From Foresight, Vol. 9, No. 4
published 2003
Even its harshest critics would agree that KERA proved Kentucky’s willingness to make dramatic, systemic change in its schools. With school vouchers, used by parents to purchase education at schools of their choice, including private ones, we enter a new arena of political and policy debate. Here, we examine the issues that would have to be addressed for such a system to be put in place—not whether Kentucky should adopt a voucher system. Indeed, what follows is more primer than comprehensive overview, touching on some of the major considerations behind the possibility, feasibility, and popularity of a voucher system in Kentucky.
First and perhaps foremost, any move toward a voucher program will have to begin with interest, support, and some degree of consensus from the general public. Any movement demands a push. Such a push would almost certainly arise in response to the miserable performance of public school districts, such as what occurred in Cleveland. As dissatisfaction over schools builds, so too does the pressure on legislators to address problems. If such problems become widespread here, some lawmakers will undoubtedly view vouchers as a potential solution to the inadequacies of public schools. In Kentucky, however, the adoption of a voucher system faces a number of hurdles.
While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Cleveland’s voucher program did not violate the U.S. Constitution, voucher systems also must pass muster at the level of state constitutions. Given that parochial schools dominate Cleveland’s private school market, the majority of the public money financing vouchers there ultimately goes to religious organizations, what opponents view as a clear encroachment on the separation of church and state.(1) By a 5-4 majority, however, the U.S. Supreme Court refuted this claim, stating that since the government gives vouchers to parents, not directly to private schools, church and state remain separate, a point hotly disputed in the dissenting opinions.
A similar debate would almost certainly arise over the constitutionality of a voucher system in Kentucky. Among the Commonwealth’s certified, nonpublic schools, roughly 90 percent have religious affiliations, and among the few private schools without a religious affiliation, 18 of the 22 are located in Louisville, Lexington, and Fort Knox, leaving just 4 to serve the rest of the state.(2) As in Cleveland, a voucher program in Kentucky would effectively subsidize tuition at religious schools, and Section 189 of the Kentucky Constitution—in place since 1891—appears to close the door on the matter.
No portion of any fund or tax now existing, or that may hereafter be raised or levied for educational purposes, shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school.
Were such a program to allow any nonpublic school to participate, either the State Supreme Court would have to find that vouchers do not violate Section 189 of the Kentucky Constitution, or the state’s constitution would have to be amended. Further, were a voucher system that excluded religiously affiliated schools established, most of the state’s public school students would not benefit from its presumed benefits as they do not live anywhere near an eligible private school.
In an effort to prevent potential clashes between parochial schools and voucher-eligible parents (and the U.S. Constitution), the Cleveland program stipulates that participating parochial schools cannot teach prejudice nor hatred toward anyone and that all participating schools must accept students of all religions. Opponents of vouchers, including four of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, argue that such provisions invite social unrest in two primary ways: parochial schools might potentially be forced to alter what they teach; and the government might be forced to get involved in the workings of these religious organizations to ensure compliance with the law. In his dissent, Justice Breyer asserted, "It is difficult to imagine a more divisive activity than the appointment of state officials as referees to determine whether a particular religious doctrine teaches hatred or advocates lawlessness."(3) Those crafting a voucher plan in Kentucky would have to thoughtfully address the matters of which rules would be imposed upon parochial schools, who would monitor schools’ compliance, and how infractions would be remedied.
Milton Friedman, who originally proposed public funding for private schooling back in 1955, insisted that vouchers should be "available to all students, and free of excessive regulations," not merely offered exclusively to poor children in poorly performing public schools.(4) But poverty and poor school performance seemed to inform the decisions of the five Supreme Court justices who okayed Cleveland’s program. The ruling explained that all parents are entitled to educational options for their children, but because poor parents don’t have the options of wealthier parents, vouchers help level the playing field.
Would a program in Kentucky have to follow suit to remain constitutional? Elsewhere, parents in higher-income brackets have begun to contest their ineligibility for vouchers, claiming the exclusion to be biased in favor of low-income families and thus unconstitutional. One could reasonably expect a similar battle to ensue in our state were a school voucher program adopted. Ultimately, Kentucky would have to determine what criteria vouchers would have to meet in order to comply with its constitution.
Clearly, the success of a voucher program would hinge largely on the number and capacity of participating schools. Thus far, voucher programs have allowed private schools to choose for themselves whether they will, in fact, accept voucher students. If so few private schools participated in the program—or if there are so few openings in participating schools—that only a small percentage of students actually got to use the vouchers available to them, the system would have been created in vain.
But even if private schools were to widely accept vouchers, those schools only have so many empty desks they can fill. About 10 percent of school-age children in Kentucky attend private schools, accommodating only a fraction of the state’s school children. In existing voucher programs, the potential for eligible students to be shut out of participating schools has already sparked battles over how schools pick which students to accept. These same questions would likely loom over a voucher program here as well. First come, first served? A lottery system? Poorest children first? And what say would schools have over which voucher students they would accept?
