Educational+Voucher+Programs+and+the+Concern+Over+Discrimination,+Cream-Skimming,+and+Religious+Freedom

History In 1955, Milton Friedman published “The Role of Government in Education” (Friedman, 1955). In it, he argued that voucher programs in education would promote competition, both for funding and students, among schools. In turn, he reasoned that this would result in overall school improvements that would have a positive effect on the quality of education for the students. He promoted this idea into the 1980s, during which time it became increasingly popularized (“School Vouchers,” 2017). The policy specifics of voucher programs vary from state-to-state, but in general these programs offer parents the opportunity to use a government-funded voucher to enroll their children at an eligible private school (Kavey, 2003). Funding for voucher programs comes from public tax dollars that would otherwise pay for those same students to attend public school. These forms of school choice have been on the rise in the past few decades, and, as of today, 14 states and the District of Columbia offer state-funded vouchers for private schools (“School Vouchers,” 2017). In these states, household income is most often used to determine the amount of compensation offered to the parent, with students from lower income household receiving a greater percentage of compensation.
 * Overview**

//Specifics of Voucher Programs Among the States// As mentioned above, policy specifics of voucher programs vary among the 14 states and the District of Columbia. [1] Voucher programs in six of these 14 locations (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah) have admissions that are open only to students with a documented disability and/or current IEP (Individualized Education Plan) (“School Choice in America,” 2017; “School Voucher Laws: State-By-State Comparison,” 2017). Out of all 14 locations, ten of these offer some mention and, to some extent, eligibility for students with certain disabilities or IEPs. Maine and Vermont operate voucher programs that are only open to students whose home school districts do not have the necessary public schools available. Voucher programs operating in the remaining six locations (Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Washington D.C.) have admissions that are, to some extent, based on household income. Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, Washington D.C., and Wisconsin (except for students in the Racine area) are the only locations that do not require their eligible students to attend at least some public school first. However, in the state of Indiana, public school attendance as a requirement is waived if a student’s neighborhood school received an “F” grade from the state or if the student received a tax credit scholarship the previous year.

Eligibility in the cases of low-income students is most often determined via comparison of annual household income to the Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) guidelines or the federal or state guidelines for poverty (“School Voucher Laws: State-By-State Comparison,” 2017). For instance, in the state of Indiana, students who do not have a documented disability or IEP and who also have not previously received a government-funded voucher are eligible for participation if their annual household income does not exceed 150% of the FRPL guideline. If the student has an IEP or has, in the past, received a government-funded voucher then their annual household income cannot exceed 200% of the FRPL guideline. This means that for a student from a family of four, in the state of Indiana, they are eligible for participation if their annual household income does not exceed $67,433 (i.e., in the case of the student without an IEP or a history of vouchers) or $89,910 (i.e., in the case of the student who has an IEP or has received a voucher in the past) (“Indiana-Choice Scholarship Program,” 2017). In the state of Wisconsin, there are even differences among eligibility for certain districts. For instance, household income for students living in the Milwaukee or Racine areas cannot exceed 300% of the federal guidelines of poverty (i.e., $72,000 for a family of four), while household income for students outside of these areas within the state cannot exceed 185% of the federal guidelines for poverty (i.e., $44,955 for a family of four) (Evers, 2016a; Evers, 2016b). This relates to the fact that, in many states, priority and/or eligibility is given to students from districts whose public schools have a history of poor performance (“School Voucher Laws: State-By-State Comparison,” 2017). **Trend or Issue** The debate over school choice and voucher programs is both a trend and an issue. Since the mid-1900s, school choice has been on the rise (“School Vouchers,” 2017). More recently, Wisconsin became the first state to target low income households with a voucher program in 1989. Florida, in 2001, was the first state to offer vouchers specifically for students with disabilities. Washington D.C., Utah, and Indiana all followed suit in 2004, 2007, and 2011, respectively. In 2016, the numbers of voucher students in each state is as follows: 23 in Arkansas; 92,000 in Florida (an increase of 78,600 since the previous year); 4,185 in Georgia; 34,299 (3% of the state’s total student population) in Indiana; 7,452 in Louisiana; 5,727 in Maine; 159 in Mississippi; 6,472 in North Carolina; 47,286 in Ohio; 553 in Oklahoma; 905 in Utah; 3,350 in Vermont; 1,166 in Washington D.C.; and 33,987 in Wisconsin (Postal, 2016; “School Choice in America,” 2017; Turner, 2017a). In total and as of 2016, 237,564 students were enrolled in a voucher program in their state.

