Facts About Vouchers

Endnotes

  1. “Statistical Analysis Report: Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-1994.” National Center for Education Statistics, US Dept. of Education OERI, July 1997, p. 74.
  2. “Barriers, Benefits and Costs of Using Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools, Final Report.” U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, 1998, p.p. xi, 51.
  3. “The Cleveland Voucher Program: Who Chooses? Who Gets Chosen? Who Pays?” A Report by the American Federation of Teachers, 1997, p. 25.
  4. “Voucher plan leaves long list of broken vows: Program costs public schools, doesn’t raise private enrollment and leaves handicapped students behind,” Akron Beacon Journal, December 14, 1999.
  5. “Statistical Analysis Report: Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-1994.” National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, OERI, July 1997, p. 74.
  6. An Evaluation: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, February 2000, p. 26.
  7. “An Evaluation: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,” Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, February 2000, Executive Summary, p. 26.
  8. “An Evaluation: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,” Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, February 2000, Appendix VIII, State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction correspondence from John Benson, State Superintendent to Janice Mueller, State Auditor, January 25, 2000.
  9. ibid.
  10. All private school statements are made available by EPIC (Empowering Parents for Informed Choices in Education). EPIC houses an online database for parents on information about Milwaukee private and public schools; the schools themselves are responsible for maintaining and updating their own data. Schools’ statements are in response to EPIC’s section “Categories of Students Which School Cannot Serve.”
  11. EPIC Harambee School page, http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/EPIC/English/data/haramb.html, accessed April 2001.
  12. EPIC Emmaus Lutheran page, http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/EPIC/English/data/emmaus.html, accessed April 2001. For definition of terms, see EPIC Terms and Definitions, http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/EPIC/English/terms.html, accessed April 2001.
  13. EPIC Gospel Lutheran page, http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/EPIC/English/data/gospel.html, accessed April 2001.
  14. EPIC Blessed Sacrament page, http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/EPIC/English/data/blesse.html, accessed April 2001.
  15. “Committee Rejects Cut in School Vouchers,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 31, 2001; Motion #883: Public Instruction—Choice, Charter and Open Enrollment, introduced by Senator Russ Decker, May 2001.
  16. Press Release from the Office of State Rep. Christine Sinicki. “Sinicki Anti-Discrimination Law Could Pass in Budget,” June 13, 2001; Correspondence from Office of State Rep. Christine Sinicki, June 13,2001.
  17. Legislative Fiscal Bureau, “2001-03 Wisconsin State Budget: Comparative Summary Of Budget Provisions,” July 25, 2001. See section “Education and Building Program,” pp. 132-134. Available at: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2001-03budgedocuments/ConferenceCommittee/ConferenceCommittee.htm, accessed July 27, 2001.
  18. Laws of Florida, Chapter 99-398, Committee Substitute for House Bill Nos. 751,753 and 755.
  19. John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, Fla. Stat. S. 229.05371
  20. Stephen Hegarty, “Voucher Complaints Chase Pair,” St. Petersburg Times, April 7, 2002.
  21. Stephen Hegarty, “Parents Rue School Choice,” St. Petersburg Times, October 3, 2001.
  22. “DoE Looks the Other Way,” St. Petersburg Times, October 7, 2001.
  23. Stephen Hegarty, “Crist Vows to Review Voucher Use,” St. Petersburg Times, October 10, 2001.
  24. “DoE Looks the Other Way,” St. Petersburg Times, October 7, 2001.
  25. Lona O’Connor, “Control Limited in State Voucher Program,” Sun-Sentinel, October 14, 2001.
  26. “Barriers, Benefits and Costs of Using Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools, Final Report.” U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, 1998, p.p. 44, 50.
  27. “Barriers, Benefits and Costs of Using Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools, Final Report.” U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, 1998, p.50.
  28. PFAWF/NAACP Administrative Complaint to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, February 2, 1999, p. 3.
  29. Correspondence from Charlie Toulmin, Administrator, Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program, Department of Public Instruction, to Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program Administrators/Principals regarding PFAWF/NAACP’s February 2, 1999 Administrative Complaint to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, February 9, 1999.
  30. PFAWF/NAACP Administrative Complaint to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, August 19, 1999.
  31. With regard to PFAWF’s Complaint findings regarding voucher students right to be excused from participating in religious activities, DPI did not disagree with the substance of the Complaint, but found “no probable cause” on the grounds that because DPI had not issued detailed instructions on compliance and that “the law on this point is less developed than in the areas of random selection and student fees,” the Department will try to clarify the record but will refrain from making probable cause conclusions of violations on this section of the complaint. However, it did note that the voucher program “may not be appropriate for all religious schools” if they are unable to exempt a student from religious activities. With regard to the affidavit regarding the Oklahoma Lutheran school cited above, DPI states: “It thus appears that Oklahoma Avenue Lutheran may fall into that category which if a parent chose to exempt his or her child from all such defined activities, no true private school program would remain for that child. The department believes this school should be given an opportunity to further consider this point and review whether it should attempt to define religious activity in its curriculum so parents may have a choice.” State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s initial determination on probable cause Re: NAACP Milwaukee and PFAWF August 19, 1999 Complaint. April 28, 2000, pp. 19, 40-42.