Providing vouchers to students in a given community won’t do much good if they live in places with very few private schools. In fact, 33 of Kentucky’s 120 counties have only one private school, and 22 counties don’t have any.(5) Not surprisingly, the three counties with the highest populations—Jefferson, Fayette, and Kenton—also lead the state in the number of private schools they hold, accounting for 46 percent of all private schools in the state. The possibility remains that vouchers might be unusable in the counties that need them the most. And if a town’s participating private schools are not only predominantly parochial but also exclusively so, not all parents who qualify for vouchers would want to choose from the available private schooling for their children.
The short supply of private schools and private school openings in much of the state does not preclude the use of vouchers, however. As in the traditional market for goods and services, should demand outstrip supply, entrepreneurial types might tap into a growing demand for private schools and open new schools to take advantage of the financial opportunities vouchers would offer. This scenario has, in fact, already played out in Milwaukee, where a voucher program has been in place since the late 1980s. For the 1990-91 school year, 112 private schools operated within Milwaukee public school district boundaries. By the end of the decade, that number grew to 172 schools.(6) While the number of private schools increased 50 percent during this 10-year period, Milwaukee’s population actually dropped by 2 percent.
Ultimately, however, the possibility and probability of a jump in Kentucky’s private school supply will be affected largely by the value of the vouchers, combined with the number and location of voucher-eligible students. A small pool of students and vouchers that failed to meet real costs would undermine the incentive and increase the risks of starting new schools.
The lack of private schools in some parts of the state could also be partially counterbalanced by allowing the use of voucher money to fund home schooling. Wisconsin law does not regard home schools as private schools, making parents who educate their children at home ineligible to participate in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. But according to the Kentucky Department of Education, "home schools are considered to be nonpublic schools. The laws relating to nonpublic schools also apply to home schools."(7) In that light, one could argue that home schoolers should be allowed to participate in a voucher program. The demand would certainly be there. Though 22 counties have no private schools, children receive home schooling in all 120 counties, and 47 counties actually have more home-schooled children than they do privately schooled ones.
As with any publicly funded program, and particularly in light of the state’s current budgetary shortfall, the financing of a voucher system would directly affect the state’s capacity to provide adequate assistance in offsetting the cost of private school tuition. Milwaukee awards vouchers worth more than $5,000 each. Cleveland’s are worth $2,250, considered so modest that only poor, subsidized private schools have agreed to accept them.(8) These "modest" vouchers, used by roughly 3,700 students, will add up to over $8 million this year. How much would Kentucky be willing, let alone be able, to set aside for vouchers? The state currently spends, on average, about $7,600 per student in its public schools.(9) How much would it spend per voucher? Would the money come out of public school funding or from some other sources? Thousands of students spending thousands of dollars would add up to millions in no time.
Though publicly funded private school vouchers could become a reality in Kentucky, they will spin a complex web of issues. Between the state’s constitutional snarl and budgetary headaches, a voucher program would face significant judicial, legislative, and financial wrangling. At the same time, the practicality of a voucher system will depend in part upon the quantity and quality of private schools in the state. With so few private schools in so many counties, the emergence of new schools and the inclusion of home schools may be determining factors in whether a voucher system could equitably meet the needs of students and address the concerns of parents.
The greatest challenges will be in determining the criteria for eligibility, the monetary value of each voucher, the sources for funding, and the fail-safe provisions for sustaining public schools that lose funding to vouchers. Policymakers and private citizens will have to consider the promises and pitfalls of redirecting public funding toward private schools and, for the time being, stretching already tight budgets even further in an environment of competing interests. Regardless of how individuals feel about vouchers, such programs won’t easily come to fruition. For those who have yet to decide whether they would want school vouchers in Kentucky, the next few years will likely see more programs emerge around the country. The experiences of these programs should provide a clearer picture of how this education strategy affects student achievement, school performance, and public finance.
* Mr. Schirmer is a research assistant with the Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center. Return to text.
1 In Cleveland, approximately 96 percent of voucher recipients attend religious schools. When factoring in community and magnet schools, and public school children who receive tutoring, these children represent only about 20 percent of the children in nontraditional schooling. Return to text.
2 KLTPRC analysis of data from the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE), KDE Web site, 17 Jan. 2003, 27 Jan. 2003 http://www.kde.state.ky.us/KDE/About+Schools+and+DistrictsCertified+Non-Public+Schools.htm. Return to text.
3 "Excerpts From the Decision Sanctioning Vouchers for Private Schools," New York Times on the Web 28 June 2002, 28 June, 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/national/28VTEX.html. Return to text.
4 Friedman Foundation Web page, 29 July 2002 http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/. Return to text.
5 KDE data. Return to text.
6 Data supplied by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction via e-mail from Merry M. Larsen, a School Administration Consultant with DPI, 10 Oct. 2002. Return to text.
7 KDE, "Kentucky Home School Requirements and Information," KDE Web site, 17 Jan. 2003, 27 Jan. 2003 http://www.kde.state.ky.us/KDE/About+Schools+and+Districts/Kentucky+Home+School+Requirements.htm. Return to text.
8 Jacques Steinberg, "The Supreme Court: The Reaction; Voucher Backers See Opening for a Wider Agenda," New York Times 28 June 2002, A24. Return to text.
9 "Resources: Adequacy," Education Week on the Web 10 Jan. 2002, 27 Jan. 2003 http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/resources-t1.htm. Return to text.