While the increasing prevalence of voucher programs represents a rising trend, there is still much debate around the issue itself. The multi-faceted nature of these various programs has made it difficult to make a definitive evaluation of their effectiveness and implications. Much of the debate centers around the effectiveness of such programs when it comes to increasing student achievement and providing more opportunities to traditionally under-served students. Opponents of voucher programs mostly agree that the effect of voucher programs has yet to be proven beneficial and/or that reported school improvements are relatively inconsequential. Major opposition to these programs falls under three significant lines of reasoning: (I) concern for their promotion of intentional and/or unintentional discrimination and the practice of “cream-skimming” that could exasperate the sorting and segregation of students, (II) belief that public funds should not be diverted to private schools, and (III) concern for the future implications and consequences, both educational and civil, of such programs. Concern over the possibility of discrimination can be further broken down into discrimination based on race, socioeconomic status, the need for special education services, and religion/lifestyle choices.

As it relates to improvements in student achievement, there is a plethora of studies that have aimed to answer the question regarding whether voucher programs lead to healthy competition and increases in student achievement. While some studies suggest a relatively large and positive impact of voucher programs (Hoxby, 1994; Hoxby, 2003), others claim relatively modest positive gains from competition (Belfield & Levin, 2002). A study conducted by Paul Peterson et al. (2000) revealed academic improvements for African-American students only after the first and second years. Others have showed significant improvements early on but have failed to exhibit continued growth despite increases in enrollment (Carnoy et al., 2007). In a review of past research, Michael Pons (2002) summarized findings related to access, student achievement, accountability, costs, student improvement, and public opinion within private voucher programs. In it, both successes and failures are noted. In addition, both positive and negative findings are contested by those in disagreement with the outcomes.

Another major goal of voucher programs is to increase access to educational opportunities for low-income, minority, and special needs students; individuals that some would argue are underserved within the public education domain in which that they are forced, due to financial and other constraints, to participate in (Carnoy, Adamson, Chudgar, Luschei, & Witte, 2007; Chakrabarti, 2013). Proponents maintain the effectiveness of such programs in accomplishing this goal. Contrastingly, opponents claim that, not only are these programs not accomplishing their goal, they are worsening segregation within education and that a lack of uniformity in admission to these eligible private schools is facilitating purposeful discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and home-life (Carnoy et al., 2007; Chakrabarti, 2013; Kavey, 2003).

Those in favor of school choice argue that vouchers empower parents and enable them to have more input in how their child is educated. David Mitchell, founder and CEO of Atlanta-based Better Outcome for Our Kids (BOOK), is head of an organization that promotes school choice for African-American students and argues that, despite the fact that education is supposed to be a “great equalizer,” African-American students are often underserved (Downey, 2017). He cites evidence that shows that, although these students account for only 16% of the country’s K-12 student population, African-American students make up as much 40% of students enrolled in public schools with low graduation rates (US DOE, 2015). Advocates also point to studies that show competition due to school choice has a positive effect on improving low-performing public schools (Carnoy et al., 2007; Hoxby, 1994; Hoxby, 2003). In addition, voucher programs have received much attention in other countries, such as Columbia, Chile, and Sweden (“Education Vouchers: Free to Choose, and Learn,” 2007). Proponents point to vast expansions that taken place in the private school sector in Sweden, during which time parents have been given more options about how and where to education their children.

Many critics of voucher programs are skeptical due to the implications related to discrimination, such as the NAACP in Utah, point to vouchers’ troubling past (Vergakis, 2007). In the past, voucher programs were commonly used by white families to avoid sending their children to the newly integrated public schools. Following //Brown v. Board of Education//, it was mostly southern states that implanted school choice to evade the ruling (Forman, 2005). Although, Forman (2005) points out, early on, school choice was advocated by individuals on both sides the debate around segregation. At the time, many progressives, who were not in agreeance with the Friedman-approach to privatized school or anti-desegregation movements, were advocates for school choice. For them, school choice represented an opportunity to provide genuine options for minorities outside of a bureaucratically-controlled public education system. Despite this, recent opinions have undergone a reversal of sorts.

