School Choice or Best Systems_ What Improves Education_ - Margaret C. Wang [20]
Table 3-1 PUBLIC VOUCHER PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES, ENROLLMENT AND NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS IN 2004-05
SOURCE: “ABCs of School Choice, 2005-06 Edition,” Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation, updated May 24, 2006. NOTE: N.A. means not available. *The Utah Carson Smith Scholarship Program began in 2005-06.
Program Enrollment Number of Schools
Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program 5,675 N.A.
Florida A+ Opportunity Scholarships 763 N.A.
Florida McKay Scholarships 15,910 703
Maine Town Tuitioning Program 6,052 N.A.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program 15,035 118
Ohio Autism Scholarship Program 270 92
Utah Carson Smith Scholarships* 138 13
Vermont Town Tuitioning Program 4,445 N.A.
Washington, DC, Opportunity Scholarships 1,733 62
Total 36,521 N.A.
Unlike some other countries, the United States has no universal K-12 voucher programs currently in operation, though such a program was passed in Utah in early 2007. Most of the established programs are means tested and operate in cities where greater numbers of students and higher population densities make school choice more practical and where low-performance public schools are a well-recognized problem.
During the 2004-05 school year, public voucher programs operated in six states and the District of Columbia and enrolled approximately 36,000 students in nearly 1,000 schools or tutoring programs (see Table 3-1). Private voucher programs enrolled approximately 50,000 students in 79 programs in 2001.1 Most private voucher programs require that applicant families be government defined as poor, and families often pay part of the tuition, typically $500 annually. Notable private programs include the San Antonio HORIZON program; the School Choice Scholarship Foundation in New York City; Parents Advancing Choice in Education in Dayton, Ohio; the Washington Scholarship Fund in Washington, DC; and the Children’s Scholarship Fund in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Controversies over Vouchers
Some proponents of education vouchers predicted that they would improve the academic achievement of students attending choice schools while also making all schools more productive and desirable. Competition, they argued, brings out the best in people and organizations, not only because it appeals to entrepreneurs who aim to profit, but also because people want to innovate, earn the esteem of others, and excel in their pursuits. Competitors provide benchmarks against which to measure individual efforts and also invaluable lessons in what and what not to do. Proponents of vouchers also argued that allowing parents to choose the schools their children attend would encourage parents to participate in their children’s schooling, which, in turn, is positively related to student learning.
Opponents of vouchers predicted that there would be no improvement in the academic achievement levels of students attending schools of choice after controlling for differences in student backgrounds and the motivation of parents. Competition, they argued, is inappropriate in education and discourages and hampers good teachers and administrators seeking to work cooperatively for the good of their students. They also warned that parents may be poorly equipped to choose the best schools for their children, that minority children and children with learning disabilities would be left behind, that schools might further racially segregate, and that public schools would suffer from the loss of their best students and financial resources.
Public voucher programs often are opposed by public school boards, teachers’ unions, and other public-sector unions that benefit from the status quo and fear that school