Myths and Facts About School Vouchers

Endnotes

[1] Zogby International interviewed 1,211 adults and oversampled African-American voters from May 23-30, 2001. The poll was requested by the National School Boards Association. Margin of error is +/- 3% for overall sample, +/- 5.7% for African-Americans.

[2] The “Teachers’ Insurance Plan National Education Survey” was conducted by Opinion Research Corp., which interviewed 1,046 adults by telephone during May 3-6, 2001. Margin of error is +/- 3%.

[3] California data is from Los Angeles Times poll, which interviewed 3,474 voters at 51 precincts. Margin of error is +/- 3%. Michigan data is from a CBS exit poll, which interviewed 1,213 voters in various parts of the state.

[4] Mary Ann Zehr, “Effect of Vouchers on Achievement Unclear, GAO Says,” Education Week, October 10, 2001.

[5] Kim Metcalf, “Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program, 1998-2000: Technical Report.” Bloomington IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation, Indiana University, September 2001.

[6] Cecilia Rouse, “Schools and Student Achievement: More Evidence from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, vol. 4, no. 1, March 1998, pp. 61-78. (Pupil-teacher ratios averaged 17.0:1 in the P-5 public schools and 15.3:1 in the voucher schools.)

[7] Gregory Camilli and Katrina Bulkley, “Critique of ‘An Evaluation of the Florida A-­Plus Accountability and School Choice Program,’ ” Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 9, no. 7, March 4, 2001, accessed March 9, 2001; Haggai Kupermintz, "The Effects of Vouchers on School Improvement: Another Look at the Florida Data,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 9, no. 8, March 19, 2001, accessed March 22, 2001.

[8] Martin Carnoy, “Do School Vouchers Improve Student Performance?,” Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2001.

[9] “False Claims about the Threat of Vouchers and School Improvement in Florida,” People for the American Way Foundation, April 2001.

[10] Jay P. Greene, “The Texas School Miracle Is for Real,” City Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, Summer 2000.

[11] Helen F. Ladd, Market-Based Reforms in Urban Education, Economic Policy Institute, 2002.

[12] Data is from a study by the Council of Great City Schools, as reported by Robert C. Johnston, “Test Scores Up in Urban Districts, Report Says,” Education Week, May 30, 2001.

[13] “Punishing Success: The Governor’s Proposed Education Budget in Wisconsin and the SAGE and Voucher Programs,” a report by People For the American Way Foundation, April 2001, p. 1.

[14] Alex Molnar, Philip Smith, and John Zahorik, “1999-2000 Evaluation Results of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program,” Milwaukee, WI: Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, December 2000; Alex Molnar, Philip Smith, and John Zahorik, “1998-99 Results of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program Evaluation,” Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Dec. 1999.

[15] Rhea R. Borja, “Sales Pitch: Go to School in Our District,” Education Week, Feb. 27, 2002.

[16] “Schools or Loopholes?” St. Petersburg Times, editorial published March 1, 2002.

[17] Based on data from “Resources: Adequacy,” one category in “Quality Counts 2002: Building Blocks for Success,” Education Week, January 10, 2000.

[18] “Chronology of the DeRolph case,” The Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, updated as of December 2001.

[19] Doug Oplinger, “Court to State: Spend More, Legislators Balk at Cost,” Akron Beacon Journal, September 7, 2001.

[20] “A Painful Price: How the Milwaukee Voucher Surcharge Undercuts Wisconsin’s Education Priorities,” People For the American Way Foundation, February 14, 2002, p.4.

[21] Zach Schiller, “Cleveland School Vouchers: Where the Students Come From,” September 2001.

[22] Caitlin Scott, “Better District Schools Lose Students to Vouchers,” Catalyst Cleveland, December 2001/January 2002, p. 18-19; published by Catalyst for Cleveland Schools.

[23] ibid, p. 19.

[24] ibid.

[25] American Federation of Teachers, “Doing What Works: Improving Big City School Districts,” No.12, October 2000, Educational Issues Policy Brief.

[26] Craig D. Jerald, “Dispelling the Myth Revisited: Preliminary Findings from a Nationwide Analysis of ‘High-Flying’ Schools,” The Education Trust, December 2001, p. 77-79.

[27] “District Chips Away at Suspensions: Are Schools Calmer?” Catalyst Cleveland, Dec. 2001/Jan. 2002, p. 4.

[28] “PTA Growth Brings Award,” Catalyst Cleveland, December 2001/January 2002, p. 20.

[29] “The Cleveland Voucher Program: Who Chooses? Who Gets Chosen? Who Pays?” A Report by the American Federation of Teachers, 1997, p. ii.

[30] Amy Hanauer, “Cleveland School Vouchers: Where the Students Go,” Policy Matters Ohio, January 2002; the first sentence under the section “Background” notes that there are 50 participating voucher schools, and Table 1 of the report shows that the number of participating secular schools has dropped to three. Thus, 50-3=47.

[31] Simmons-Harris et al v. Zelman, decision filed on December 11, 2000 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2000 FED App. 0411P (6th Cir.). This information can be found in the 5th paragraph under Section I of the decision.

[32] “Five Years and Counting: A Closer Look at the Cleveland Voucher Program,” People For the American Way Foundation, September 25, 2001.

[33] Simmons-Harris et al v. Zelman, decision filed on December 11, 2000 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2000 FED App. 0411P (6th Cir.). This information can be found in the 5th paragraph under Section I of the decision.

[34] Simmons-Harris et al v. Zelman, decision filed on December 11, 2000 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2000 FED App. 0411P (6th Cir.). In Section II, the court writes: “The courts do not make educational policy … The design or specifics of a program intended to remedy the problem of failing schools and to rectify educational inequality must be reserved to the states and the school boards within them, with one caveat … the determinations of states and school boards cannot infringe upon the necessary separation between church and state.”

[35] “Five Years and Counting: A Closer Look at the Cleveland Voucher Program,” People For the American Way Foundation, September 25, 2001.

[36] Doug Oplinger and Dennis J. Willard, “Vouchers Costing Ohio,” Akron Beacon Journal, March 27, 1998. Part of the Akron Beacon Journal investigative series “Whose Choice?” culminating five years of investigative reporting by the two authors.

[37] Michael Hawthorne, “State Aid to Private Schools Up: Public Districts Feel Slighted,” Cincinnati Enquirer, March 29, 1998.

[38] “Enrollment Booms, But Buildings Implode,” The Blade, September 1, 2001.

[39] According to Milwaukee public schools data, there were approximately 160 schools in the 1999-2000 school year. During the same school year, there were 1,934 students in the Milwaukee voucher program who had been enrolled at one of the city’s public schools the prior year, according to State of Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction. Based on this data, an average of only 12 students per school left the Milwaukee public schools to accept vouchers—a figure that repudiates the claim that vouchers lower the operating costs of public schools. (SOURCE: “Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program: Milwaukee Parental School Choice Facts and Figures for 1999-2000,” accessed February 24, 2000.

[40] “Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Final Management Study,” Prepared by KPMG LLP, September 9, 1999, p. 9-5.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious