Arauz 1

Bruce Arauz

Professor McGriff

Composition 2 - 21150

4 April 2021

How an Illusion of Choice Harms Public Education

Over the years, debate has gone on about the effectiveness of the voucher system. With

efforts to expand the system for the inclusion of religious institutions, more people have been

concerned with not only the civil rights issue it presents, but also the effects it would have on

public schools. With that being said, the voucher system takes away needed funds from public

schools. That alone makes the voucher system a more negative influence, as it leads to increased

school populations at public schools that are unable to take care of such students, decreased

student performance and future success, and social divisions that seem to continue civil rights

issues that have existed in the past. As such, the existence of a voucher system does a lot more

harm than good to the school system and therefore future Americans.

“Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public” by Terry Moe describes the start of the

voucher system. Milton Friedman proposed the idea in 1962 with his treatise, “Capitalism and

Freedom,” which argued that “schools are guaranteed students and resources regardless of how

well they perform” (17). This describes the main point behind the voucher system, as it was

intended to create “healthy competition” between public and private highschools. However, the

problems it would create will be explained later. The first state to implement this school choice

type system was Wisconsin in 1990 and intended to assist one percent of public school students

below the national poverty line, as explained in “Private School Vouchers and Student
 Arauz 2

Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program” by Cecilia Elena

Rouse. Although its effectiveness was difficult to analyze due to the limited amount of data that

could be collected, more schools and states would join with their own programs, expanding the

voucher system.

As it grew, the involvement of religious private schools in the system would pose

concerns for many Americans, “School Vouchers Violate the Separation of Church and State” by

Miranda Hale notes two important court cases that addressed this. Everson v. Board of Education

and Lemon v. Kurtzman would prevent the government and taxes from getting too involved with

religion, respectively maintaining that it was unconstitutional for taxes to be levied for a

institution on the basis of religion and establishing the three rules of the Lemon Test (“First, the

statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be

one that neither advances nor inhibits religion ... finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive

government entanglement" with religion”). With this, an opposing argument also arose that the

existing G.I. Bill and Pell Grants included religious institutions based on what schools the

programs decided on, this being the reason the lower levels of education shouldn’t be as

concerned with this according to “School vouchers: stealing from the poor to give to the rich?”

by Alyssa L. San Jose.

Despite all of this, in 2020, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue “determined

that states with voucher programs that pay for students’ private school tuition must allow

religious campuses to participate,” as the article “School Voucher Supporters Cheer Supreme

Court Ruling That States Can’t Bar Religious Campuses” by Annie Martin explains. Although

giving the programs and parents more choice, it also forces taxpayers to help fund these

institutions even if they disagree with their religious stand. As such, Martin’s article quotes this
 Arauz 3

forced expansion of the system as being a “massive civil rights issue.” Taking note of these

existing problems with the voucher system, the question becomes whether all of this debate is

even worth it. Has the healthy competition it aimed to create been established and fair? Are the

funds being in ways that benefit the students they are meant to assist? It is hard to give a precise

answer, but evidence points towards these being no.

One thing many researchers note is how skewed the questions are against vouchers. Terry

Moe’s article explains that many polls at the time asked whether people attending private school

should be given choices of schools “at public expense” (205). The specific noting of at the

public’s expense is what some supporters of the pro-voucher movement deem to be why the

public opinion is against the voucher system. There were also forms of the question with

different wordings, but they still failed to address that every student would get these choices,

rather than just students already attending private schools. As well, some studies indicated that

most people who voted against vouchers were simply uninformed. This was noted when

respondents were given the option to say that they don't know enough about the subject, to which

“33 percent said they did not have an opinion” (Moe 206). Younger, lower class couples, and

individuals with lower education seem more supportive of the voucher system, though factors

like religion, party, and performance of the school play a role in the responses given as well.

Generally, this information comes into play when looking at a desire for things like school

prayer, smaller schools, and more parental influence, which all indicate a specific appreciation

for, if not a desire to go to, private schools (Moe 254). As such, the beliefs that the voucher

system would allow for more potential diversity, for more one-on-one learning for struggling

students, and for more healthy competition between private and public institutions (which would
 Arauz 4

bolster performance) are already appealing for these individuals. However, with further research,

these points are heavily debated and are partially disproven.

