Elyssa D.

Durant
Social Stratification
Final Exam: Spring 2000

Professor Peter Cookson

Social Stratification
Spring 2000

Running Head: CHRONIC ILLNESS

 Elyssa D. Durant

Guiding Questions

1. How can school vouchers reach a balance between serving the public interest and preserving.
individual freedoms and rights?

2. What additional arguments can be presented for against the use of school vouchers for
parochial schools?

3. How is the issue of school vouchers for sectarian institutions different or similar from issues
surrounding prayer in school?

4. What are the common issues relevant to both Charter schools and voucher programs?

Page 2 of 8
 Elyssa D. Durant

Professor Peter Cookson

Social Stratification
Spring 2000

Since I have serious concerns regarding the long term outcomes of school choice and
voucher programs, exacerbate the inequality between the rich and the poor. Since I believe that
healthcare and education are both social goods, I have serious concerns about letting the free-
market run amok during such a critical point in history. I do not feel it is wise to allow for-profit
market forces to dictate the any public good when natural rights are at stake. The shortcomings
of the Medicaid managed care programs, Medicare supplemental insurance policies, and
demonstration projects such as the privatization of prisons provide sufficient evidence of the
dangers of profit driven corporations in American culture. Corporate scandals with food and
other suppliers contracted by the Board of Education in New York City provides an excellent
example of how easy it is to manipulate funds away from the target recipients.

For example, private managed care companies offered gifts to boost enrollment by
enticing desperate Medicaid recipients to join their plans. I find this marketing strategy
offensive when we are dealing with a social good albeit healthcare or education. Vulnerable
populations are frequently exploited through corporate contracts, and there is little reason to
believe that for-profit conglomerates would treat public schools or economically disadvantaged
students and families otherwise.

Arguments on both sides of the school voucher issue are very similar to those presented
for and against Charter Schools and free-market school choice. Smrekar (1998) presents four
key issues that have been at the center of the school choice debate: (1) economic, (2) political;
(3) social justice; and (4) pedagogical.

The economic argument in favor of school choice points out that our current public
education system resembles a monopoly. Proponents argue that the introduction of choice into
the educational marketplace will promote competition and force schools with poor performance
records to improve or close (Friedman, 1968).

The political argument is centered on the democratic ideal that the freedom to choose
where your child attends school is a fundamental right. The political argument also triggers
strong feelings about the role of education in a democratic society. There are those who feel that
the public school is intended, at least in part, to create a common set of core values that is best
served by the public sector. At the core of the political school choice argument is a debate
regarding the benefits of providing a common set of experiences in a democracy versus
promoting individual choice and liberty (Smrekar, 1998). This issue, while not dead, was
challenged in 1925 when the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510
(1925)) in favor of parents who sent their children to private school. This argument continues
today and is at the center of both school choice and curriculum debates.

The social justice argument is a bit more complicated and there is little agreement on any
front. Proponents argue that school choice empowers the poor to participate in the education of

Page 3 of 8
 Elyssa D. Durant

their children by giving them the same options available to wealthier families in the United
States. According to a 1997 poll in USA Today, 47% of parents would send their children to
private schools if they had the financial resources (Doyle, 1997).

Information is an essential component to any school choice program. In order to ensure

social equity in school choice programs we need to be sure that the poor are fully informed of
their choices and are not taken advantage of in the open market. It is believed that the act of
choosing has positive effects on the school environment and promotes parental involvement in
their children’s education (Doyle, 1997). Additional components of the social justice argument
have focused on the nuts and bolts of choice programs, and point out how there are several
different ways that choice programs may (wittingly or unwittingly) promote social inequity
(Cookson, 1995). Such arguments focus on transportation problems, admissions policies, the
availability of information, and how we define “choice” and implement policies regulating
recruitment, enrollment and performance of participating schools, (Cookson, 1995; 1997).

The pedagogical argument points out that school choice programs are better suited for the
individual needs inherent to a pluralistic society. Although some feel there is value in providing
core curriculum and a common set of basic skills, there is a current trend towards specialty
schools that focus on the arts and sciences, technology, vocational training, etc. Educators look
towards successful magnet schools as examples of the pedagogical success that demonstrated the
importance of school choice and parental involvement as indicators of educational outcomes.
Some educators fear that the introduction of school choice and voucher plans would prompt the
best students to leave public schools and that this would have a negative effect on the overall
climate of public classrooms.

There are several different types of voucher programs, but the one which raises the most
questions are voucher programs that give qualified individuals the choice to attend parochial
schools. Traditional arguments against this type of school voucher program have focused on the
Constitutionality of using state funds for sectarian institutions.

Historically, the church had a key role in the education of children in America. During
the National Period (1780-1830), churches were used to educate children, and the King James
Bible was used as a reader in these classrooms (Smrekar, 1998). Derek Neal (1997) points out
that much of the current sentiment against Catholic schools is not a reflection of their excellent
performance record, but rather an indication of the anti-Catholic sentiment which swept the
country during the late part of the 19th Century (Neal, 1997). Neal argues that until that point,
there was no contest to religious education as long as it was Protestant.

Catholic schools have traditionally served the children of the working class. They were a
major socializing force earlier in the century and continue to succeed with children who might
otherwise fall through the cracks in public schools. Despite tapering enrollment, Catholic
schools remain a viable force in the private sector providing a reasonably priced private
education to American children. Neal conducted a study that looked at the graduation rates of
minority children attending Catholic schools compared with children attending public schools in
the inner cities. Controlling for demographic variables, (parent’s education, parent’s occupation,
family structure, and reading materials at home) closer analysis revealed graduation rates for

Page 4 of 8
 Elyssa D. Durant

urban minorities are 26% higher in Catholic schools compared with public schools in the same
communities. Although Neal found similar benefits for whites and in suburban communities,
this effect was most profound for urban minorities.

