VICTORY FOR VOUCHERS
June 27, 2002

The Supreme Court rules public money can be used to underwrite tuition at religious schools. Background Report

 

June 27, 2002: Update: The Supreme Court rules public funds can pay for private school tuition. Feb. 20, 2002: Two views on the school voucher argument before the Supreme Court. Sept. 2, 1999: The two sides of the Cleveland school voucher debate. Nov. 27, 1998: The debate over school vouchers in Texas. Nov. 9, 1998: The high court decides not to take a Wisconsin school voucher case. April 29, 1998: A proposed school voucher program for the District of Columbia. NewsHour coverage of Youth and Education issues.   News for Students: Examining education reform.     The U.S. Supreme Court US Department of Education The Institute for Justice The American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of Teachers	GWEN IFILL: For more on the ramifications of today's decision, we're joined by: Howard Fuller, chairman of the Black Alliance for Educational Options-- he was the superintendent of Milwaukee Schools in the early 1990s; and Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers. GWEN IFILL: Mr. Fuller, was today a brick in the wall falling out of the wall between church and state, as the justice wrote in the dissent?
	Church and state still separate
	HOWARD FULLER: No, I don't think so. I think that what we have is a continuance, as Justice O'Connor said, of policies that have been around for a long time. I've never understood why it is that people feel comfortable and think it's okay for people to use a Pell Grant, but they don't want low-income parents in Cleveland or Milwaukee to have the same options. I think what we have here is an opportunity that has been given to low-income parents to have some of the choices that those of us with money in America have had for a long time. GWEN IFILL: Sandra Feldman, same question to you: church and state intact? SANDRA FELDMAN: Well, I think that the decision was not unexpected coming from the court, but it does, I think, take us to a very different place, and one in which we do have to worry about whether or not we're going to be able to continue the improvement effort in our public schools, in which we've had rising achievement now over several years, because of standards-based reform. And one of the things that we're concerned about - Mr. Fuller talks about the Pell Grants - well, when Pell Grants were being used for proprietary schools that were basically ripping students off, the government had to step in and put in accreditation standards, and so what we'll be looking for in the instance of potential increases in voucher programs will be whether or not these programs are accountable to the public and whether or not they adhere to the standards in the states just as public schools have to. But I also feel that we're not going to have a great proliferation of voucher programs. That the American people believe in their public schools; they want them to be improved, and every time they've had an opportunity to vote, they have voted against vouchers and for public schools. GWEN IFILL: Let's just talk for a moment about this Cleveland program that the court ruled on today. The court said this was a religion neutral program because it gives people - it gives parents the opportunities to go to a non-religion school if they choose. SANDRA FELDMAN: Well, I think the court was confused about these other schools. 96 percent - over 96 percent of the children who are using vouchers in Cleveland are going to religious schools. The schools that the court was talking about is providing choice are indeed schools of choice; they are public schools. And you know we do have a lot of choice in the public school systems. They are basically charter schools, other public schools, and so we did not have a situation, for example, where suburban school districts were opting into the program, where children could take that voucher and go to a suburban school. They were very limited in their choice; they were limited basically to the religious schools, so I think the court is mistaken. GWEN IFILL: Howard Fuller, I want to give you a chance to respond. Justice Rehnquist said today that this was about true private choice, this Cleveland program. Do you agree with that? HOWARD FULLER: That's correct. I don't think the justices were confused. I think they clearly understood that there was a range of options that were available to the children in Cleveland, and there are a range of options available in Milwaukee, but I want to say to Sandra Feldman that I wish she would come to Milwaukee and see the improvements that have occurred in Milwaukee public schools and listen to the people who have said - including the superintendent of Milwaukee public schools and board members, who attributed those improvements to the Milwaukee pro choice program. And I would also ask her to come with us, join with us and talk to her brethren in the NEA and tell them not to oppose the longitudinal study that we have called for so that we can, in fact, give the information to people in the city of Milwaukee who are interested in knowing what is happening in these schools. We are prepared to voluntarily take the same tests that people take in the Milwaukee public schools. We just want to do it in a way that does not bring about excessive government entanglement, because she knows that there's an issue of excessive government entanglement when you put too many rules and regulations, including mandatory testing, on programs, so we're prepared to do this on a voluntary basis.
