What
Does School Choice Mean?The following are answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ) regarding school choice and what choice means for students, educators, schools and communities. The answers to these FAQs are intended to provide only an introductory overview of key issues. Links are provide to take you to areas with additional information.
What
Does School Choice Mean?
The term “school choice” means giving parents the power and opportunity to choose the school their child will attend. Traditionally, children are assigned to a public school according to where they live. People of means already have school choice, because they can afford to move to an area according to the schools available (i.e. where the quality of public schools is high), or they can choose to enroll their child in a private school. Parents without such means, until recently, generally had no choice of school, and had to send their child to the school assigned to them by the district, regardless of the school’s quality or appropriateness for their child.
School choice means better educational opportunity, because it uses the dynamics of consumer opportunity and provider competition to drive service quality. This principle is found anywhere you look, from cars to colleges and universities, but it’s largely absent in our public school system and the poor results are evident, especially in the centers of American culture – our cities. School choice programs foster parental involvement and high expectations by giving parents the option to educate their children as they see fit. It re-asserts the rights of the parent and the best interests of child over the convenience of the system, infuses accountability and quality into the system, and provides educational opportunity where none existed before.
What
Kinds of School Choice Exist Today?
Full school choice programs, also known as tuition vouchers, provide parents with a portion of the public educational funding allotted for their child to attend school, and allows them to use those funds to attend the school of their choice. It gives them the fiscal authority to send their child to the educational institution that best suits their child, whether it is a religious or parochial school, another private school, or a neighborhood or magnet public school. These programs empower the family and, in so doing, infuse consumer accountability into the traditional public schools system.
Private scholarship programs also provide opportunities for quality education where none existed before by making the excellence of the private sector available to families of lower socio-economic status. (See Private Scholarship Programs FAQ.)
Charter schools provide unique services, or deliver services in ways that the traditional public schools do not offer. They provide an alternative to the cookie-cutter district school model. They survive -- and succeed -- because they operate on the principles of choice, accountability and autonomy not readily found in traditional public schools. (See Charter School FAQ.)
Because school choice expands educational opportunity and spurs all education services, overall educational delivery and access is enhanced.
Where
Are These School Choice Programs?
Publicly-Sponsored Full School Choice (3), Cleveland OH; Milwaukee WI; Florida
In Cleveland, choice scholarships allow over 4,000 at-risk children to attend private schools of their parent's choosing, secular or religious. On June 30, 1995 the Ohio legislature enacted the Pilot Project Scholarship Program as a part of its biennial budget. The program has met with opposition and various legal challenges, and its constitutionality will be considered by the US Supreme Court in February 2002.
In Milwaukee, similar court battles plagued the eleven-year-old program, but ultimately has been upheld by the State Supreme Court. The original Milwaukee Parental Choice Program was enacted in 1990, allowing up to one percent (approximately 1,000) economically disadvantaged pupils in he Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) to use their state share of education funds as full payment of tuition in participating nonsectarian private schools. The first year 341 students were able to take advantage of the program to attend a private school. As part of the 1995 budget bill, the legislature expanded the program to increase the number of children eligible for participation and to include religious schools among the educational options. That expansion also survived constitutional challenge, and presently nearly 11,000 students are using choice scholarships to attend participating non-public schools, both religious and non-sectarian.
Florida's 1999 A+ Plus Education Plan, which focuses on providing accountability, improving student learning, and raising standards, included a school choice provision that offers scholarships for children stuck in failing schools to attend another public or private school of their choice. Since then dozens of public schools have stepped up efforts to improve. Nevertheless, opponents have taken the school choice scholarship provision to court. In the law's first year 57 students from the first two school to fail under the law's provision were able to choose to attend a private school. Since then, no new public schools have failed in two successive state test, which would have qualified their students for choice scholarships.