The ability of the school to proceed with their traditional selection process increases the likelihood that cream-skimming [2] will take place in these communities (Chakrabarti, 2013). This phenomenon also relates to critics’ concern over unintended consequences, and even applies to private schools that utilize random selection in their admission process. Even in cases in which student sorting may not be due to the supply side (i.e., private school admissions selection), there is concern that unintended sorting may be the result of the demand side (i.e., parental self-selection). In other words, are certain households more likely to seek out and take advantage of the opportunity to use vouchers in the first place? Opponents are concerned that only the more committed parents or those households that can afford top-up fees [3] will seek out the option. Therefore, cream-skimming would limit the pool of students that are taking advantage of vouchers in the first place.

Some of the concern over cream-skimming comes from the possibility of unequal representation due to the demand side of parent selection (i.e., which may be influenced by parent commitment, relocation costs, and the need to top-up vouchers). In a comprehensive study of the Milwaukee voucher system, of which students with IEPs and those meeting the income requirement are eligible, Chakrabarti (2013) analyzed student sorting. In this program, there is random student selection and the absence of top-up fees. Thus, the amount of the voucher is accepted as full payment of tuition. The study found that, among selected and non-selected students, the groups did not differ significantly in terms of their demographics, income, or ability. Therefore, random selection processes may have the potential to eliminate cream-skimming on the part of the supply side (i.e., the selection of the private schools) based on ability and demographics. However, the study did find significant differences among the two groups when it came to the mother’s education, parental involvement in the child’s education, and expectations for the child. Children whose mothers were more education and had parents that spent more time involved in school-related activities and had higher expectations for them were significantly more likely to apply for and receive a voucher. As past study conducted by John Witte (1997) showed similar results and found that the families of voucher students were better educated and showed more of an interest in their child’s education, both before and after attendance. Both studies suggest that this phenomenon may indirectly and inadvertently support stratification based on the dynamics of the households.

As it relates to possible discrimination involving students with special education, private schools are not required by law to ensure that students with IEPs are serviced (“IDEA 2004 and Private Schools,” 2010). Since private schools do not receive federal funding, they are not subject to the regulations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004). Therefore, in states like Indiana that retain their admissions processes, Turner (2017a) claims that students requiring special education services are being shut out. For states in which students with documented disabilities and IEPs are the only ones eligible for vouchers this is not so much of a concern. However, for states with more expansive eligibility guidelines, this may lead to students being turned away and ignored within the very programs were designed to service them.

Another concern related to the possibility of discrimination and student sorting related to the admissions processes of private schools. Depending on the state, private schools participating in voucher programs may maintain their own admission processes (Chakrabarti, 2013). For instance, certain private schools in Indiana can subject voucher applicants to the same admissions criteria as non-voucher applicants (Turner, 2017a). Depending on the school, students may be asked about their academic performance (i.e., grade point average) or past disciplinary history. Students may also be asked to sign a statement of faith prior to admission. Turner (2017a) also claims that some private schools maintain the right to discontinue services if the student’s home life is found to disagree with certain elements that are fundamental to the school’s religious doctrine and mission. The possibility that arises from this policy is that students of same-sex parents or students who they, themselves, identify as something other than heterosexual could be turned away. This is, most certainly, unlike admissions to public schools. The admissions into participating private schools in other states, such as Wisconsin, are much more regulated (Chakrabarti, 2013). In Wisconsin, for instance, private schools are required to randomly select students for admission if more students apply than there are spots available. In this case, student applications give no mention to race, sex, parents’ education, academic performance, or disciplinary history. However, because private schools participating in the voucher program in Indiana retain such degree of freedom, Turner (2017a) argues that it is still largely up to the private schools who they want to accept and who they do not want to accept.

There is a history of debate over this topic within the court system. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in //Zelman v. Simmons-Harris// (2002) that an Ohio voucher program, which offered funding for vouchers to religious private schools, did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution [4]. This ruling, however, has raised the question of whether states now can and should require private voucher schools to adhere to the same antidiscrimination policies that are upheld in public education (Kavey, 2003). Some would agree that, since these schools are indirectly receiving state funding in the form of a voucher, their admissions process should be a mirror of that for public schools. On the other hand, would this ruling violate the private religious schools’ right to freedom of religion that is ensured by the same clause.

In an analysis of past Supreme Court rulings, Kavey (2003) creates a case that discrimination of any kind and with a foothold in religious doctrine has never had a role within education. This has been demonstrated most notably with //Brown v. Board of Education// (1954). Furthermore, he argues that any minimal burden placed on private schools’ freedom of speech is worth the risk when compared to eradicating discrimination in the realm of education. If this were the case, this would most certainly address the concerns related to Indiana’s voucher program and the dismissal of students with special needs or differences of lifestyle and home life within it.

