June 28, 2002
Friday - 12:50 am

Dr. Joe L. Greene, National President of the American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA):

We are deeply disappointed that our nation's highest court ruled in favor of vouchers in the Cleveland case. By doing so, it missed a great opportunity to strengthen our public school systems. With this decision, the court sends a message to America's youth that their education is not a top priority of their government.

Because the research shows that the public doesn't support vouchers, we don't expect this controversial, split decision not to greatly increase the spread of vouchers. While the ruling does eliminate the federal constitutional argument of conflict of church and state, it is likely to conflict with various state laws.

AFSA is opposed to vouchers because there is no convincing evidence that they succeed in improving student performance. Vouchers are destructive to our country's public schools.

Many of our schools in large, urban areas are badly in need of funding for the most fundamental tools for learning that students in more affluent areas already enjoy. Vouchers divert taxpayer monies from public schools to private schools. At a time when so many of our schools are in need, we must not cut public school funding. Rather, we should ensure that spending for public education continues and grows so that no child, no matter his or her race, religion or socio-economic status, will be left behind.

American tax dollars should continue to go to public schools, not the private sector. Plain and simple, vouchers are taxpayer-subsidized privatization of public education. Public schools are accountable to the citizens they serve and subject to the laws of the land. Private schools are accountable to no one and are not subject to the same laws as public schools.

This is a sad day for public education in our country and for America's schoolchildren. Today our highest judicial body said 'No' to quality, free public school education, and 'Yes' to privatizing our children's education with vouchers.

Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi, Executive Director, National Association of Secondary School Principals:

Unfortunately, as is often the case in the educational reform policy arena, there is a serious disconnect between the issues which need to be dealt with and the solutions put forth. To that point, today's ruling by the Supreme Court on the Cleveland vouchers program is very disappointing and could prove to be quite damaging to America's public and private education system in years to come. Too many public officials and policy gurus advance vouchers as the "silver bullet" to improve America's public schools, but in reality, vouchers may hurt both public and private schools.

To many, the idea of vouchers may sound good initially but is quickly deflated when carefully analyzed. Every state, given the choice of vouchers on state ballot initiatives, has overwhelmingly voted it down. Consider the reality that approximately 46 million students are currently enrolled in America's public elementary and secondary schools. Private and parochial schools accommodate about 6 million students. A simple mathematical exercise will immediately point out that the numbers don't work! In effect, a voucher system, regardless of the amount of money provided, can only accommodate a minimal number of public school students. To think of vouchers as a credible solution to the problems of public education is to disregard most of America's students. In Cleveland it proves false by the fact that the majority of students receiving vouchers were already attending private institutions, with 96 percent of those institutions being religious schools.

To be clear, opposition to vouchers does not demean the outstanding hard work and accomplishments that are evident in our nation's private and parochial schools. Rather, this is an issue of fairness, equity and the reality that any diversion of public funds will negatively affect the majority of public school students who are left behind.

States are required to provide a free and public education for each child. The operative words here are free, public and required, and the mandate is a commitment to access and equity in elementary and secondary education. Most private and parochial schools use various tests and/or admissions procedures in selecting students, which, if continued under a publicly funded vouchers system, would constitute an unfair and unjust situation. Public schools accept all children, regardless of academic readiness, race, socio-economic status, limited English proficiency or special education needs. Therein lies the power of the public system of education - it is truly public!

Over the years, the public education system in this country has fought some long, hard battles to ensure educational equity for student populations often ignored and discriminated against. Are private and parochial schools ready to make the same commitment to educating all students? Are they prepared to be held accountable for the use of public voucher dollars? A voucher system utilizing public funds should never be allowed to discriminate against special needs students.

And what impact will vouchers have on the mission of private and parochial schools? Most likely, the initial reaction of private and parochial schools to vouchers would be positive: more students and more fiscal resources. But, it can be predicted that over time, as more public dollars are spent to support voucher students, there will be increased pressure for greater public scrutiny and accountability for these public expenditures. Private and parochial schools are an important part of the heritage and future of American education. Slowly but surely, vouchers will force these schools to become less private and less parochial - the very reason for their existence.

Proponents of vouchers say that public schools will become more competitive and more accountable operating within a voucher system that allows students the option to leave. The reality is that for every public school student that leaves, districts lose significant dollars that are never replaced. It seems illogical to suggest that school districts, especially urban districts already plagued with significant fiscal problems, will improve as public education funds are removed.

