Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Scarborough-
Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 31 Jan. 2006.
“Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results from the 2001-2002 Private
School Universe Survey.” National Center for Education Statistics. 2004. U.S.
Department of Education. 2 May 2006. <http://www.nces.ed.gov/private/tuition>.
Coulson, Andrew J. “War Against Vouchers.” Wall Street Journal. 9 Jan. 2006, eastern ed.: A13.
ProQuest Newspapers. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library. Austin, TX. 28 Jan 2006.
“Court Backs Vouchers for Religious Schools: Supreme Court OKs Vouchers That Send Kids to
Religious Schools.” ABC News. 27 June 2002. 25 Jan. 2006.
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=91506>
Smith 32
“District Court Demands Increased State Investment: All Our Children Deserve an Excellent,
Equity Education.” www.irda.org. 27 Sept. 2004. Intercultural Development Research
Association. 4 May 2006. <http://www.idra.org/alerts/dietz.htm>.
“The Facts About...Faith-Based Efforts.” ED.gov. 5 July 2005. U.S. Department of Education.
14 August 2006. <http://www.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/faith/faith.html>.
“The Facts About...Local Control and Flexibility.” ED.gov. 30 December 2003. U.S.
Department of Education. 14 August 2006.
<http://www.ed.gov.nclb.freedom/local/local.html>.
“Federal Government History of Support to Private and Religious Groups: Expanded
Educational Opportunities For Americans.” ED.gov. 27 June 2002. U.S. Department of
Education. 4 May 2006. <http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/06 /
06272002b.html>.
Forster, Greg and Jay P. Greene. “Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of School Choice on
Public Schools in Milwaukee and San Antonio.” Civic Bulletin. 27 (2002). Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research. 24 July 2006 <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/
html/cb_27.htm>.
Furlong, Scott R. and Michael Kraft. Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives. Green
Bay: CQ Press, 2004.
Gillespie, Nick. “The Father of Modern School Reform.” Reason. 37.7 (2005): 44-47. Academic
Search Premier. EBSCO. Scarborough-Phillips Library. Austin, TX. 28 Jan 2006.
Gill, Brian P., et al. Rhetoric Versus Reality: What We Know and What We Need to Know
About Vouchers and Charter Schools. Santa Monica: Rand, 2001.
Smith 33
Giuliano, Gina. Education: Reflecting Our Society? The Information Series on Current Topics.
Detroit: Gale Group, 2002.
Glen, Charles L. “The Debate Over Parent Choice of Schools.” Journal of Education. 184.1
(2004): 89-100.
Graham, Kristin A. “Suit Expands Voucher Debate.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 14 July 2006. 1
August 2006. <www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/15033833.htm>.
“The Heart of the Nation.” Narrated by Hedrick Smith. Challenge to America. (1994) Films for
the Humanities & Sciences, Inc.
Jost, K. “School Vouchers Showdown.” The CQ Researcher 12 (2002): 1-144. 25 Jan. 2006
<http://library.cqpress.com/cqpac/cqresrre2002021500>.
Lubienski, Christopher. "Public Schools in Marketized Environments: Shifting Incentives and
Unintended Consequences of Competition-based Educational Reforms." American
Journal of Education 111.4 (August 2005): 464(23). Expanded Academic ASAP.
InfoTrac. Scarborough-Phillips Library, Austin, TX. 31 Jan. 2006.
Merrifield, John. The School Choice Wars. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2001.
Mitzel, Harold E., et al. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 5th ed. 2: 519-1058. American
Educational Research Association. New York: The Free Press, 1982.
Molnar, Alex. Vouchers, Class Size Reduction, and Student Achievement: Considering the
Evidence. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa, 2000.
Nance, Anne. Email Interview. 24 July 2006.
Parker, Star. “The NAACP’s Fight Against Private School Vouchers.” Townhall.com. 15 May
2006. Salem News Network. 28 May 2006. < http://www.townhall.com/columnists/
Smith 34
StarParker/2006/05/15/ the_naacps_fight_against_private_school_vouchers>. 2 August
2006. <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50222>.
Patterson, Chris. “School Choice: Fact v. Myth”. Testimony Before the House Committee on
Public Education Regarding House Bills 12, 1263, and 3042. 5 April 2005. Texas Public
Policy Foundation. 16 June 2006. <http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2005-04-05-
voucher-testimony-cp.pdf>.
Perry, Rick. “The State of the State.” 26 Jan. 2005. www.governor.state.tx.us 26 May 2006.
<http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/speeches/speech_012605>.
Peterson, Paul E., ed. The Future of School Choice. Stanford: Hoover, 2003.
Potticary, Ann. Email Interview. 1 August 2006.
Richard, Alan. “Fla. Court: Vouchers Unconstitutional.” Education Week. 11 Jan. 2006: 1-12.
Sarason, Seymour B. Questions You Should Ask About Charter Schools and Vouchers.
Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2002.
Sharpless, Melanie. Email Interview. 31 July, 2006.
Smith, Shanon. Email Interview. 23 July 2006.
“So You Wanna Learn About School Vouchers?” SoYouWanna.com. (2000).
9 July 2006. <www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/vouchers.html>.
Stern, Sol. “What the Voucher Victory Means.” City Journal. (2002). The Manhattan Institute.
10 July 2006. <http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_what_the_voucher.html>.
Story, Jaime. Personal Interview. 1 August 2006.
“Stupid in America -- Viewer Q&A.” ABC News. 23 Jan. 2006. 2 Feb. 2006.
<http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1532494>.
Smith 35
Swindell, Bill. "Education: GOP Majorities Could Make the Grade On School Choice This
Year." CQ Weekly 22 Feb. 2003: 450. 25 Jan. 2006. <http://library.cqpress.com/
cqweekly/weeklyreport108-000000605475>.
Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Education Issues. 13th ed. Ed. James Wm. Noll.
Dubuque: Dushkin/McGraw Hill, 2005.
“Vouchers.” NEA.org. (2005) NEA: National Education Association. 28 May 2006.
<http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html>.
Walberg, Herbert J. "Market Theory of School Choice." Education Week 19.42 (2000): 46.
Academic Search Premier. 25 July 2006. <http://search.epnet.com>.
Weil, Danny. School Vouchers and Privatization: A Reference Handbook. Contemporary
Education Issues. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2002.
Williams, Mary E.,ed. Education. Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000.
“Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: Opinion Expert.” Historical Document of 2002. Washington: CQ
Press, 2003. CQ Electronic Library, CQ Public Affairs Collection. 5 May 2006.
<http://library.cqpress.comcqpac/hsdc02-151-741>.