For the latest on these programs, see CER's School Choice State Focus on:
Publicly-Sponsored Secular School Choice (2) , Maine; Vermont
Vermont, Maine, Florida, Cleveland, OH and Milwaukee, WI currently provide parents the opportunity to send their children to the public or private school of their choice. States such as Minnesota and Arizona have introduced choice initiatives through various tax credit or deduction processes. (For more information see Tuition Tax Credits and Deductions FAQ.)
The longest running, and least controversial, full school choice program is in Vermont. In order to meet the demand of parents who live in towns too small to support a local public school, the state pays the tuition expenses for children to attend any public or non-sectarian private school (including schools outside the state). Vermont's tuition statute, adopted in 1869 to ensure that both urban and rural school children could receive a quality secondary education. did not distinguish between religious and secular schools. In 1961, a court ruling banned religious schools from participating. The citizens and school board of Chittenden are challenging the decision in the state supreme court. A decision is pending.
Maine's tuitioning system has existed in some form for well over 200 years. During colonial years, and throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, many towns provided for the education of their residents by paying tuition for students to attend "private tuition schools," many of which were operated by ministers or religious organizations. As public education grew it became apparent that many of the state¹s rural towns could not afford to build high schools, and so a tuitioning system developed that paid the child¹s tuition to any school of the parent¹s choosing, in-state or out-of-state. But in 1980, the department of education ruled out religiously affiliated schools in towns that have public high schools, limiting many of the traditional choices for quality education that Maine families once exercised. On April 23, 1999, the Maine Supreme Court ruled that the ban on religious schools is not unconstitutional, but did not say whether the inclusion of religious schools would be unconstitutional. The decision does not support the right of parents to send their children to a religious institution and receive a tuition reimbursement. For additional court cases, Maine has little applicability.
Public School Choice Permitted Throughout the State (9):, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Utah, and Wisconsin
Public School Choice Ongoing Within Some or All Districts (21):, Connecticut, California*, Georgia, Idaho*, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts*, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey*, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota*, Ohio*, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee*, Texas, Washington*.
* In CA, ID, MA, NJ, ND, OH, TN and WA, the state offers open enrollment but districts are not required to participate.
Private Sector Scholarship Programs -- 79 programs serving 60,000 children nationwide, including in cities in the following states:, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin., (For contact information on specific Private Scholarship Programs, see Private Scholarship Programs Resources.)
Charter School States with Strong to Medium Strength Laws (Year Law
Passed):
Arizona (1994), California (1992), Colorado (1993),
Delaware (1995), District of Columbia (1996), Florida (1996), Indiana (2001), Massachusetts (1993), Michigan (1993), Minnesota (1991),
Missouri (1998), New Jersey (1996), New Mexico (1993), New York (1998), North
Carolina (1996), Ohio (1997), Oregon (1999), Pennsylvania (1997), Texas
(1995), Wisconsin (1993).
(For more information on the ranking and analysis of charter school laws, see Charter School Laws, State by State.)
As of January, 2003, nearly 2,700 charter schools are operating in 34 states and the District of Columbia, serving over 684,000 students. For more information on charter school activity, see About Charter Schools and Charter School Highlights and Statistics-at-a-Glance.
Do
School Choice Programs Work?
Yes. While most of the programs in question are young, evidence suggests that they provide educational opportunity to those that need it most. The following highlight the findings of current school choice studies:
Parents of scholarship recipients who previously attended public schools were much more satisfied with every aspect of their choice school than applicants who did not receive a scholarship, but attended public school instead. Test score results in mathematics and reading show gains for scholarship students. The scholarship children, on average, gained relative to the national norm 5 percentile points on the reading test and 15 percentile points in math. Students in all grades experienced improvements in these test scores. Eighty-five percent of the scholarship recipients from public schools cited “academic quality” as a key reason for enrolling for the scholarship. Second in importance was the “greater safety” to be found at a choice school. The average family income of scholarship recipients from public schools was less than that of non-recipients who remained in public school. Similarly, the average family income of scholarship recipients from private schools was less than that of non-recipients attending private school. The choice schools did well at retaining students in the program. (Link to the full report: Lessons from the Cleveland Scholarship Program by Jay P. Greene, William G. Howell, Paul E. Peterson, October 15, 1997; see also the follow-up study: New Findings from the Cleveland Scholarship Program: A Reanalysis of Data from the Indiana University School of Education Evaluation by Paul E. Peterson, Jay P. Greene, and William G. Howell, May 6, 1998.)