Other studies have focused on identifying the qualities that make Catholic schools
successful. A number of factors have been identified by Bryk and Lee, including active parental
participation and the benefits of school choice in creating an inclusive community which fosters
a common set of values and ideals (Bryk & Lee, 1995). Interestingly, the very same variables
found to enhance the performance of Catholic school students are remarkably similar to the
reported benefits of magnet schools and choice programs. Despite the excellent performance
records of Catholic schools, there are currently no voucher programs that allow parochial schools
to participate in state funded voucher programs.

The reason for this is quite simple, but not necessarily correct or in the best interest of our
children. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
prohibits the use of public funds in religious institutions. However, it can also be argued that it is
unconstitutional to exclude parochial schools from voucher systems because it violates the
student’s free expression of religion. In addition, voucher programs require a conscious decision
on the part of the student and the parent. The state does not enforce a blanket endorsement of
any one religion. I use Catholic schools as an example because they represent the majority of
parochial schools in urban America.

Voucher programs typically undergo strict scrutiny for all four reasons mentioned above,
but this issue is especially true of any choice or voucher program that channels funds into
Parochial schools. For this reason, Catholic schools and other schools with religious affiliations
have been excluded from voucher plans up until this point. It is not politically viable to institute
a choice or voucher program at any level (at the district, state or national level) since similar
plans have historically presented long-standing, hard-fought, legal challenges to the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Since the Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, most challenges up until this point
have taken place in state courts1. These state decisions have been split, and while there are a few
voucher programs operating in Wisconsin and Ohio, neither permits sectarian schools to
participate in their programs. Milwaukee designed a voucher system that included parochial
schools in 1995 but later revised their proposal after the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a
temporary injunction against expansion into religious schools (Kremerer & King, 1995).

1
Including a decision that was handed down this week regarding a choice plan in Ohio. (12/18/2000)

Page 5 of 8
 Elyssa D. Durant

School choice programs that involve vouchers have not been tested in the Supreme Court,
but there is a long history of court cases that challenge the flow of money from the public sector
into private, sectarian institutions. The recent pattern of Supreme Court rulings has lead some
legal scholars (Kemerer & King, 1995) to conclude that school vouchers would pass
constitutional muster under the following circumstances:

1. Provides payments in the form of scholarships to parents of school age children

2. Allows parents to choose among a variety of public and private sectarian and
nonsectarian schools for their children
3. Gives no preference to sectarian private institutions

Voucher programs up until this point have encountered substantial resistance from the
legal community and a number of civil rights and political organizations. This becomes more
pronounced when the voucher model includes sectarian institutions in the model plan and state
court rulings have been inconsistent in decisions surrounding the constitutionality of voucher
programs.

The definitive case regarding school voucher programs is Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S.
602 (1971)). The Court’s ruling in Lemon was based on three components that came to be
known as the “Lemon Test”. The Lemon Test applies the following to any Constitutional
challenge of the Establishment Clause:

1. The government action must have a secular purpose

2. The primary effect must neither advance, nor inhibit religion
3. It must not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion

Since voucher programs do not generally provide support directly to the institution,
individual freedom and choice remain intact. Individual families are empowered by educational
vouchers since they choose the school and religion appropriate for them. Qualified schools are
not determined by religious affiliation and all schools are required to adhere to state and federal
regulations which increases accountability. Similar issues came before the courts in Pierce v.
Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) as well, however Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602
(1971)) is considered to be both the landmark and test case currently before the courts.

The reason for this is quite simple, but not necessarily correct or in the best interest of our
children. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
prohibits the use of public funds in religious institutions. However, it could also be argued that it
is unconstitutional to exclude parochial schools from voucher systems because it violates the free
expression of religion. In addition, voucher programs require a conscious decision on the part of
the student and the parent. The state does not enforce a blanket endorsement of any one religion.
I use Catholic schools as an example because they represent the majority of parochial schools in
urban America.

Page 6 of 8
 Elyssa D. Durant

Teacher’s unions are resistant to bring in a new system that has the potential to upset their
job status and security. It will likely be a number of years before we truly understand the effects
of magnet schools and can evaluate the implementation of school choice programs that are
already in place. Because we are dealing with such an essential human, social good, it is my
recommendation that we do not implement a large scale voucher program until issues of access
and equity are resolved on other public fronts. We must ensure real choices for the students and
families who are not information savvy and may be limited in their ability to recognize the real
value of their options. We must find a way to ensure the equitable distribution of resources so
that education truly does will empower the poor.

Is the time right to apply the Lemon Test to school vouchers? You decide.

Page 7 of 8
 Elyssa D. Durant

References

Cookson, P.W., Jr. (1994). School choice: The struggle for the soul of American
education. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cookson, P.W., Jr. (1995). ERIC Digests: School Choice.

Doyle, D.P. (1997). Vouchers for religious schools. Public Interest, 127, 88-95.

Haynes, C.C. (1993). Beyond the culture wars. Educational Leadership, 51(4), 30-34.

Houston, P.D. (1993). School vouchers: The latest California joke. Phi Delta Kappan,
75(4), 61-64.

Kremerer, F.R. & King, K.L. (1995). Are school vouchers Constitutional? Phi Delta
Kappan, 77(1), 307-311.

Kremerer, F.R. (1995). The Constitutionality of school vouchers. West’s Education Law
Reporter, 101 Ed. Law Rep. 17.

Kremerer, F.R. (1997). State Constitutions and school vouchers. West’s Education Law
Reporter, 120 Ed. Law Rep. 1.

Neal, D. (1997). Measuring Catholic school performance. Public Interest, 127, 81-87.

Page 8 of 8