Provo Daily Herald

Voucher Vote

October 7, 2007

Joe Pyrah

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/239538/

Bring on the school voucher debate:

Save money or cost money?

Aid for families whose children are slowed by public school, or a break for millionaires?

Improvement of a child's education or a scary conjunction of church and state?

In the debate over state-funded education vouchers in Utah, each side hurls accusations with the velocity of a Major League pitcher. Voters will take their swing on Nov. 6 when Referendum 1 appears on the ballot. It asks voters whether they want to repeal the measure passed by 2007 state Legislature that set up the voucher program.

In year of non-presidential politics that mostly features mundane local campaigns for city offices, millions of dollars are being spent on advertising, Web sites and studies showing unequivocally that vouchers will save your vulnerable children -- or cause the downfall of civilization.

This seemingly modest reform of the state's education system would register barely a blip on the financial balance sheet. It would directly serve a mere 3 percent of Utah students and cost less than 1 percent of the state's $10.5 billion budget. Yet it has called forth a titanic clash of philosophical values that education advocates, conservative and liberal, across the country are watching closely.

The two legislative bills (HB-148 and HB-174) that establish a "scholarship" program, appear simple. Tax money would continue to be collected as usual for education; but it would be divided differently. Rather than giving it all to the public school system, the state would share a portion with anyone who wants to send their children to private school. It the initial phase, it wouldn't apply to children already attending a private school.

The amount of the scholarship (the voucher) would be determined on a sliding scale from $500 to $3,000 a year, depending on household income.

To put this in perspective, government will pay an average $7,500 for a student this year to attend public school. Thus, proponents say, even if $3,000 of that is paid for a student to switch to a private school, the public system would benefit by retaining some difference between that and what the government would have paid anyway.

To mitigate any negative impacts on the public schools such as fixed costs in buildings and other infrastructure, the 2007 Legislature decided that school districts would continue to receive money for five years for each student who transfers to a private school, minus the average scholarship amount. This means that during the initial years, schools will continue to get money for students who aren't there.

Other funding rules take into account students who return to the public school district or who graduate. Lawmakers also decided to treat the program provisionally, implementing it, but coming back to review the results in five years.

It was a close vote. The primary bill, HB-148, passed the House 38-37 and the Senate 19-10. Subsequently, an amendment was added to tighten the original bill, including a stipulation requiring academic assessments of students in private schools.

Yet, despite the support of Gov. Jon Huntsman, the law was immediately challenged in a statewide petition drive and then in court. Now Nov. 6 looms as the powerful and passionate state teachers union and other public school advocates pump millions of dollars into the fray.

On the other side, voucher supporters have spent as much as a half-million dollars on the fight, much of it coming from out of state.

Odd clash for Utah

All things considered, at least one neutral observer is surprised that vouchers have progressed as far as they have in Utah.

"Utah is somewhat anomalous that it even got to this point," said Michael Heise, a law professor at Cornell University who has been studying the issue for more than a decade. Generally speaking, Heise said, vouchers tend to emerge in places where large numbers of kids are failing in inner city schools. Utah, mostly white and riding a scorching state economy doesn't fit the usual bill.

At the same time, Heise said, Utah has a powerful labor union of teachers while enjoying a public education system that delivers above average scores on standardized tests. The combination of factors doesn't indicate typical fertile ground for a voucher movement, though he didn't address the fact that 25 percent of high school seniors fail to pass the state's basic skill tests, one of several factors that might contribute to the rise of an education reform measure.

There is not a big presence of private schools in Utah. Kids in private schools amount to about 3 percent of the total, well below the national average of 10-13 percent, showing perhaps a lack of interest in private schools generally.

"Nationwide, Utah would be the last place one would think voucher programs would arise," Heise said.

On the other hand, Utah is arguably the most conservative state in the nation, with a largely Mormon population characterized by self-reliance, a dislike of too much government and an unswerving belief in the free market system. Those characteristics have kept the voucher debate on the burner as it has slowly gained support among lawmakers. Gov. Jon Huntsman had even made vouchers a campaign issue.

Packed with emotion

What has kept vouchers alive or at bay, depending on your viewpoint, is largely the emotion -- some would say anger -- with which both sides are defending and attacking.

