by Jennifer Lutzy, Brandeis University


This article focuses on some issues associated with school vouchers that arose during a debate between the presidents of the Board of Education in New York and Boston entitled "School Vouchers: Increased Family Choice or Weakened Public Education?" The debate was part of the Zinner Lecture Series at the Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, on October 19, 2000.

Throughout time, school reform has tried to address inequalities that exist within the American school system. Reform movements have included law-driven equality movements, gender equity rights, education for children with special needs, and other ways to confront the issue of inequality in social class.

At the end of the 20th century, education evolved as the primary domestic policy priority for both politicians and the public in the United States. Current reform measures attempt to address the need for quality and equality in American schools. The newest reforms have rallied around the idea of "choice," with the belief that it will generate competition, parental involvement, and more equality within the school systems of this country.

The Emergence of School Vouchers
School vouchers are generally defined as either public or private money that is given to individual families and students for tuition that can be used at either public or private schools, which in some cases includes parochial schools. At this point, much of the debate around school vouchers has focused on publicly funded programs. According to supporters, the voucher model offers more choice to parents of children in poor or low-income families. School vouchers differ from previous reform movements in that they seek to grant more control to parents in deciding about their children's education, and less control to centralized student assignments by zoning patterns and other bureaucratic measures.


As the sidebar illustrates, there have been mixed results about the effectiveness of school voucher programs. Similarly, there are a variety of opinions about the use of school vouchers as a type of school reform measure, and about the chances that vouchers have of increasing the effectiveness of American schools. On the pro-voucher side, individuals have discussed the merits of parental choice and infusing competition into the school system. On the other hand, individuals against school vouchers have pointed to the role of public schools in civic life, the lack of accountability that could occur in private and parochial schools, and the "gray line" of constitutionality in giving government money to parochial schools.

There have been mixed results about the effectiveness of school voucher programs. Similarly, there are a variety of opinions about the use of school vouchers as a type of school reform measure, and about the chances that vouchers have of increasing the effectiveness of American schools.

Sidebar 1 Do Vouchers Work?

Based on a debate last fall between two Board of Education presidents, the remainder of this article explores the two sides of the voucher issue in detail. We conclude with a summary of the basic issues as seen from a Community Youth Development point of view.

In Support of Vouchers
One proponent for school vouchers is James Peyser, the president of the Massachusetts Board of Education since 1999. Commenting on the dismal state of the public school system in Massachusetts, James Peyser recounted that on the 1999 MCAS English Arts test,

Not one 10th grader from a Boston district scored in the highest performance category, only 34 students were rated as proficient, and over 705 failed the test outright.

The math results in Boston were even worse: Massachusetts is not even near as low as the worst-performing big-city school systems in the United States. Peyser went on to state that these dismal performances occurred even in the midst of reforms aimed at acquiring motivated, hard-working, and educated staff; developing standards; and decreasing class size. Consequently, there has developed a growing grassroots movement for expanding parental choice through the use of scholarships, tax credits, charter schools, and, more recently, school vouchers.

Like others who support school vouchers, Peyser believes that vouchers will bring competition into the school system, which should stimulate widespread change and improvement. Specifically:

Competition in education is proving itself to be not so much a Darwinian death struggle, as a spur to sharper academic focus, greater responsiveness to parents, and better overall performance.

Like others who support school vouchers, [James] Peyser believes that vouchers will bring competition into the school system, which should stimulate widespread change and improvement.

[William] Thompson believes that public schools play an integral part in teaching children to become citizens, including how to take part in the American concept of democracy. The use of vouchers, he says, puts this civic duty and democratic vision at stake.

School districts can promote choice, says Thompson, through charter schools and smaller public schools, like the successful cadre of small "New Vision" schools in New York. Furthermore, these schools also promote a sense of community by forging partnerships with different local organizations. To Thompson, choice means

. . . not to abandon public schools and their issues, smaller class sizes, teacher training, inequitable funding. . . not an abandonment of our civil responsibility to offer a solid public education.

Thompson feels that vouchers will result in an even more fragmented system that is separate and unequal. In the market reality, these vouchers would subsidize upper-middle-class families who could afford the rest of the tuition, be used primarily for religious schools, or lead to the creation of new schools to promote vouchers.

Besides the sheer costs of private schools, Thompson believes that parents will not really have a choice, since the admissions committees will still be deciding who gets into the schools. Private schools do not have to follow the same standards of accountability as public schools, including the publication of financial and admission records. Additionally, private schools do not have to offer a range of services to children with special needs.

Thompson's choice would be to invest in public schools to meet society's fundamental obligation to provide a quality education to all children. He feels that we cannot abandon our commitment to democracy or our civic responsibilities, and that investing in voucher programs would cause this to occur.

Table 1 summarizes the major points surrounding the school voucher debate.

	Pro Voucher	Anti Voucher
Competition	Vouchers will infuse competition into the public school system. If schools have to compete for students and funding, they will be pushed to perform better, which will lead to other types of reform among inner-city schools such as smaller classroom sizes and better-educated teachers.	Competition will not occur because poorly performing public school will have funds taken away from them, which will hurt efforts to improve urban schools and to enact other measures of reform, such as smaller classes.
Choice	Vouchers will offer parents more power over educational choices for their children. Currently, there is strong parental support among minority and low-income groups for more parental choice in schools, including choice that comes in the form of school vouchers.	Giving parents more choice will not necessarily help those children who are worse off. Private school can only accommodate a certain percent of students, so they will be able to discriminate against low achievers, non-English speakers, etc., which could lead to more fragmentation within and between different schools.
Accountability	There are two groups in the pro-voucher camp. The first believes that religious schools that accept vouchers should not be held to the same standards of accountability as public schools. The second group contends that any parochial schools receiving government money are subjected to more oversight, which is believed to be necessary because of the government money that is involved.	It would be detrimental to allow vouchers to be used in private schools, which are not required to adhere to the same accountability rules and regulations as public schools.
Citizenship	The idea of a "common school," which will teach civics and social justice, is a myth that has never existed in America's school system. Choice will be what ultimately creates capable citizens.	School vouchers will diminish the responsibility of America's public school system to teach civics and democracy to children. In addition, vouchers abandon the idea of a commitment to a common future.
Use of government funds	As long as funds are used for the primary purpose of education, and given to private individuals, then using the money towards a parochial school is a private action, which is not limited by the First Amendment of the Constitution.	It is unconstitutional to give government funds to parochial schools; in fact, vouchers violate a long-standing constitutional doctrine-the separation of church and state.

