Running head: IMPACT OF EDUCATION CHOICE ON PUBLIC FUNDS

u08a1 Impact of Education Choice on Public Funds

Capella University
ED 7822- The Funding of Educational Institutions
Dr. Lee Monroe

Both tax credit and voucher programs are school choice options for South Carolina. They are completely consistent with the South Carolina Constitution and relevant South Carolina state court decisions. In 1973, South Carolina amended its Blaine Amendment by eliminating the ban on “indirect” funding of private educational institutions. According to the authoritative “West Committee,” the change reflected the framers’ intent to allow public funds to be used to assist students who independently choose to attend private educational institutions, but to prohibit direct government subsidization of those institutions.
From the school choice perspective, this change is important for two reasons. First, a voucher program represents precisely the type of funding the framers of the current version of its Blaine Amendment (Article XI, Section 4) wished to allow. Second, South Carolina Supreme Court cases like Hartness v. Patterson that reject the distinction between aid to students and aid to institutions are no longer valid, as they were premised on constitutional language that was later deleted in order to allow student benefit programs.

In 2003 S.C. AG LEXIS 42 (2003)The South Carolina Attorney General concluded that using lottery funds to contract with private schools to provide education for low-income, educationally disadvantaged students complied with South Carolina’s Blaine Amendment because the program was religiously neutral, was explicitly intended to help students, had findings to support that purpose, gave money through contracts rather than outright grants, and limited the manner in which the money could be spent.
Historically the courts have intervened to determine if certain funding legislation in certain states will be upheld or overturned. In December 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris upheld a lower court ruling that the school voucher program in Cleveland was unconstitutional. With 96 percent of the students who receive vouchers attending church-subsidized religious schools, the court found that the voucher program resulted in the funneling of government funds into religious schools. Government funding of private school tuition, ruled the court, “crosses the line separating church and state by promoting religious education.”11 A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court (5-4) ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in June 2002 that the voucher program in Cleveland did not violate the Establishment Clause of the federal Constitution, and allowed the program to continue.12

In January 2006, the Florida Supreme Court struck down (5-2) a 1999 state law which created a statewide voucher program on the grounds that it violates the Education Clause of the Florida Constitution, which states that "adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.”The Court stayed the operation of its ruling to allow current voucher students to finish the school year in their private schools.
In June 2010, the Department of Education released its final report on the District of Columbia voucher program, finding that there was “no conclusive evidence that the OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] affected student achievement.The same pattern of results holds for students who applied from schools in need of improvement (SINI), the group Congress designated as the highest priority for the Program.”17 This report’s conclusions coincide with the Department’s previous studies of the program. In an April 2009 report, the Department found no improvement in academic achievement for those students receiving vouchers from public schools in need of improvement – the target audience of the voucher program.18 An earlier report from June 2008 found that “after 2 years, there was no statistically significant difference in test scores in general between students who were offered an OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] scholarship and students who were not offered a scholarship.” In addition, while “the Program had a positive impact on overall parent satisfaction and parent perceptions of school safety … [s]tudents had a different view of their schools than did their parents.” Overall, student satisfaction was unaffected by the voucher program.

References
Brimley, V. & Garfield, R. (2008). Financing education in a climate of change (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN: 97802055117

Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945 (6th Cir. Ohio 2000).
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) 234 F.3d 945, reversed.

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, Etc., Et Al. v. Ruth D. Holmes, Et Al. Florida State Supreme Court: SC04-2323.

Schiller, Zach and Policy Matters Ohio. (September 2001). Cleveland School Vouchers: Where the Students Come From. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.policymattersohio.org/voucherintro.html.

People for the American Way Foundation. (February 2005). Flaws and Failings: A Preliminary Look at the Problems Already Encountered in the Implementation of the District of Columbia’s New Federally Mandated School Voucher Program. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=report_flaws_and_failings.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (June 2010). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report. Retrieved July 2, 2010, from