If our national commitment is to educate all children to high standards, then our school reform efforts must include strategies and initiatives that are comprehensive, built upon solid research and designed to serve all the students. Recent reform efforts that show great promise for all students include: establishing high academic standards; aligning curriculum and instruction with established standards and assessments; improving the preparation, induction and career opportunities for school leaders and teachers along with salary increases; ensuring high quality pre-school and early childhood education; increasing parental involvement; implementing rigorous tests to monitor student progress; holding schools accountable (when supported with the necessary resources) for improved student achievement; determining consequences for both successful and failing schools; and financing the poorer school districts in a more equitable manner.

In summary, vouchers lead us away from the basic American tradition of a free, quality public education for every student and undermine the kind of comprehensive, systemic school reform that is working in many parts of the country right now. No one wants to deny students and parents the right to a better school system, but silver bullet solutions for small groups of students is not reform. I remind those who advocate vouchers that the American dream of equity and excellence in education is intended for all students and not the select few that a misguided public policy of school vouchers will serve.

Bob Chase, President, National Education Association:

The National Education Association pledges to continue to fight for children and public education - and oppose divisive and counterproductive proposals to divert energy, attention, and resources to private school tuition vouchers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Cleveland private school voucher case. Just because vouchers may be legal in some circumstances doesn't make them a good idea.

The record is clear that American public schools have improved dramatically - and are continuing to change. Reading and math scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress have increased steadily since 1992, the proportion of high school graduates with a bachelor's degree has grown, and more students are taking advanced math and science and other core academic courses. (See "Good News About Our Public Schools" at
http://www.nea.org/publiced/goodnews.)

Vouchers are a divisive and expensive diversion from continuing progress in these areas.

Make no mistake, vouchers are not reform. If policymakers want to act on the issues that parents care most about - the kitchen table discussions about education opportunity for their children - they will address teacher quality, class size, making sure all schools have high expectations for every child, and providing the resources to help students succeed.

When voters have had an opportunity to choose, they have defeated vouchers by two to one. At least 26 state legislatures have rejected voucher proposals - some of them several times. Last year, at least eight states rejected legislative proposals for vouchers, and several more rejected voucher-like tuition tax credits or tax credits or deductions for scholarships.

Moreover, a 1992 Congressional Research Service report found that aid to sectarian schools is, at a minimum, uncertain in all but 12 states and explicitly prohibited in at least six states.

We will continue to fight for public schools and against vouchers - or related schemes to provide public funds to private and religious schools - at the ballot box, in state legislatures, and in state courts. We will continue this fight in allegiance with the vast majority of American parents who want good schools in their communities. And we will continue this fight with the best interests of children foremost in our minds.

 

George W. Bush, President of the United States:

This landmark ruling is a victory for parents and children throughout America. By upholding the constitutionality of Cleveland's school choice program, the Supreme Court has offered the hope of an excellent education to parents and children throughout our country. This decision clears the way for other innovative school choice programs, so that no child in America will be left behind.

School choice offers proven results of a better education, not only for children enrolled in the specific plan, but also for children whose public schools benefit from the competition. The Milwaukee choice plan, begun in the early 1990s, has resulted in substantially improved reading and math scores for thousands of low-income children. The program has also had a positive impact on the entire public school system, which has responded to competition with better results.

The education reforms we enacted earlier this year give unprecedented new options to parents of children trapped in low performing schools. My budget builds on this Act by adding important new options to empower parents - particularly low-income families - to improve their children's education. I urge Congress to move quickly to build on the momentum generated from this decision to enact my education priorities.

HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson:

I commend the U.S. Supreme Court for its visionary ruling today affirming the constitutionality of school choice in America and putting the needs of children first.

The school choice revolution had its start in Wisconsin, where the children of Milwaukee now have more educational options than any community in the country. Through school choice, Milwaukee parents have the greatest opportunity to make sure their children get the best education possible. It is particularly empowering to low-income families who, without a choice program, do not have financial means to choose a private school if a public school is failing their child.

In Milwaukee, we have found school choice to be empowering for families and communities, contributing to the betterment of the education environment in the city. Schools, both public and private, are now competing to provide children with the best education possible. And parents are taking advantage of choosing the best school for their child.

School choice puts the focus where it belongs: on what's best for the child. The Supreme Court decision upholds that important priority.

Lance T. Izumi, Education Policy Expert, the Pacific Research Institute:

The Supreme Court has rightly recognized that school-choice programs are about empowering parents, not aiding religious institutions. Under school choice, parents make the decision as to where to send their children to school, whether it be an independent or religious private school. This decision will give children, especially poor minority children, the opportunity to receive the high quality education that they need to succeed in life.