With limited resources, both private and public schools financially make do with what

they have in order to provide their students with the help they need. Private schools face the

concern of having to shut down due to lack of funds, while public schools worry about budget

cuts that worsen their state of being despite remaining open. However, a disparity occurs when

talking about the idea of “Child Count days.” San Jose’s article explains how public schools have

to accept the students in their district and how both types of schools are given funding based on

how many students are attending at the time. This is crucial as after student count days at the

private schools, these same schools have the ability to expel students “for an arbitrary violation

of the private school rules,” therefore gaining funds for students they don’t even teach (San

Jose). As such, private institutions get to grow their programs, already providing them an unfair

advantage. To make matters worse, public schools have to help these students without the money

expected to do so, harming both the institution and the student body already attending. Donald

Trump’s decision to take funds out of the Department of Education and invest in school choice

as described in the article simply seems to rub more salt in the wound, especially since private

schools do not have to disclose how they allocate their funds. “Funding impermanence:

quantifying the public funds sent to closed schools in the nation's first urban school voucher

program” by Michael R. Ford explains how private institutions are paid in four periods, but the

first of those is paid before any student count days (being based on acceptance rather than

enrollment), meaning that if a school closes before the first one, “it may receive payments for

students that never actually attend”. As such, money may be lost and students can be (and

historically have been) forced back into public schools, losing the choice they originally had.
 Arauz 5

Now, despite how imbalanced this may make private and public schools, students do seem to

perform just as well, if not better, at public schools.

The idea that private schools are going to help students better educate themselves has

been the whole point in establishing the voucher system, though they don't seem to be living up

to this ideal. “Vouching for education - 20, 000 students statewide are using vouchers to attend

private school at a discount” by Elkhart Truth describes the many parents looking forward to

using the voucher system and how that means private schools will work harder to appear better

to these parents. Truth’s article notes how although it can sometimes be a challenge, the private

institutions will find a way to work with these students and some may even provide small enough

class sizes to give more specialized help. Even more convincing, “Kids view charter as last

chance - Quest Academy says vouchers key to survival” by Monte Whaley provides the

perspective that many students “get one-on-one instruction and the type of attention their public

schools didn't have the time - or inclination - to give.” The article’s description of children with

disabilities or struggles with learning getting told by public schools to drop out, while private

schools like Quest are willing to help them if they do things like simply cleaning the building

paints a negative light on the public school system. However, the success rate of these private

schools actually helping students is difficult to prove, as well as even being potentially hindering

the success of students. Using the original Milwaukee program as an example, the analysis of its

success based on choice students compared to random public high school students provided no

significant results. However, analyzing the results compared to unsuccessful applicants as Rouse

does indicates that there were increased math scores, though reading gains were similar to public

school students. On the other hand, Ford notes in his article that “on aggregate, there is evidence

that students from closed voucher schools that return to MPS improve academically.” As such,
 Arauz 6

the success of these private institutions varies, although there is no significant evidence of the

significantly improved test results promised. In regards to performance at public schools, when

reducing the funds available per student, reduced scores are bound to occur. “The Costs of

Cutting School Spending Lessons from the Great Recession” by C. KiraboJackson, Cora Wigger,

and Heyu Xiong discusses how events like Covid could affect the school system. This is integral

to the voucher debate as it explains how significant cuts to the public school system affects

student achievement. The article uses the Great Recession as its basis, noting how a “$1,000

reduction in per-pupil spending reduces average test scores in math and reading by 3.9 percent of

a standard deviation” and “lowers the college-going rate by about 2.6 percent,” leading to what

people considered a “lost decade” in education (KiraboJackson et al.). As such, when factoring

in the cuts that public schools face just due to nationwide or worldwide disasters, reducing the

budget for these schools even further will only worsen their performance in the long run.

“Colorado school board votes to end voucher program” by James Anderson furthers this point by

telling of how the Denver school district who was “the only school district in the nation where

vouchers were implemented by a local school board” planned to overturn their decision.

Although some had argued they hadn’t continued on long enough to show results, teachers and

officials alike felt that the cuts to public schools harmed the community more than it helped

students as a whole. Thus, knowing that private schools are provided the funds public schools

need without being able to significantly prove their effectiveness and performance seems unfair

to the already weakened public school system.

Lastly, it is still important to acknowledge the social division and implications that come

about due to the voucher system. With the inclusion of religious institutions into the voucher

system, there is already an initial discrimination of LGBT and disabled groups from certain
 Arauz 7

schools. Depending on the area or faith, they may not be allowed to enroll or may even be kicked

out after enrolling for whatever reason after a student count day, as mentioned previously.

