Vouchers⁽¹⁾

I put aside for the moment if a full fledged voucher system will improve education⁽²⁾ to make a few observations [additional commentary can be found in the notes]:

(1) Vouchers often supply religious schools a tough choice; take the system at issue in the SC lawsuit: not only must those receiving funds take all comers regardless of religion [many religions, Orthodox Jews come to mind, might very well not be able to do this], but they cannot teach any message of hate against other groups [many religions to put it bluntly do "hate" or surely disparage greatly other groups, homosexuals and Jews being two obvious choices]. Religion's importance partly lies in its independence from the state; here, it is uncomfortably intertwined with it . Also, the parent might be in an uncomfortable position as well: a "solution" in which a parent is forced to send their children to a religious school that teaches a creed different than their own or is forced to change it's religiously based policies because of strings that come with funding is far from ideal.⁽³⁾

(2) Public schools ideally bring together all types of people with all types of beliefs (religious and otherwise) and educate them in a way that aids in them being able to learn how to live together as adults. Balkanizing students by religion hurts this aim comparably so as separating by race, gender, or some other attribute. It continues to cause divisiveness when it is done by race, and even without the struggle over who gets what funds, it will cause divisiveness when it is done by religion. To take international examples, can we deny the fact the their staying separate from school age and up is one reason why the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Christians and Muslims in Bosnia, and Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan set the conflicts in those nations in place from the beginning?⁽⁴⁾

(3) The fact that vouchers might do good does not suggest they are on a cost/benefit basis worthwhile; furthermore, even if vouchers are a part of the solution ... just might be ... their ultimate value will be slight unless we make some fundamental changes in our public schools -- the fear being that vouchers will allow public schools to be ignored. The troubles raised by vouchers are as complicated as the failing public schools they are meant to replace or force to improve. Therefore, though selfish reasons might be involved, teachers (and many parents) who oppose vouchers also do so because of their realistic concerns it will hurt children, and it is just plain wrong to ignore that they truly do care about such things.

(4) Though the strings attached to the Cleveland program suggest such a move might not be popular, the best voucher program might very well be one comparable to Pell Grants and other governmental higher education assistance. That is, based on the educational performance of the school and student ... if our tax dollars shouldn't go to lousy public schools, the fact a lousy school is religiously (or racially⁽⁵⁾) compatible shouldn't matter. From personal experience as well as studies on the subject, I can say the educational value of religious education is mixed ... vouchers are said to improve educational possibilities; well if they are in place, let's make sure they go to schools that do just that. Finally, vouchers should include the need to take in troubled (academic or otherwise) students, so public schools do not just become a place to send the so called "rejects" of society. The additional care and cost to take such students is one reason why public schools have a harder time of it than many private and parochial ones.⁽⁶⁾

(5) The line between acceptable and unacceptable is not as clear as either side sometimes wants to admit. For instance, vouchers rarely pay for all the costs of religious or private schools that accept them. Therefore, all the different types of secular aid (books, computer equipment, remedial class assistance, health funding, etc.) acceptable over the years might very well be quite comparable to the money a certain voucher programs offer. Though the devil often is in the details (e.g. this one put troubling strings on religious schools and the intentions behind the law might not have been religiously neutral), various government programs supply funds to needy people which they might use for religious reasons [e.g. government college assistance]. Nonetheless, some would oppose some of the types of aid now in place, and even Pell Grants (going to one of many colleges and used by adults) and other related aid furthers religion and causes religious strife much less than voucher (limited choices and used for children) programs that are part of a central aim of religious faiths: educating new members. Vouchers and Pell Grants after all do not have anywhere the same amount of controversy for a reason: they are not quite the same thing.⁽⁷⁾

Finally, if tax dollars going to schools that advance a religion you disagree with is (rightly) troubling, it is not like public schools are without problems either. Some arguably neutral things taught in public schools violate the norms of many religions, and for those without money for private schools, certain religious groups are in a bad position: they pay tax dollars to support and might even have to send their children to schools whose teaching they oppose. The dissenting parent has a reason to be upset: food stamp recipients can buy kosher food, Medicaid health care appropriate for their religion (to a degree: often not abortions), so why not education funding for the school of their choice?

