Voucher Plans Spark Controversy
The use of vouchers, public funds that certain parents
may direct to the private or parochial school of their
choosing, is one of the most controversial issues in
education. Though aspects of the “No
Child left Behind” Act have recently dominated
the national education spotlight, many states are witnessing
fevered battles over the legitimacy of such programs.
While supporters want to grant parents the power to
determine the nature of their children’s education,
opponents decry the siphoning of public funds into private
schools, especially those with religious affiliations.
As legislatures and courts debate this issue, increasingly
sophisticated methods for granting parents choice are
proposed and fought.
Colorado
The battle over vouchers has been particularly fierce
in Colorado, where the past two years have seen intensive
legislative and judicial activity on the issue. With
heat from the hotly contested November elections fueling
the fire, pro- and anti-voucher forces have fought bitterly
over their issue.
In 2003 the legislature passed a bill, later signed
into law by Colorado governor Bill Owens, which would
have granted students approximately $4,100 in tuition
to be used at private or parochial schools. As reported
in Education
Week, students would qualify for the vouchers
based on their income, their district, and their test
scores. Requirements sought to target low-income and
low-scoring students in Colorado’s largest districts.
Participation would have been capped at 1 percent of
the students from any participating district, with caps
increasing each year that the program continued.
Opponents of voucher programs from within Colorado,
including the state PTA and the NAACP, and the Colorado
Education Association, immediately challenged the legitimacy
of the law, and in late 2003 state court Judge Joseph
E. Meyer III affirmed their position. Many states have
faced challenges to their voucher programs in state
courts, where these laws are often undermined by language
in state constitutions explicitly prohibiting receipt
of state funds by any religious institution, a damning
problem for many voucher programs that rely heavily
on parochial schools. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenged
the law on alternate grounds, however, citing the state
constitution’s provisions for local control of
schools. The decision was appealed, but in June of 2004
the State Supreme Court upheld Judge Meyer’s decision.
Despite legislative support for voucher initiatives
in 2003, following the State Supreme Court’s decision,
the legislature was not able to pass another equivalent
bill. Of two bills to create K-12 voucher programs proposed
by state Representative Nancy Spence, one was narrowly
defeated, 33-32, and another voted down within the House
Appropriations Committee. The legislature did pass a
higher education funding plan that uses vouchers to
award state money directly to students rather than to
state universities; nonetheless, the substantial K-12
voucher movement was not able to achieve its legislative
goals.
The November 2004 elections tipped the scales in favor
of the anti-voucher movement when the Democrats gained
slim majorities in both houses of the legislature. School
choice remains a primary issue for the state Republican
party, however, and is not likely to disappear from
the public agenda.
Florida
In Florida, the state’s voucher program was enacted
and implemented before being challenged in court. As
a result, despite the rulings by three courts that the
program violates the state constitution, approximately
700 students are still receiving tuition vouchers of
up to $3,900. Voucher proponents appear determined to
continue the program until it is finally declared unlawful
by the highest court. In fact, the St.
Petersburg Times reports that Governor Jeb
Bush, who has been essential to the development of the
program, has been actively increasing the number of
participating students as the courts deliberated and
ruled against it. Students qualify for the program by
attending a school that has received failing grades
on the state’s performance standards for two of
the preceding four years.
And, unlike Colorado, the three Florida courts, most
recently the First District Court of Appeal, declared
the program unconstitutional because it resulted in
government money flowing into religious institutions.
As the Palm
Beach Post reports, the state’s constitution
explicitly prohibits sending any state funds "directly
or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious
denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
This language is straightforward, and critics allege
that the governor would be required to pass a constitutional
amendment before enacting a lawful voucher program.
The case is now before the state supreme court.
South Carolina
In South Carolina, the voucher movement has emerged
as a plan for tuition tax credits that was proposed
by Governor Mark Sanford in February of 2004. The “Put
Parents in Charge” Act would allow parents earning
under $75,000 a year to apply up to 80% of private or
parochial school tuition against their income and school
property taxes. The bill’s supporters argue that
it gives parents authentic choice in how and where their
students are educated, while bringing “a real
market pressure to bear on the current system.”
The bill was debated by the legislature this year, and
the governor has pledged to push the bill into the forefront
during the 2005 legislative session.
The governor’s controversial proposal inspired
an immediate counter-campaign by opponents who claim
the bill will spend more money than is currently spent
on pupils in the public schools, where there is a critical
need for the resources that would be lost to the tax
credit. Prominent state education groups such as the
South
Carolina School Boards Association and the South
Carolina Congress of Parents and Teachers have united
in “The Right Choice: Our South Carolina Public
Schools,” a campaign dedicated to opposing the
“Put Parents in Charge” Act. The campaign
is actively seeking the support of local school boards
across the state, many of whom have signed on. U.S.
Senator Lindsey Graham has recently joined the chorus
of the bill’s opponents, questioning whether taking
public money from public schools is an appropriate solution
to South Carolina’s school woes.
According to the plaintiffs in Abbeville
v. State, a case challenging the South Carolina
school funding system, the state continues to deny educational
opportunity to its poor and minority students in violation
of the state constitution. Nearing the end of trial,
plaintiffs seek funding reform that, unlike vouchers,
would provide adequate resources in the public schools.
Prepared by Nelly Ward, November 29, 2004
|