Martin’s article notes how even staff at the school or parents of the students attending may have

to be straight for these institutions to allow them, becoming a major issue regarding the rights of

these individuals, especially when citizens are taxed to allow this to happen. Even if someone

doesn’t agree with these religious institutions or feels that the information taught at these schools

will be filtered through faith as Martin describes, they will still have to help keep these

institutions running so long as religious schools have a required spot in the voucher program. A

less noticeable issue that occurs is an increased score gap that can occur between Black and

White students when funds are too low as explained by KiraboJackson et al.’s article. “Spending

cut[s] would increase the gap in average test scores between black and white students by about 6

percent” and minority-serving institutions “experienced a 10 percent relative decline in

attendance” are two details that push back the civil rights movement due to the way that white

students are less affected by these cuts (KiraboJackson et al.). Ford’s article adds to this by

explaining that Black students may also have to return to public school more often than White

students, minorities in general being more likely to pass the lower income requirement for the

school voucher system. As such, the fact that students can be removed from private schools that

still benefit from their initial attendance comes off inappropriate when knowing that students

shouldn’t face detriments to their education based on their skin color. Despite Hispanics not

facing the score gap described in KiraboJackson et al’s article, they may also be more inclined to

join the religious institutions due to their faith and communities they live in. In turn, there are

very noticeable differences in the way both school systems handle each type of student, private

schools being able to find ways to discriminate against many types of them.
 Arauz 8

As such, the voucher debate encompasses much more than simply the choice in schooling

and American liberties. School vouchers end up affecting the public school system in many ways

that could end up harming the future of many Americans. The resulting cuts to public schools

can produce less individuals prepared and able to fill important careers due to their test scores

and willingness to attend college, as well as increasing the social divide between students due to

an illusion of choice. The burden that it places onto public high schools hinders the success of

these institutions and their reputations as they are forced to compete against privatized

institutions. Although neither side is without flaw, not giving public schools a fair chance in the

“competition” simply holds them back from bringing forth the new generation of Americans.
 Arauz 9

Works Cited

Associated Press, JAMES ANDERSON. "Colorado school board votes to end voucher program."

Associated Press News Service, The, sec. Domestic, 5 Dec. 2017. NewsBank: Access

World News, infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?

p=AWNB&docref=news/1689C860EDD761D0. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

Denver Post Education Writer, Monte Whaley. "Kids view charter as last chanceQuest Academy

says vouchers key to survival." The Denver Post, THU ed., sec. DENVER AND WEST,

27 Mar. 2003, pp. B-03. NewsBank: Access World News,

infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?

p=AWNB&docref=news/0FA112B2672FC45F. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

Ford, Michael R. "Funding impermanence: quantifying the public funds sent to closed schools in

the nation's first urban school voucher program." Public Administration Quarterly, vol.

40, no. 4, 2016, p. 882+. Gale Academic OneFile,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A490550844/AONE?

u=fl_claycntypub&sid=AONE&xid=d9191323. Accessed 14 Feb. 2021.

Hale, Miranda. "School Vouchers Violate the Separation of Church and State." Church and State.

Ed. Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from

"School Voucher Programs Are Both Ineffective and Dangerous." Examiner.com. 2010.

Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 June 2013.

lsheaks@elkharttruth.com, LYDIA SHEAKS. "Vouching for education - 20, 000 students

statewide are using vouchers to attend private school at a discount.." Elkhart Truth, The

(IN), sec. News, 9 Feb. 2014, p. A1. NewsBank: Access World News,
 Arauz 10

infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?

p=AWNB&docref=news/14CF181E8040E930. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

KiraboJackson, C., et al. "The Costs of Cutting School Spending Lessons from the Great

Recession." Education Next, vol. 20, no. 4, 2020, p. 64+. Gale Academic OneFile,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A637025135/AONE?

u=fl_claycntypub&sid=AONE&xid=1e8051aa. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

Martin, Annie. “School Voucher Supporters Cheer Supreme Court Ruling That States Can’t Bar

Religious Campuses.” Orlandosentinel.com, 1 July 2020,

www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/os-ne-religious-schools-voucher-decision-

20200701-32kfsvkosfg5lkgg7tmy4l2cb4-story.html. Accessed 22 Jan. 2021.

Moe, Terry M. Schools, Vouchers, and the American Public. Brookings Institution Press, 2001.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=nlebk&AN=91965&site=ehost-live.

Rouse, Cecilia Elena. "Private school vouchers and student achievement: an evaluation of the

Milwaukee Parental Choice Program." Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 113, no. 2,

1998, p. 553+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A20873086/AONE?

u=fl_claycntypub&sid=AONE&xid=92f38db6. Accessed 14 Feb. 2021.

San Jose, Alyssa L. "School vouchers: stealing from the poor to give to the rich?" Communique,

vol. 46, no. 2, 2017, p. 16+. Gale Academic OneFile,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A508360772/AONE?

u=fl_claycntypub&sid=AONE&xid=397a1402. Accessed 14 Feb. 2021.