  32. Agreement between Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and Marquette University High School re: August 19, 1999 People For the American Way Foundation/NAACP Complaint, August 2000, p. 4.
  33. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, MPSCP Facts and Figures for 1999-2000, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dfm/sms/mpcfnf99.html .
  34. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI), Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, MPSCP Facts and Figures for 2000-2001, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dfm/sms/mpcfnf00.html
  35. As of the 2000-2001 school year, there were 7 high schools participating in the voucher program and two schools providing K4-12 education. (Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program - Participating Private Schools, 2000-2001 School Year, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dfm/sms/schlst00.html ). The combined enrollment for these 9 schools for the 1999-2000 school year is 895 (Number of Choice Students Enrolled by School in 1999-2000, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dfm/sms/schnos99.html). Assuming that one fourth of the students in the high schools and approximately 1/13 of the two K4-12 students graduated, that would equal about 170 students.
  36. Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Fifth Year Report, John Witte, December 1995, p. 9.
  37. Edward Fiske and Helen Ladd, “The Voucher Debate After Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: The Need to Focus on Core Education Issues,” Education Reform, Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, available at http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/child/briefs/Vouchers%20after%20Zelman.pdf.
  38. “Will There be Room in Collier Private Schools for Voucher Students?” Naples Daily News, February 13, 2000.
  39. “Vouchers Beyond Reach of Many Students,” Miami Herald, March 21, 1999.
  40. “House Panel Approves Vouchers,” Miami Herald, February 21, 2001.
  41. “Private Schools Spurn Tuition Voucher Plan: Reduced Tuition and More Governmental Control Lessen the Program’s Appeal to Private Educators,” Miami Herald, April 18, 2000.
  42. “The Voucher Experiment: A Matter of Choice? That Depends,” St. Petersburg Times, October 19, 1998.
  43. “Vouchers Beyond Reach of Many Students,” Miami Herald, March 21, 1999.
  44. Budget Brief: Are Vouchers the Way to Improve California’s Schools? California Budget Project, August 2000, p. 2; Facts At A Glance. No on Prop. 38 Campaign, April 2001, Available at http://www.noVouchers2000.com/h/facts_at_a_glance.html
  45. Clint Bolick, “Recent Developments” memo, Institute For Justice, 9/22/97. Emphasis added.
  46. “Single-sex Schools OK in Choice Plan, DPI Now Says,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/31/98; Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program, Letter from State Superintendent John T. Benson, RE: Milwaukee Parental Choice—Student Rights
  47. Wis. Stat. 118.13.
  48. “Church/State Complexities,” Rethinking Schools, Volume 14, No. 2, Winter 1999.
  49. Press Release from the Office of State Rep. Christine Sinicki. “Sinicki Anti-Discrimination Law Could Pass in Budget,” June 13, 2001; Correspondence from Office of State Rep. Christine Sinicki, June 13, 2001. Legislative Fiscal Bureau, “2001-03 Wisconsin State Budget: Comparative Summary Of Budget Provisions,” July 25, 2001. See section “Education and Building Program,” pp. 132-134. Available at: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2001-03budgedocuments/ConferenceCommittee/ConferenceCommittee.htm, accessed July 27, 2001.
  50. “Committee Rejects Cut in School Vouchers,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 31, 2001; Motion #883: Public Instruction—Choice, Charter and Open Enrollment, introduced by Senator Russ Decker, May 2001.
  51. “Race and Public/Private Schools in Milwaukee,” Rethinking Schools, Winter 1999/2000, p. 23.
  52. The Civil Rights Project, Press Release, “Religious Private Schools Most Segregated in the U.S.,” The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, June 25, 2002.
  53. The court-ordered desegregation guideline determined that schools should be within 15% of the citywide average demographic, which is 70.4% African American. Schools with a student body between 55-85% African-American students would be in compliance. Using the data from the study seeking to prove greater integration (“Choice and Community: The Racial, Economic and Religious Context of Parental Choice in Cleveland,” by Jay P. Greene for the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions: Columbus, OH, November 1999), approximately 43% of public school students attend schools that fit this category, whereas only 11% of the voucher students do. For a complete analysis of the claims of increased racial integration in voucher schools, see “Apples vs. Oranges: A Critique of Two Flawed Studies of Vouchers & Integration,” by Elliot M. Mincberg and Dwight R. Holmes, People For The American Way Foundation, December 23, 1999. Citation: pp. 2-3.
  54. Sean F. Reardon, “Vouchers, Private Schools and Segregation,” Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2002.
  55. Piet van Lier and Caitlin Scott, “Fewer Choices, Longer Commutes for Black Voucher Students,” Catalyst: For Cleveland Schools, October/November 2001.
  56. “Educational Vouchers: Effectiveness, Choice and Costs,” Henry M. Levin, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, 373-392 (1998), p. 379.
  57. ibid, p. 381.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious