July 20, 2008
TEXT SIZE

Advocacy Issue Brief: Vouchers and Other Privatization Experiments


January 2002

The Issue

Proposals to create private school vouchers threaten to siphon scarce public resources away from our nation's public schools, undermining the institutions that educate 90 percent of America's students. Descriptions of these proposals vary from "portability" to "parental choice" to "opportunity scholarships" to "education savings accounts." Although the proposals are cloaked in various names and differ in terms of recipients and scope, ultimately, they each use public money and tax revenues for private school tuition. Furthermore, many private schools can discriminate based on educational needs, parental involvement, race, and religion. Any voucher proposal will drain money, time, and attention away from strengthening neighborhood public schools. Voucher plans stand to impact a select few and leave the majority of public school students in schools with fewer resources. Local school boards urge lawmakers to reject vouchers and similar experiments, and to work with local school districts to improve, not weaken, the educational opportunities of the 47 million children who attend America's public schools.

The Details

  • Vouchers abandon neighborhood public schools and drain away critical dollars–Vouchers take away millions of dollars from public schools to pay private school tuition for a few thousand students, including many who already are in private school.

  • Vouchers leave behind many of the neediest students–Vouchers leave behind many disadvantaged students because private schools may not accept them or do not offer the special services they need. Students with disabilities "were actively counseled out of the (voucher) program," in Cleveland, a state official acknowledged.

  • Vouchers provide NO accountability to taxpayers–In stark contrast to rising accountability of public schools, vouchers shift millions of dollars to private schools that are unaccountable to taxpayers. Voucher schools do not have to reveal how they spend tax dollars, do not have to comply with open meetings and records laws, and do not have to publicly report on students' achievement.

  • The public, which must pay for vouchers, opposes them–Voters have rejected every voucher proposal put before them in the last 30 years. The U.S. House, Senate, and 37 state legislatures have rejected vouchers in the past decade. Polls show the more that people learn about vouchers, the less they like them.

  • Vouchers waste taxpayer money–Vouchers force taxpayers to support two school systems: one public and one private. Existing private school students usually are eligible to receive vouchers, creating a new cost to taxpayers.

  • Vouchers do not raise student achievement–A recent GAO report to Congress noted that official research on Cleveland and Milwaukee voucher programs found "little or no difference in voucher and public school students' performance." The same GAO report also questioned the validity of some studies that claimed vouchers led to student gains.

  • Vouchers give choices to private schools, not parents–Private schools decide if they want to accept vouchers, and then how many students they want to admit. And even if a voucher student does gain acceptance into a private school, the school can later reject him or her for numerous reasons. Both the official evaluator and the African-American lawmaker who founded the Milwaukee voucher program have questioned the dismissal or de-selection of students by private schools.

Legislative Status

The recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) does not include vouchers. Throughout the reauthorization there were several attempts to include voucher provisions, but all attempts failed.

The Senate dropped vouchers in its committee-passed version of the bill. In order to move the bill out of committee, the most controversial issues, like private school vouchers, were left out of the bill with the understanding that senators would have a chance to offer voucher amendments during full Senate debate. During floor debate, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) offered an amendment to authorize funds for vouchers in three states and ten cities. The amendment was rejected by a bipartisan 41-58 margin. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was expected to offer an amendment authorizing vouchers in the District of Columbia, but withdrew it.

The House bill, H.R. 1, was introduced with several voucher provisions. But during committee consideration, Representative George Miller (D-CA) offered an amendment to strike the provisions relating to private school vouchers. His amendment passed by a 27-20 margin, and the bill passed committee without vouchers in it. During the full House consideration, two amendments were defeated that would have added vouchers back into the bill. Specifically, Representative Dick Armey's (R-TX) amendment that would have provided for a variety of vouchers, including letting students use Title I funds to subsidize their attendance at a private school, was defeated by a 155-273 margin. Another amendment by Representative Armey was defeated by a 186-241 margin. That proposal would have authorized $50 million for private school voucher pilot programs to demonstrate the effects of vouchers.

Education Savings Accounts

The tax package that was signed into law on June 7, 2001 provides for the expansion of education savings accounts to include K-12 education and increases the annual contribution level from $500 to $2,000. Prior law capped the annual contribution level at $500 and allowed funds to be used only for higher education expenses. These accounts are exempt from taxation and distributions are excluded from gross income if the funds are used for qualified education expenses. Corporations and other entities (including tax-exempt organizations) are permitted to make contributions to education IRAs. The K-12 ESAs specifically allow funds to be used for private school tuition, room and board. During the Senate debate of the bill, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) offered an amendment to remove the provision that allows funds to be used for private school tuition, room and board. The amendment was defeated by a 41-58 margin.

Legislative Outlook

Although Congress continues to reject full-fledged voucher programs, it is clear that they will continue to debate various funding mechanisms that send public funds to private schools. And even though the ESEA bill does not contain vouchers, many voucher advocates do believe the supplemental services (tutoring) provisions in the bill are merely a first step toward a federal voucher program. In addition, other legislative proposals may include granting tax credits for parents who pay private school tuition or to offset money donated by individuals or businesses to organizations that provide vouchers for private schools.

NSBA Position

  • Congress faces a fundamental choice–provide vouchers for a few or improve neighborhood public schools for all.

  • Every dollar spent on vouchers and other tax-diversion plans drains a desperately needed dollar from our neighborhood public schools.

  • Parents want a good neighborhood public school, well-trained teachers, high standards, and a safe, effective learning environment for their children. Vouchers do nothing to enhance these wishes and benefit all students.

  • NSBA urges Congress to echo the voices of the voters and reject vouchers and related privatization experiments, and work with NSBA to improve, not weaken, the educational opportunities of the 47 million children who are enrolled in public schools.