By the end of the fourth year of Milwaukee’s choice program, students were performing 6 percentile points better in reading and 11 percentile points better in math on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills when compared to their peers. This gain narrowed the gap between the test scores of whites and minorities between 33 and 50 %. (Link to the full report: Effectiveness of School Choice: The Milwaukee Experiment, by Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du, March 1997)
Applicants for SCSF scholarships were very disadvantaged, both academically and economically. Test scores in reading and math were very low, average family incomes were well below the poverty line, and a high percentage of families were receiving food stamps, Medicaid, and income assistance. Among scholarship winners, those who accepted and made use of the scholarship to attend a private school do not differ from those who did not use the scholarship in either their test scores or most forms of parental involvement. (Link to the full report: Initial Findings from the Evaluation of the New York School Choice Scholarships Foundation Program, by Paul Peterson, David Myers, Josh Haimson, and William G. Howell, November 1997)
Low-income minority students in Milwaukee choice programs increased their math achievement scores by 1.5 to 2.3 percentile points per year when tested on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
Public schools react to competition by offering better schooling and reducing costs. Increased competition results in significant improvements in student test scores, educational attainments, and wages. Parents with greater choice are more involved in their child’s schooling and prefer a higher standard of achievement for both their children (academic achievement) and their chosen school (standards and discipline).
While 62% of minority students at urban public schools graduate, the graduation rate for similar students of corresponding background in Catholic schools is 88%. Among urban minority students who graduate from public high schools, 11% go on to complete college. On the other hand, 27% of those who attended Catholic schools graduate from college. (A similar 10% increase in the college completion rate increase exists for white urban students.) Catholic schools help improve the economic future of their urban minority students by seeing that more of their students become college graduates, who tend to earn more than those without a degree. It is more than just a difference in the students.
Don't
Choice Programs Just "Cream" the Best Students?
Skeptics often argue that school choice programs only succeed because they "cream" the best students, those with the most involved parents or the best academics, and leave the hard-to educate behind in the troubled traditional public school system. By measurement of student academic progress, parental involvement, constituent satisfaction and public school reaction to competition, the above mentioned studies show that choice programs do succeed, not by "creaming," but by providing quality education to all students. Consider:
School choice does not "cream;" rather, it allows parents of at-risk children to choose the schooling that best suits their child's educational and emotional needs, and in many cases parents are able to explore schooling alternatives before their child's problems become too severe. For example, Cleveland's HOPE schools are succeeding because low-income parents care enough to ensure that their students are as academically challenged as any other child in this country. The two HOPE schools, private, non-sectarian, K-4 (soon to be K-5) schools, serve over low-income 700 children in Cleveland's publicly funded school choice program. They are schools caught in a national controversy, but you'd never know, walking down their orderly hallways and peering in their buzzing classrooms. In a recent trip to the HOPE school The Center for Education Reform's president Jeanne Allen observed, "The teachers were abuzz about the progress their children were making. The school's focus is on the progress of every child, and teachers work with children in groups and individually to ensure that any child not up to par gets there. With a sense of mission and purpose, HOPE teachers, many of whom are new, but all of whom are certified, have developed programs, classroom structures and methods to reach all of their children, with no excuses about how much of a burden society has placed on them. Rather than blaming society for failure, the HOPE academies are demanding, and getting, excellence, proving that any child can succeed at a school that delivers high-enough expectations, strong leadership, good tools and a nurturing environment."
Don’t
These Programs Just Help Rich People, as Tuition Subsidies, and Leave the Poor
Behind?