	Testing voucher students
	GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that voucher programs or school choice programs are good for public schools? HOWARD FULLER: I'm suggesting that we have two things: public education in America and a system that delivers public education. We should not equate the system with the concept of public education. And the fact that we have now an opportunity to allow a financial mechanism to allow students to go to schools and they work for them is in the public interest. And I think what we have here really is redefining the nature of public education and public education cannot be confined merely to the system that currently delivers it. GWEN IFILL: Well, Ms. Feldman, that raises an interesting question. Are we talking about what's good for the students here or what's good for the school system here? SANDRA FELDMAN: Well, I think we're always going to be talking about what's good for the students. And the fact of the matter is that it is true that the Milwaukee public school system has gotten quite a bit better, as has the school system in Hartford, Connecticut, and in Chicago, in Baltimore. We are - in the states now we have standards-based reform. We have an accountability system in most states, which does include testing, publishing the test results, looking at the performance of schools. And it is that standards-based reform, which has helped improve the Milwaukee public schools, including some additional investment. But the children in the voucher system in Milwaukee or in the voucher schools in Milwaukee, we don't know how well they're doing because they have not been part of the standards, the testing, the accountability system in that state. And so while I'm glad to hear Mr. Fuller say that they're prepared to be scrutinized in that way, we think it ought to be on a regular basis. They have not taken the test that the children in the Milwaukee public schools have taken and they have not been in any way brought under the accountability system and hopefully now they will be so that we can provide parents with real information. GWEN IFILL: Let me let Mr. Fuller respond. HOWARD FULLER: First of all, Sandra Feldman knows very clearly that we have a Wisconsin court that says that parent choice, plus the current requirements, meet the public interest. She also knows that her own union was very clear that the way to kill the program is to bring excessive regulation, because what that will do is cause private schools to get out and then they could take us back to court on excessive government entanglement. What we're saying very clearly is we are prepared to do the testing, the same ones at MPS because most of the schools are already doing the same testing in any event. We're prepared to make that public as part of a ten-year longitudinal program. We would do more than testing. We would look at completion rates, we look at parent satisfaction, we look at attendance rates, we look at value added. We would look at all the things you ought to use to judge a school; we will make that public. What we're saying is we presented that idea three years ago. The people who have opposed it in Wisconsin are the Senate Democrats and the Wisconsin Educational Association, which is an affiliation of the NEA.
	Change for school districts
	GWEN IFILL: Okay, Mr. Fuller, let me - HOWARD FULLER: -so what Ms. Feldman should do is ask them to join with us in doing so and we're prepared to do it. GWEN IFILL: Mr. Fuller, let me attempt to broaden this beyond Wisconsin for a moment. What do you think today's ruling is going to mean for other states, other school jurisdictions? HOWARD FULLER: Well, I agree with Sandra Feldman in the sense that I don't think that this is going to mean that there's going to be a tremendous proliferation of voucher programs, nor should there be. I think what it says is it takes away an argument that she and others have used that programs like this are unconstitutional. At least we no longer have that cloud hanging over the programs, but it's still dependent upon communities to determine whether or not this is something that will work in their particular communities. Some communities may decide that yes, a lot will say no. I don't think that there's going to be any significant push in this country to do that. GWEN IFILL: I have to allow Sandra Feldman a very quick response, we're almost out of time. SANDRA FELDMAN: Well, I'm glad we're in agreement. I also don't think that this is going to create a significant push. I disagree that it's not unconstitutional. I know that the American public does not want taxpayer dollars going to religious education, and if they do go to private and parochial schools and those schools have to be subject to the same kinds of accountability and scrutiny as public schools are. GWEN IFILL: Sandra Feldman and Howard Fuller, thank you both very much. I'm so sorry. We're out of time. Thank you.