Take for example a recent Utah Education Association newsletter that goes out to its 19,000 members. An article by UEA president Kim Campbell is titled "Channel Your Anger" and includes the lines "Okay, we told you it would happen and that you would need to grow thick skin. To date, the pro-voucher forces have called us every name in the book -- from communists (really, in a Logan newspaper) to, heaven forbid ... liberals." It goes on to encourage teachers to channel their anger by making sure friends and family are registered to vote, by writing a letter to the editor or by contributing money to the cause.

A recent pro-voucher ad lumps opponents with liberals like Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and bringing up MoveOn.org, the notorious Web site that was chastised by Congress for its full-page ad in the New York Times slamming Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us in Iraq.

The passion may just as often come across as understated insistence rather than flame-throwing. In multiple debates, advocates from both sides don't hesitate to call out their opponents when they think the numbers are being fudged.

Debates in various forums -- including one on heraldextra.com -- are stacking up thick and fast, and people like Lisa Johnson of Utahns for Public Schools and Doug Holmes of Parents for Choice in Education move nonstop from one forum or media appointment to the next.

When given an open-ended opportunity to discuss the topic for this report, more than a dozen sources spoke uninterrupted until catching themselves as far as 30 minutes in. They would often call back multiple times to clarify positions or cite additional points.

The cost equation

As much as passion plays into the education debate, cold, hard numbers are always at the core, if they can be found. But few public issues -- guns may be another -- are so divergent in terms of the figures used by proponents and opponents. It's hard to agree on much.

Voucher opponents, for example, say that over its first 13 years, the program would cost the state a total of nearly half-a-billion dollars. That lines up with the projections of the state Legislative Fiscal Analyst. On the other hand, that amount is offset by savings that come from moving students to private schools.

Because of the five-year safety valve built into the law, public schools will actually take in more money -- as much as $11 million in the first year. After the five-year window expires, however, the public system will be back to the same formula it currently uses. Opponents argue that the transfer of students from public to private doesn't balance out in the long run.

"They are saying 'What are opponents complaining about, they have most of the money!' " said Shipper Clawson, a special education teacher at Canyon Crest Elementary in Provo who opposes vouchers. "But the cost of the system doesn't drop in proportion to the number of people leaving."

In the state's voter guide, the fiscal analyst predicts a cost of $5.5 million in the first year of vouchers. That runs up to $71 million per year by the 13th year, given certain assumptions about the utilization of vouchers by parents. The office shows a projected public school savings in Year 13 between $11 million and $28 million, but an overall cost increase to the state of $43 million.

The state has budgeted $9.3 million for the first year of vouchers, $3.9 million of which will go to public schools that lose students. But with numbers being based on projections, who can be sure exactly what will happen next year, let alone 13 years out?

Take for example the number of vouchers projected in the first year of implementation. PCE's Holmes, says that shortly after the law was passed, an estimated 4,000 applications were requested, twice the number used in the state's projections. Children First Utah, which provides a 50 percent scholarship program for low-income students to attend private schools, finances 350 kids a year and has a waiting list of 2,000.

Both sides also trot out dueling financial studies in an attempt to prove that a voucher system will either cost the state millions or save millions. Take the conclusion of a Utah voucher study from the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation:

"The total fiscal impact of the program, including all eligible students, would be a net savings of about $700,000 in the first year, with a windfall to school districts of $26 million. These benefits represent the removal of 9,662 students from the public school system, reducing the need for more teachers and classroom space, or, alternatively, lowering teacher-student ratios. As the program grew in subsequent years, these fiscal benefits would only increase, potentially saving many millions of dollars."

Milton Friedman was a Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist who championed free market causes, including education vouchers and tuition tax credits.

The foundation's conclusion is challenged by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: The evidence ... does not make a sufficient case to informed policy makers for the positive fiscal impact of vouchers and tuition tax credits. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite: that fiscal gains are trivial at best."

Pressed long enough, voucher advocates say that even if the program is not a wash as students move from public to private schools, more funding for education has been the battle cry of public schools for decades, so it's a good thing.

"Even if it does cost money, that means there's more money in education," says state Rep. John Dougall (R-Highland), a voucher advocate.

Parental choice

On a late night after a 10-hour workday coupled with college courses, Ruth Davis was driving home in the dark when she heard a radio ad for Utah's state-funded Carson Smith voucher program for special needs students. Frustrated by her son's lack of progress at school and her daughter's lack of initiative, she began looking for alternatives to the public school system.

Dead broke from putting herself through school, the 35-year-old divorced mother of two found Children First Utah, a non-profit organization that provides 50 percent scholarships to private schools. Armed with the Carson Smith voucher for her son and the scholarship for her daughter, she enrolled them in the private American Heritage School in Spanish Fork.

Despite making less than $25,000 a year, the Springville mother manages to keep her kids in school through a series of sacrifices, including a big one for her daughter Cecilia.

"She loves to dance, but there's no more dance lessons," Davis said.

The biggest single talking point for voucher advocates is parental choice, often using the words of HB-148: "Parents are presumed best informed to make decisions for their children, including the educational setting that will best serve their children's interests and educational needs."

It's not even a matter of public vs. private education, says Leah Barker, director of Children First Utah.

"Parents aren't looking for a private education; parents are looking for options," she said.

Johnson, of Utahns for Public Schools, says parents have plenty of options already with magnet schools, charter schools and the fact that Utah has some of the easiest school transfer laws in the country. If you don't like your public school, you can always move to another one. But that exact argument, says PCE's Holmes, shows the need for even more choice. Parents are showing that they're hungry for anything outside traditional public education.

Davis, who went to public schools and says she sees flaws in the voucher program, nevertheless says she found the fit her children need. "I can't say this school is 100 percent perfect, but it is a much, much better fit overall," she said. "I don't think there's any school anywhere that can be 100 percent for everyone."

Who benefits?

With 96 percent of Utah's kids in public schools already, that's where the focus and funds should remain, voucher opponents say. There may be cases like the Davis family, or particular schools where low-income parents can find a fit, but private schools are too expensive to truly reach a broad audience.

"Because there is no upper limit on family income for recipients, this program could potentially benefit wealthy families rather than the disadvantaged families who are the stated beneficiaries," Johnson said, pointing to the fact that the bill allows for a $500 voucher for even the wealthiest of families.

The average Utah private school costs $8,000, Johnson said, so even someone receiving the full $3,000 voucher would face substantial financial hurdles. Toss in two or three kids per family (Utah's family size is larger than the rest of the nation) and suddenly even those with a modest income are priced out of a private school.

But voucher proponents dispute the cost of tuition. When the most expensive schools are tossed out, including most private high schools, the average cost of tuition drops to around $4,000, a price well within reach if a voucher is available, said Barker, who took a survey of about 100 private schools throughout the state and found about 3,800 seats available.

Not all of those schools would qualify as voucher recipients because of state size requirements, but Barker estimates that about 100 of the state's roughly 130 private schools meet the 40-student minimum, or would easily meet it with a few voucher-toting students.

Susan Morris, director of American Heritage in Spanish Fork, said the school looks forward to vouchers if the referendum passes. She scoffs at the idea of $8,000 tuition. Full-time tuition is $3,600 at the K-6 school she helped found in 1999.

Davis is exactly the kind of person the pro-voucher camp says will benefit from vouchers -- low income but fiercely dedicated to improving the lives of her children. Davis herself would not benefit from HB-148 because the scholarships only apply to new private school students. But young children like Levi and Cecilia would benefit the most, said Barker, because grade school is a critical time as parents strive to build up their kids.

Barker, who grew up in poverty in Puerto Rico, said the poor are often underestimated in their ability to climb out of the hole when given a chance.

"When you know that the only way out of poverty is education, you will put all your money into that," she said.

But there are those, even if they wish to participate, who will be left out. That's because Utah, despite a metropolitan Wasatch Front, has vast rural areas. Half the counties in the state have no private school to choose. Holmes, of Parents for Choice in Education, acknowledges that, but says that because Utah's population is so concentrated, more than 90 percent of school-aged children are within reach of a private school.

Accountability

If "parental choice" is the battle cry of the pro-voucher camp, then surely "accountability" rings from the walls of the anti-voucher stronghold.

"We're talking about public funds. And we're very careful in Utah how we use public funds," said Johnson. "In terms of protecting taxpayers, this bill just isn't up to snuff."

Other states with voucher programs haven't been immune to misuse of public dollars. A program in Milwaukee is most often cited by critics. While many of the private schools there have benefitted from vouchers, some schools that were launched after the program started raised concerns.

Reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel attempted to visit the more than 100 private schools that were using vouchers. Some schools were found lacking in both books and curriculum. In one case, a convicted rapist had opened a school, which has since been closed. Others were shuttered because of a lack of money.

With a plethora of hoops to jump through, public schools have systems in place to protect against untrained teachers, unaccredited schools and sub-par curriculum, Johnson said.

Voucher advocates counter that their accountability is to parents, not a stunting, slow-moving bureaucracy.

"That parent is always writing that tuition check," said Morris, the private school director. "You're definitely going to be more diligent that you're getting what you're paying for."

But finding out if your student hasn't been properly taught doesn't happen overnight. "How long will it take you to realize the curriculum is deficient?" Johnson asks.

Probably not as long as it took parents to get fed up with Investigations Math and push for change, retorts Dougall, referring to the much-maligned teaching system used in the Alpine School District. Four years ago he was against vouchers, but as the debate went on, his opinion changed. "That was when I said I can't allow a generation of students to go by and say 'Tough, buck it up.' "

Voucher supporters are also quick to point out that just because public schools have oversight mechanisms in place, doesn't mean they always work. They point to examples such as Davis County School District's book debacle in which millions of dollars were reportedly wasted on overpriced books, books that were just photocopies of other books and financial kickbacks.

The new voucher law would require private schools to provide accreditation details if requested, comply with anti-discrimination provisions, contract with a certified public accountant and have teachers with degrees or who possess special skills or expertise. But the devil is in the details, Johnson says, and there are plenty of loopholes in those requirements. Private schools can still simply decide not to take certain students, rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws, Johnson said. Though they have to provide details of accreditation, they aren't required to actually be accredited. And while teachers have to pass background checks, "special skills, knowledge, or expertise" could mean anything.

In fact, some private schools would decline to participate in the voucher program, should it pass.

Peripheral issues

Utah's voucher adventure is the broadest in the nation, though it isn't the first. While various programs have been around for nearly a decade, a Supreme Court ruling in 2002 affirmed the legality of school vouchers.

But according to an analysis on the state Legislature's Web site, even if voters approve the voucher program, it could still be the subject of a court challenge.

"The use of public money for students attending private religious schools may conflict with federal or state constitutional provisions that prohibit the use of public money for religious purposes. In addition, other aspects of the program may conflict with equal protection provisions of the federal or state constitution or with state constitutional provisions relating to the state board of education's authority or the scope of the public education program. Because of the program's unique characteristics and the lack of a directly applicable court ruling, it is unclear how a court would rule on any of these issues."

Programs in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio and Arizona have all met with varying degrees of success. Milwaukee's is a coin toss; Florida's was tossed out at the state level as unconstitutional; Arizona's was recently upheld as legal; and Ohio's is narrowed to students performing poorly in math and reading scores.

"The general sense regarding the voucher experiments are schizophrenic," said Heise, the Cornell professor who originally focused on the question of federal constitutionality.

It has long been believed that private schools produce smarter kids with higher test scores, and Morris of American Heritage doesn't hesitate to point out that her school scores 20 points higher in national tests than local public schools.

But competition from private schools flush with students fleeing underperforming public schools will raise the level of education everywhere, voucher advocates say. In contrast to the No Child Left Behind act, which simply allows a public school shuffle, the voucher program goes to the heart of the capitalistic system. They subscribe to a basic article of faith: competition breeds improvement.

Back in Milwaukee, though, a new study from the Economic Policy Institute, which includes professors from Stanford and Michigan State, indicates that performance across the board has not increased in the eight years that program has been in place.

"We find essentially no evidence that students in those traditional public schools in Milwaukee facing more competition achieve higher test score gains," the authors state.

But as so frequently happens in the voucher debate, every new answer raises a new question. For example, one reading the Milwaukee study might ask whether the public school bureaucracy is even capable of making a strong response to a competitor.

Heise says that while a huge improvement in a public or private student's grades shouldn't be expected, the overall picture with vouchers is positive. "A fair read of the evidence over time, nationwide, is that it's a close call but trending up," he said.

Davis, who has two kids in American Heritage, said her experience shows the same result. She has seen positive improvement in her son, Levi. "I can't say he's gone gangbusters, but he's engaged, he's invested," she said.