A last concern that is often cited by those opposing vouchers is the fact that certain locations do not require prior public school enrollment to be eligible for a voucher (“School Voucher Laws: State-By-State Comparison,” 2017). This has earned attention in the state of Indiana, in which the prior public school attendance requirement is waived if the student’s neighborhood school has received an “F” from the state or if the student received a tax credit scholarship the previous year. In an interview with National Public Radio, Cory Turner discussed Indiana’s statewide voucher program, which is now the largest of its kind (Turner, 2017b). Since recent expansions to eligibility, over half of the students that now use vouchers in the state have no record of prior public school attendance. This finding combats the rationale that vouchers will be utilized as a second option after public schools have proven to be lacking. Many have expressed a desire of more regulated and nation-wide admissions criteria for state-funded voucher programs. This step may aid in ensuring that discriminatory policies are not promoted on the local level.

To read a proposal focused on this wiki's topic, please download this document:

**References** Belfield, C. R. & Levin, H. M. (2002). The effects of competition between schools on education outcomes: A review for the United States. //Review of Educational Research, 72//(2). This study served to examine the effects of competition due to school choice. Many argue that voucher schools, charter school, etc. increase competition for students that is felt by both private and public schools. This study examined the benefits (e.g., increases in student achievement) of this competition.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Retrieved from [] This source serves as a reference for and summary of the ruling and circumstances around Brown v. Board of Education decision. This ruling established that segregation of public education institutions was unconstitutional.

Carnoy, M., Adamson, F., Chudgar, A., Luschei, T. F., & Witte, J. F. (2007). //Vouchers and public// //school performance: A case study of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.// Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. This study examined public school performance in the Milwaukee area after the implementation of the city's voucher program. It showed immediate increases in academic achievement. However, these results did not continue despite the fact that enrollment in the voucher program increased.

Chakrabarti, R. (2013). Do vouchers lead to sorting even under random private school selection? Evidence from Milwaukee voucher program. //Economics of Education Review,// //34//, 191-218. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.009 This study examined the differences between voucher students that applied for and were accepted by private schools verses the public school demographic as a whole. The Milwaukee voucher program includes a random selection process and the absence of top-up fees. The study found that the two groups of students (i.e., voucher students verses non-voucher students) did not differ significantly when it came to race, ethnicity, household income, GPA, academic performance, or past history. However, voucher students were more likely to have mothers that were more highly educated, parents that were more involved in the child's schooling, and parents that were more committed to their child's education.

Downey, M. (2017, May 10). Opinion: Offer more school choice to African-American students. //The Atlanta Journal Constitution.// Retrieved from [] This news article discusses the opinions of certain prominent African-American's involved in the educational climate of Atlanta, GA. This piece focuses on their opinion that school choice has the potential to open doors for more African-American students, which are a part of a traditionally underserved group.

Education Vouchers: Free to Choose, and Learn. (2007, May 3). //The Economist//. Retrieved from [] This news article summarizes the results of other countries' approaches to voucher programs and the benefit that they have been for students and parents.

Evers, T. (2016a). //2017-18 income limits for new students: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program// //(MPCP) and Racine Parental Choice Program (RPCP).// Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. This document summaries that income cutoffs for household income when it comes to participation in the MPCP and RPCP.

Evers, T. (2016b). //2017-18 income limits for new students: Wisconsin Parental Choice Program.// Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. This document summaries the income cutoffs for household income when it comes to participation in the WPCP.

Forman J. (2005). The secret history of school choice: How progressives got their first. 93 //GEO.// //L. J. 1287.// This study examines the history of voucher programs. It explains that, although vouchers have been used in the past as a means to combat the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (by more conservative and right-wing factions of politics), there has also been historical action by some Democrats and more liberal-leaning factions of politics to promote vouchers.

Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R.A. Solo (Ed.), //Economics and the// //Public Interest.// New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. This article debates the place of government in education and its ability to interject when constitutional issues arise. Furthermore, it discusses what responsibilities the government has to both ensure religious freedom and equal opportunity.

Hoxby, C. M. (1994). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? //American Economic Review, 90//(5), 1209-1238. This study summarizes findings that voucher programs actually lead to increases in economic prosperity when it comes to students and taxpayers.

