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>.