School Vouchers and the Issue of Choice
Since the element of choice is of paramount importance to both sides of the debate, as well as to the field of Community Youth Development, it warrants further analysis. Clearly, proponents like James Peyser believe that school vouchers will offer parents more power over educational choices for their children. Clint Bolick, a nationwide on behalf of schools has stated that the "true" problem in public schools is

. . . the appalling failure of America's public school system to deliver quality educational opportunities to a large number of black and Hispanic children in our nation's inner cities.

While the traditional civil rights movements towards education have focused on measures for racial balancing, they have not closed the gap in educational achievement. According to Bolick, the educational system in America has consisted of unequal opportunities for minority, low-income families. Hypothesized causes of this inequality have ranged from biased standardized tests to poverty to inadequate school funding and too much bureaucracy in large, urban schools. Whatever the causes of this problem, however, the consequences are clearly negative for inner-city youth. Currently, there is strong parental support among minority and low-income groups for more parental choice, including choice that comes in the form of school vouchers.

When looking at the concept of parental choice from the opposing point of view, many believe that giving parents more choice will not necessarily help children who are worse off. According to former secretary of labor Robert Reich,

The biggest drawback to vouchers is that kids who are most troublesome, or whose parents couldn't care less or are overwhelmed with other problems, would almost certainly end up bunched together in the worst school . . . vouchers may just concentrate the problem further.

Another reason why skeptics are unwilling to claim that parental choice will open up better educational opportunities for children who are performing poorly is the issue of private school size. According to Tammy Johnson, a national organizer for the ERASE (Expose Racism and Advance School Excellence) Initiative, private schools can only accommodate a certain percent of students, and can thus discriminate against low achievers, non-English speakers, students with disciplinary records, poor families, and children with disabilities. Johnson feels that the real choice will not go to parents, but to private schools

. . . which will be able to pick and choose the students that they want. Unlike public schools . . . private schools are free to discriminate on the basis of gender and disability, and they are not required to report on the racial composition of their schools or applicants.

There is no easy or definitive answer to whether the parental choice that comes with school vouchers will aid or harm those children who are most in need. But an analysis of the debate from a Community Youth Development perspective may help to focus this discussion.

At the heart of the CYD model is an assumption of "the involvement of young people in their own development and that of the community-in partnership with adults-to make use of their talents and increase their investment in community life." One of the outcomes associated with this model is for communities to be places where "youth and families have access to quality education." As touched upon by Thompson, smaller public, community schools could help to promote a sense of community by forming partnerships with local organizations. Conversely, allowing students to leave their own communities to attend school could lead to more fragmentation. The CYD model strives to empower youth to become "actively involved in the process of developing their own identity, self-worth, independence, and sense of belonging, as well as their connection to family, community, the earth, and the sacred." Programs that are not community focused and promote fragmentation are not seen as being beneficial to the development of youth.

Furthermore, by allowing youth to leave their communities and attend other schools, the reality of vouchers ignores broader community issues such as poverty, racism, and violence that may contribute to the poor performance of certain school systems. Ignoring this reality will only make these communities poorer off in terms of outcomes for youth and families. Perhaps work could be done to improve the community as a whole, instead of contributing to further fragmentation. In this way, youth may gain a sense of belonging to their communities.

Interestingly, while Peyser and Thompson both addressed the issue of parental choice from opposing viewpoints, there was no mention of allowing youth to help decide where they attend school. Placing the choice solely with parents does not support the CYD mission of valuing youth as equal participants who are engaged in the decision-making process. Young people must be included in dialogues about how to use the assets and strengths of each unique community to better the schools. Furthermore, if school vouchers do become a reality, youth must have a voice in deciding where they will be going to school.

While Peyser and Thompson both addressed the issue of parental choice from opposing viewpoints, there was no mention of allowing youth to help decide where they attend school. Placing the choice solely with parents does not support the CYD mission of valuing youth as equal participants who are engaged in the decision-making process.

Conclusion
The use of school vouchers as a form of school reform is clearly a contentious issue. There are sharply contrasting views surrounding vouchers on topics including competition, choice, accountability, the effect of public schools on civic and democratic ways of life, and the constitutionality of using government money for parochial schools. The Peyser/Thompson debate, supported by other leaders in the field of education, provides justifiable arguments on both sides of the fence. However, when one views this issue through a Community Youth Development lens, another picture emerges. School vouchers may lead to more fragmentation within communities and may result in youth having less control, independence, and interdependence-both about themselves and within their communities.

In addition, with only three school voucher programs existing within the country, and two more on the ballot for this November, there has not yet been enough data to shown the actual effects of school voucher programs on any of the issues mentioned above. As Peyser said, people are trying to prove or refute the effectiveness of school vouchers before enough time has passed allowing changes to take place and results to be seen. Only when we have sufficient evidence can a well-informed, evidence-backed, substantiated argument be made for or against school vouchers as a type of school reform.

Author