 

William Bennett of Empower America:

Today the United States Supreme Court made history. It ruled on the most important education case since Brown v. Board of Education. In its ruling, the right of children in Cleveland to attend schools that offer a quality education, and the right of parents elsewhere to have a choice in the education of their
children, was upheld.

The decision could not have come at a better time. According to our best measure of student performance, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, nearly a third of fourth-graders can not solve basic math problems. In reading, 37 percent of fourth-graders, 26 percent of eighth-graders and 23 percent of seniors scored below basic levels on the National Assessment. Math
scores have increased slightly since 1990, but reading scores essentially have remained stagnant for the past decade. It is time for change.

In Ohio, the numbers are just as bleak. While the entire state of Ohio enjoys a better than 80 percent graduation rate, the city of Cleveland manages only to graduate slightly over 33 percent of their children. Most of those failing 67 percent of children are poor and minority students. They are trapped in a system that continually fails them. The choice program there, begun in 1995, has helped thousands of students to break the bonds of failing schools.

 

David Keene of American Conservative Union:

The Supreme Court's ruling today in the Cleveland school choice case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris will permit those parents whose kids have been forced to attend failing, overly bureaucratic, teacher union-centered public schools, the freedom to choose between another public school or a private institution for their children to attend.

Almost fifty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn't stand in the schoolhouse doors and keep minority children out. Today the Supreme Court said those same government officials can't stand in the doorway and keep minority children in failing public schools.

Parents should have the freedom in America to choose which schools their kids go to, especially when the local public school isn't cutting the mustard.

ACU applauds this Supreme Court decision on this civil rights issue and we expect it will save thousands and thousands of urban children from bad educations in the short-term and equally provide assistance in ending what has become and unfortunate cycle of poverty.

The decision is a ray of hope for those families and students who were previously guaranteed a bleak future by our perpetually failing public school system.

School choice is now the American standard. Giving parents the freedom to choose the destination of their own tax dollars as well as their children's school will help every American, but especially the urban poor. This decision will bring competition to our educational system, and should serve as a wake-up call to a public school system that desperately needs to rethink its priorities. It's clear that improving education for our kids is pretty low on their list of things to do.

 

F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman:

The Supreme Court today upheld Ohio's school choice voucher program. In doing so, it maintained an unbroken line of decisions supporting government programs that are neutral with respect to religion, and which provide assistance to a broad class of citizens who in turn direct government aid to religious organizations (in this case, schools), wholly as a result of their own individual and private choice. The Supreme Court has finally placed its official stamp of approval on the liberating approach to education my state of Wisconsin pioneered many years ago.

There is now not a wisp of cloud hanging over Congress' authority to empower individuals who seek excellence through educational and social services provided by the Nation's people of faith.

H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, which passed the House last year, contained provisions authorizing the administration of a wide array of federal programs through vouchers and other forms of indirect assistance. H.R. 7 defined 'indirect assistance' as 'assistance in which an organization receiving funds through a voucher, certificate, or other form of disbursement ... receives such funding only as a result of the private choices of individual beneficiaries.' Today, the Supreme Court held constitutional precisely those forms of government assistance in which aid is directed to religious organizations as a result of 'private choice.'

I urge the Senate to recognize, as the Supreme Court has today, that government aid through vouchers and other forms of indirect assistance is not only constitutional, but the most promising means toward empowering the most desperate in our Nation to choose the best educational and social services available, including services provided by people of faith.

 

Glen A. Tobias, Anti-Defamation League National Chairman, and Abraham H. Foxman,
ADL National Director:

The Supreme Court's decision to allow state funds to be given to private religious schools is a disappointment and a step backwards for religious liberty in America. However, our opposition to vouchers has never been limited to federal constitutional grounds alone, and we will continue to oppose them on policy and state constitutional grounds.

We view this decision as extremely limited in its impact. The ruling is narrow and applies only to the specific fact pattern presented in Cleveland. While voucher supporters were hoping for a green light for the use of vouchers in a wide range of contexts, that is not what this decision does.

We are confident that legislators and voters will continue to oppose vouchers on policy grounds. Indeed, wherever Americans have had an opportunity to vote on vouchers, they have rejected them outright. Americans support free and fair public education and are uneasy about government funding for religious schooling.

 

Dr. James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family:

We are extremely pleased that the high court has wisely affirmed the authority of America's parents to decide where and how their child will best be educated. This decision is a defining moment for parents in empowering them to make important educational choices central to their children's success.