School choice programs are aimed at serving those least served now. The two modern programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland help poor and needy children. In Cleveland, students from low-income families received larger scholarships. Students coming from families whose income was below 200 % of the poverty line received 90 % of their school's tuition, up to $2,250, while those students coming from families whose income was at or above 200 % of the poverty line were eligible to receive $1,875 or 75 % of their school's tuition, whichever was less. Low-income students also had a better chance of winning the initial lottery. Because this lottery received considerable attention by the local press, low income families were more likely to find out that they had won a scholarship.
In Milwaukee, eligibility is limited to Milwaukee families with incomes at or below 175% of the federal poverty level. An estimated 65,000 to 70,000 children meet the income eligibility guidelines. In 1995–1996, participation was limited to 7 % of enrollment in the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), or about 7,250 students. This rose to 15 % in 1996–1997, or about 15,700 students, and will remain at that level. The original program’s participation was limited to 1.0 % of MPS enrollment, and this was increased to 1.5 % in 1993.
Research Continues to Show Success and Satisfaction
In Initial Findings from an Evaluation of School Choice Programs in Washington, D.C., (September 1, 1998) researchers Paul E. Peterson, Jay P. Greene, William G. Howell and William McCready, found:
(Link to full report: Initial Findings from an Evaluation of School Choice Programs in Washington, D.C.)
Are
Choice Scholarships Programs Constitutional?
The strongest critics of choice scholarship programs claim that if dollars are used for religiously affiliated schools then they violate the First Amendment (establishment of religion). The First Amendment provides freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Choice scholarship programs let parents choose where to direct their children’s education funds. The state is not imposing religion upon its citizens (which was a concern of the Founding Fathers), nor does the choice of religious education substantiate federal funding or religious institutions. As Clint Bolick, vice president and litigation director at the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C., observes: all credible contemporary school choice proposals are constitutional.
[Contemporary school choice programs] do not propose subsidizing religious schools, but merely include such schools within the range of educational options made available to a neutrally defined category of beneficiaries (usually economically disadvantaged families). No public funds are transmitted to religious schools except by the independent decisions of third parties. As the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has affirmed, such "`attenuated financial benefit[s], ultimately controlled by the private choices of individual[s]'...are simply not within the contemplation of the Establishment Clause's broad prohibition.
Wouldn’t
it Be Better To Put More Money Into the Existing School System Instead?
The "money" issue is politically charged and requires careful consideration and clarification. Many fiscal issues, from labor contracts to program mandates, are more a function of larger systemic impediments than money, so increasing funding or tinkering with funding will likely do nothing to resolve mediocre educational agencies. In the last few decades, spending on K-12 public education has grown substantially without improving academic accomplishment. Expenditures have increased from $162 billion dollars in 1982 to nearly $300 billion in 1998. Spending on K-12 education represented approximately 2.8 % of GNP in 1960, 4.0 % in 1970, and 3.6 % in 1980 and 1990, and nearly 4% in 1998. Meanwhile, national indicators of academic progress have been disappointing. National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) scores have remained flat throughout this decade, with over one-third of students scoring "Below Basic" in all NEAP subjects: history, math, writing, reading, geography, and science. Poor performance is the new SAT norm; in 1996, test results were "re-centered" to bring the average back up to 500 points, masking the approximate 80 point drop in average achievement since 1963. Most recently, TIMSS scores released in February 1998 show American seniors outperforming only two of 21 nations in mathematics, and finishing significantly below 14 of those countries. In science, they performed well below 11 countries, scoring ahead of only 2. While money is important, America's educational course over the last few decades shows that "more money" is not the solution our nation's educational problems.
For a
complete look at the controversy and misconceptions surrounding school choice,
see NINE LIES ABOUT SCHOOL CHOICE: Answering
the Critics.
For More
Information, See About School Choice, as well as
Answers to FAQs on Private
Scholarship Programs and Charter
Schools.