When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

                           Benjamin Franklin

  ARL in the News

  ARL Goes to Court

  Journal/Newsletter -
  The Voice of Reason

  ARL Publications

  ARL Articles

         Vouchers 1
         Vouchers 2
         That Wall
         Public Ed

  About ARL

  Contact ARL

  Join ARL

  Main Page


Americans for Religious Liberty:

Article - School Vouchers: Give us your Money!

By Edd Doerr

A November 1998 report from the U.S. Department of Education merits wide attention. Mr. Doerr explains why.

ON 3 NOVEMBER 1998 the U.S. Department of Education released its final report on Barriers, Benefits, and Costs of Using Private Schools to Alleviate Overcrowding in Public Schools. The study was ordered by the Republican-controlled Congress in September 1996. The findings of the 145-page report can be rather succinctly summarized as "Give us your money and someof your kids, but not your rules."

Although this carefully researched report is intended to deal primarily with the subject of its title, it bears so importantly and directly on the campaign by the Religious Right and its secular allies to get tax support for sectarian and other private schools through vouchers or other means that its findings merit wide attention.

The basic premise of this study is that nonpublic schools, "in exchange for tuition reimbursement," might be used to relieve overcrowding in large urban areas. The 22 urban areas studied were Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Dade County (Miami, Florida), Dallas, Detroit, Duval County (Jacksonville, Florida), El Paso, Houston, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Portland (Oregon), San Antonio, and San Diego. These cities were selected from among 34 large-enrollment school districts because they had the worst overcrowding problems.

Following is a summary of the report's major findings.

Some 3,000 nonpublic schools enroll 774,000 students in the 22 urban communities - about 16% of all students in those areas, compared with less than 11% nationally.

Catholic schools enroll 57% of nonpublic students in the 22 urban areas, while 30% are enrolled in a variety of other denominational schools, and 13% are enrolled in nonsectarian schools.

Minority students amount to 43% of the nonpublic school enrollment in the 22 cities, compared with 22% in nonpublic schools nationwide. That 43% is still well short of the 82% minority enrollment in the 22 cities’ public schools.

Urban nonpublic schools reject 17% of the students who apply for admission, in stark contrast to public schools, which accept all students. Unmentioned in the report is the fact that a private school’s religious orientation largely determines who applies in the first place. Christian families are unlikely to seek to enroll their children in Jewish or Muslim schools; Catholic families are unlikely to try to enroll their children in fundamentalist schools, and so on.

Most denominational schools (86%), according to the report, would not admit voucher-student transfers from public schools if they were required to exempt the students from religious instruction or activities. The executive director of Christian Schools International (Christian Reformed or Calvinst schools) said his schools "would not allow the exemption because every class is permeated with a Christian religious viewpoint." Carl Moser of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod said that Lutheran schools could not accept exemption because of their commitment to "maintaining our mission and our spiritual nature, which permeate our total school program." Rev. Bill Davis of the U.S. Catholic Conference said that exemption "strikes at the very nature of what a Catholic school is all about." Ageib Bilal of the council of Islamic Schools in North America said that, in Muslim schools, "religious instruction is mandatory," though "participation in religious activities could be optional."

(One small flaw in the report deserves mention. The report ignores the question of denominational schools’ using creedal and lifestyle criteria in hiring and dismissing teachers, a fairly common practice. It also fails to note that one reason nonpublic schools appear to be cheaper to operate is that they pay teachers less and provide them with fewer benefits.)

In addition to their unwillingness to exempt public school transfer students from religious instruction and activities, most nonpublic schools use admission processes not permitted by public schools. Three-fourths require written applications; 73%, student discipline records; 77%, interviews with students; 87%, interviews with parents; 58%, standardized achievement tests; and 74%, "ability to perform at grade level." Clearly, with a 17% rejection rate on top of "admissions considerations," nonpublic schools practice "skimming" to get "better" students and keep out problem students, whom public schools must generally admit.

Further, 73% of nonpublic schools are "definitely" (46%) or "probably" (27%) not interested in accepting "special-needs" children - children with physical or mental problems or disabilities, who must be accepted by public schools.

The bottom line, which nonpublic schools make abundantly clear, is that about 92% of them would be willing to accept the transfer of students from overcrowded urban public schools only if they were allowed to maintain their current admissions, curriculum, and religious instruction/activity policies. In other words, "Give us your money, through vouchers, and some of your kids - the ones we attract or choose to admit - but don't give us any rules!"


The preceding adds up to a pretty solid case against school vouchers or using nonpublic schools to alleviate public school overcrowding. Obviously, playing the game with the nonpublic schools’ rules would skim some of the "more desirable" students from public schools and increase the percentage of expensive-to-educate students - disciplinary problems and those with special needs - in public schools. But there is more.

Paul Hill of the University of Washington conducted a study for the U.S. Department of Education in 1998 on the costs of transferring students from public to nonpublic schools. His estimate, which includes tuition, registration and other fees, transportation, categorical program services, and administrative costs and evaluations, comes to $4,575 per student per year.

Hill's report also presents a blizzard of problems facing any program that uses tax-paid vouchers to transfer public school students to nonpublic schools. Here are a few of them: Would vouchers apply only to low-income or to all students? How would students be assigned to specific nonpublic schools? Would transfer students become private school students or remain public school students? What happens to students and schools if the overcrowding of public schools ceases? Do the students return to public schools? Would all students in an overcrowded district be eligible for vouchers, or only those in individual crowded schools? How much government supervision, if any, would accompany the vouchers? How would a transfer program affect students already attending nonpublic schools? Could we have nonpublic classes in which a third of the students got vouchers and tax-paid transportation while their classmates did not? What criteria would nonpublic schools have to meet to qualify to participate in the transfer program? How do you deal with the fact that some cities experience overcrowding only in elementary schools while others experience it only in secondary schools?

Near its conclusion Hill's report notes, understatedly, that there are those who view a voucher plan to relieve public school overcrowding as "a test case for a more comprehensive private school voucher program."

The Department of Education report on using private schools to alleviate overcrowding ends with a consideration of constitutional issues, its weakest section. Even though it shows the pervasively sectarian nature of most nonpublic schools, it cautiously avoids taking a clear stand that school vouchers would violate the First Amendment. Curiously, it also makes no reference to the state constitutions, most of which clearly forbid direct or indirect tax aid to religious schools.

Though its conclusion is somewhat ambiguous and weak, the Department of Education report itself is a powerful argument against school vouchers or using nonpublic schools to alleviate public school overcrowding. In the case of vouchers, the remedy is worse than the disease. It would harm public education, spur social fragmentation, subsidize sectarian indoctrination, dilute public control over public spending, cost a great deal of money that could be better spent building new public schools and rehabilitating old ones, further entangle religion and politics, and create a gigantic administrative nightmare. Vouchers, under whatever rationale, are one can of worms best left unopened.

EDD DOERR is president of Americans for Religious Liberty. This article appeared in the Phi Delta Kappan, June 1999.

Americans for Religious Liberty - P.O.Box 6656 - Silver Spring, MD 20916
Telephone: 301-460-1111 - Email: arlinc@verizon.net