You can say that the fact public schools are secular, not intending to burden free exercise of religion, and furthers various important governmental purposes and values (for instance, many religions are not as open to doubt and debate than is ideally the case in public schools, nor do they generally take all comers). And I would argue this is another argument against vouchers, if they will be used to work against the values of public education. Still, the pro-voucher group have a point, and if we put aside the religious freedom "problem," it boils down to the ultimate value of vouchers as educational tools. And, honestly, they have not been used enough to for the answer to be clearly determined. As I said, complicated issues ... and this decision (5-4, of course) will surely not be the last word on it.

1. These thoughts are in response to Zelman v Simmon-Harris a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Cleveland school voucher program. The concurring and dissenting opinions are all worthwhile in that it provides different points of view pro and con on the subject (Justice O'Connor sees the choices parents have as a good thing, Justice Thomas views vouchers as obligatory to help the educational crisis of minorities, Justice Stevens notes that the program is surely too small to solve the educational crisis and tries to do so in an unconstitutional way, Justice Souter provides the heavy lifting in criticizing the majority, and Justice Breyer spells out why he thinks it will cause religious divisiveness). Justice Souter's opinion is a bit heavy going, but the other opinions on the whole provide a straightforward view of both sides.

2. Since vouchers even after this opinion run afoul of state constitutions and public opinion in many areas, and have not been tried in any major way, it is a bit premature to determine if they work or not.

3. The majority opinion notes: "All participating schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in accordance with rules and procedures established by the state superintendent." The fact that these rules and procedures in fact clearly limit parental choice ... the core theme of the majority and concurring opinions ... by setting guidelines that directly touch upon the beliefs and practices of many religious schools deserves a bit more attention than is given. Surely this is so because pressure such guidelines put on religion, any certain religions at that, is one of the core things religious freedom in this country is meant to avoid. The majority just avoids the issue.

4. Justice Thomas cynically notes: "While the romanticized ideal of universal public education resonates with the cognoscenti who oppose vouchers, poor urban families just want the best education for their children, who will certainly need it to function in our high-tech and advanced society." The question still remains: does private and religious schools truly provide the best well-rounded education? I do not feel comfortable giving up the ideals of public education, an ideal around since Thomas Jefferson and his efforts to establish a University of Virginia, just quite yet. If the effort placed by some behind vouchers were used to improve our public schools, perhaps we need not.

5. Racism does raise its ugly head here. The desire to avoid public schools that have too many minorities is one reason why people send children elsewhere, and many did after Brown v Bd of Education held that "separate is not equal." As I noted elsewhere, this is a good goal and vouchers in a small but clear way complicates it, even if separation is only by religion. This is especially true because certain religions are disproportionately one race, so religion might very well serve as a proxy for race. It is true a voucher program can be set in place, including the "take all comers" one involved here, to pressure schools to take in a broader range of individuals. Nonetheless, not only does this interfere with school autonomy -- supposedly a plus of independent schools -- but nonpublic schools by their very nature are likely to in many cases appeal to certain groups over others. Public schools ideally appeal to citizens across the board.

6. Private and parochial schools are ideal choices for many parents because of many advantages such as smaller class size, more idealistic teachers, additional funds (often from religious sources), safety, and so on. Now many public schools have these things too, though often not in inner city and other typically poor and minority areas. It also helps that nonpublic schools can select who they accept, though many do take individuals with various problems or special needs. As all this voucher money goes to nonpublic schools, what will become of those who remain in public schools? Why cannot we stop the continual neglect given to public schools in certain areas and force real changes that will not require us to give up on public education, or (which will be likely) accept a certain few who remain in it will get substandard education? Efforts to equalize funding (property tax based funding favors areas with high property taxes, i.e., rich areas get better schools though poor areas often need them more), but a whole overhaul is necessary. Even if vouchers are used to help force the issue, this must be done if we care about public education, and those millions of children who will remain in it.

7. Justice Souter discusses this issue, see in particular footnote 19 and the surrounding text; to summarize: "When neither the design nor the implementation of an aid scheme channels a series of individual students subsidies toward religious recipients, the relevant beneficiaries for establishment purposes, the Establishment Clause is unlikely to be implicated. ... The fact that those cases often allow for large amounts of aid says nothing about direct aid to pervasively sectarian schools for religious teaching." In other words, vouchers are different because it directly and broadly gives aid to religious education, which is much different than giving aid to a religious hospital or even a general program that might benefit religious universities. This does not mean other aid is without problems; it does mean vouchers is a more troubling case.