The Court is to be applauded for placing this responsibility where it belongs rather than with those who are more interested in maintaining a government monopoly.

This ruling is also a victory for schools across America where choice and competition have proved to be a catalyst for positive change. The Court's decision will allow true educational diversity by granting every child, regardless of race or social class, an equal chance to succeed in the classroom. Inner-city children trapped in chronically failing schools will no longer have to be held back by second-class educational opportunities.

We are grateful that the Supreme Court has taken a positive step toward affirming what studies prove is the single most important factor in a child's educational success - the family.

 

John Boehner (R-Ohio) , U.S. House Education & the Workforce Committee Chairman:

The Court's decision is a victory not only for low-income parents and students, but for American education as well. It lays the groundwork for future progress on private school choice and moves us decisively forward in the drive for equal educational opportunity. Education choice not only gives parents of all income levels the chance to choose the best education possible for their children, but also provides a powerful incentive for all schools to strive for high levels of academic achievement.

The greatest threat to America's underachieving schools is that they will be forced to operate under the same low expectations they've been subject to for decades. We can't demand the best from our children if we aren't willing to demand the best from our schools. The decision should encourage state lawmakers around the country to create new school choice programs that offer renewed hope for every parent who wants the best education for their
child.

Study after study continues to show that school choice works, proving that the simple act of giving parents the power to do what they think is best for their children can be a powerful tool in enhancing educational opportunities for disadvantaged students. The Cleveland choice program has proven effective in enhancing academic achievement.

The Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program provides $2,250 scholarships to 4,000 children who may use them at participating private or suburban public schools. No suburban public schools chose to participate, but more than 50 private schools agreed to accept choice students with a tuition cap of $2,500.

The decision by the Supreme Court builds on the new options that parents have under the No Child Left Behind Act, which was signed into law in January by President Bush. The new law allows federal Title I education dollars to go to private, faith-based educational organizations to provide tutoring, after-school learning and other supplemental educational services to low-income students in underachieving public schools. This provision confirms the portability of Title I funds and lays the groundwork for further expansion of parental choice in education.

 

Lisa Graham Keegan, CEO, Education Leaders Council (ELC):

The Supreme Court's decision is warmly welcomed and long overdue - and we applaud the Court for its decisive judgment in what the ELC considers to be one of fundamental civil rights. While the Cleveland program prevailed in the court, there is really one clear winner in today's Supreme Court decision: America's families.

The Supreme Court instinctively understood what opponents of the Cleveland program do not - that education in America is not about particular systems or structures, but students. True educational choice puts the system to work for students, rather than students at the mercy of the system. By allowing states to provide families with vouchers for tuition at religious schools, the Court has helped low-income families assert the right to choose from schools of every type to determine the best educational setting for their child - a fundamental right that more fortunate families already take for granted.

For more than a generation, poor and minority children have been promised equal educational opportunities - and have received only empty but continual reassurances that if families would just wait a little longer, the failing public schools in their neighborhoods would improve with time. Time's up. This decision will allow states to keep a promise made to families a generation ago: the opportunity to attend a school that works.

Many of ELC's member states have already put this promise into practice. We hope that other states will now be bolstered by this decision in their efforts to increase educational options for all families in their states as well. Do not allow obsolete thinking to stand in the way of a child's education. Instead, work to open all schools in your state - public, private, and religious - to all families, and to make that open system work for families. Choosing a decent school for children should be a right, not a reverie.

We are grateful to the Court for its decision and to the men and women who worked so hard to effectively argue this case.

 

Matt Moore, Education Policy Analyst, National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA):

This is great news, not only for the children in Cleveland's school choice program, but for children trapped in failing schools across the country. With this decision, government bureaucrats can no longer claim constitutional protection when they prevent those with the humblest of means from exercising the same choices most middle and upper-income families make.

Cleveland's school choice program wasn't created on a whim. Rather, it was established to address an explicit need caused by one of the biggest educational failures in the country. By all measures, the program has been a success. Thousands of parents are more satisfied with their schools, thousands of children are in classrooms that are more racially integrated and student performance seems to be on the upswing.

Unfortunately, this victory will probably not stop the fight against choice completely. Choice opponents will continue to attack choice using state constitutions, and by lobbying against choice programs in state legislatures using a variety of myths, half-truths and out right lies. At least now, the question of their constitutionality has been resolved once and for all.

Source: News Releases

Post a Comment -------View Comments

Submit an Opinion - Letter

Sitnews
Stories In The News