Hoxby, C. M. (2003). //The Economics of School Choice.// Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. This book summarizes several studies conducted by Hoxby that illustrate the benefits and advantages of implementing voucher programs.

IDEA 2004 and Private Schools. (2010). In //The Wrightslaw Way to Special Education Law and// //Advocacy.// Retrieved from [] This source summarized the relationship between private schools and IDEA. Since private schools do not receive federal funds, they do not have to adhere to the mandates included in IDEA. They are, however, required to provide services for students with 504 plans.

Indiana-Choice Scholarship Program. (2017) In //EdChoice.// Retreieved from [] This website summarizes some of the specifics (e.g., total enrollment, voucher amount, eligibility, other policy specifics, etc.) related to the Indiana voucher program.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004) This source serves as a reference for the mandates included in IDEA.

Kavey, M. (2003). Private voucher schools and the First Amendment right to discriminate. //The// //Yale Law Journal, 113//(3), 743-784. This article serves as a comprehensive look at the court history of the relationship between religious freedom rulings and discrimination. This is done in an effort to make a claim regarding private schools' ability to discriminate based on their schools' religious doctrine when it comes to admissions for voucher students.

Pons, M. (2002). School vouchers: The emerging track record. In //National Education// //Association.// Retrieved from [] This website resource serves as somewhat of a summary of current research findings, both negative and positive, related to voucher programs across states and other countries.

Postal, L. (2016, August 26). Florida voucher program grows, more kids use private school scholarships. //Orlando Sentinel.// Retrieved from [] This news article serves as a source for the number of students that are currently enrolled in a voucher program in the state of Florida.

School Choice in America. (2017). In //EdChoice.// Retrieved from [] EdChoice promotes school choice, whether it be through charter schools or voucher programs. This website served as a resource for some of the specifics related to the total enrollment for school choice in America.

School Vouchers. (2017). In //National Conference of State Legislatures//.Retrieved from [] This website summarizes a brief history of vouchers in America. Furthermore, it also includes non-biased statistics related to its use among states.

School Voucher Laws: State-By-State Comparison. (2017). In //National Conference of State// //Legislatures.// Retrieved from [] This website includes a non-biased comparison of the specifics of voucher programs among all the participating states. This comparison includes information related to eligibility, requirements, etc.

Turner, C. (2017a, May 15). Indiana’s school choice program often underserves special needs students (Ari Shapiro, Interviewer) [Audio file and transcript]. Retrieved from [] This interview transcript includes evidence that Indiana's voucher program is underserving special needs students. In the interview, this is mostly credited to the fact that private schools participating in this state's program are able to maintain their traditional admission process.

Turner, C. (2017b, May 12). The promise and peril of school vouchers [Audio file and transcript]. Retrieved from [] This interview transcript summarizes some of the expectations and repercussions of Indiana's voucher program. Currently students are being underserved, discriminated against in the application process, and not attending public school prior to enrollment in a private school.

Vergakis, B. (2017, June 4). Do vouchers equal segregation? //Associated Press//. Retrieved from [] This article includes some history related to voucher programs. Traditionally, vouchers were used in mostly southern states by white students and families as a means to escape the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education.

Witte, J. (1997). Achievement effects of the Milwaukee Voucher Program. Universrit of Wisconsin-Madison. This study further examines changes to students' achievement levels after the implementation of vouchers in Milwaukee. It found that there were some increases in achievement, seemingly from the competition imposed by school choice. However, this increases were small relative to state performance.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). Retrieved from [|http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us] [|supreme-court/536/639.html] This source includes information related to the circumstances and ruling of the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris court case. In this case, a private school was allowed to maintain its admission process despite the fact that, some argue, it was encouraging discrimination based on religion. The court upheld the school's right to religious freedom and freedom of speech under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

[1] The state of Maryland enacted a voucher program in 2016 that has begun to give out vouchers for the next school year (“School Voucher Laws: State-By-State Comparison,” 2017). It was not included in this paper. [2] Chakrabarti (2013, p. 192) defines “cream-skimming” as the, “flight of high income and more committed public school students and parents to the private sector.” [3] Top-up fees are synonymous with tuition fees (Chakrabarti, 2013). For private schools that have top-up fees, vouchers may amount to only a percentage of full tuition and fees. It is then up to the parents to compensate for the fiscal difference between voucher amount and full payment. [4] The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution mandates that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”