Public Funds for Public Schools

Education vouchers provide parents a public subsidy to help finance the costs of sending their children to a school other than an assigned public school. Although they may be called scholarships, certificates, portability, or choice programs, these funding schemes are all vouchers and would authorize the use of public tax dollars to pay private and parochial school tuition and fees.

Education tax subsidies are a sibling of vouchers. These may be proposed as tax-free savings accounts, or as tax deductions or credits for education expenses. The impact of each is to reduce public revenue without improving public education.

Vouchers and education tax subsidies do not provide “choice”: neither can guarantee parents that their children will be admitted to the school of their choice. There is also no strong evidence that these programs improve student achievement. Furthermore, these programs undermine accountability, since private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools.

Our nation’s system of universal public education is a cornerstone of our society and has played a vital role in preparing citizens to participate in our democracy, instilling our shared values, and helping children understand and appreciate our nation’s diversity. Yet there is growing pressure to privatize education. Two initiatives designed to divert public funds to private education are vouchers and education tax subsidies.

Education vouchers provide parents a public subsidy to help finance the costs of sending their children to a school other than an assigned public school. Although they may be called scholarships, certificates, portability, or choice programs, these funding schemes are all vouchers. The proposals differ somewhat in design, but each ultimately paves the way to a private school system funded by taxpayers yet free from public control and oversight.

Education tax subsidies are a sibling of vouchers. These may be proposed as tax-free savings accounts, or as tax deductions or credits for education expenses. The impact of each is to reduce public revenue without improving public education. The primary beneficiaries of education tax subsidies are wealthy families whose children already attend private schools or are home-schooled.

Vouchers and education tax subsidies do not provide “choice”: they cannot guarantee parents that their children will be enrolled in the school of their choice. Private schools may deny admission for any reason. Some private schools have indicated that they would not participate in a voucher program if they were required to accept students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, or low academic achievement or allow voucher students to opt out of religious exercises. The only choice parents actually have is which school should receive their application, and even that choice may not be an informed one: private schools are not required to disclose vital information such as teacher qualifications, test scores, the level of parent involvement, and the availability of needed programs and services.

There is no strong evidence that vouchers or education tax subsidies improve student achievement. According to a large-scale study released in January 2006, if the effects of income and school and home circumstances are taken into account, students in regular public schools do as well as or significantly better than comparable students in private schools in math.[1] A second study released in January 2006 found that participants in the Cleveland voucher program did not show higher academic achievement than students not using vouchers.[2]

Vouchers and education tax subsidies undermine accountability, since private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools. Private schools are not required to hire only highly qualified teachers, to teach state academic standards, to administer state assessments, or to publicly report test scores, discipline records, enrollment data, or other basic information. Even when voucher programs attempt to impose accountability measures on participating schools, it is difficult to ensure compliance, and trying to do so diverts even more resources from public schools.

            Although voucher programs may be constitutional at the federal level, they may still violate provisions of state constitutions that prohibit the diversion of public funds to religious schools. They also raise civil rights concerns, as they provide public funds to schools that may discriminate in their policies towards students and employees.

            Diverting public funds to private schools through vouchers would hinder efforts to provide a quality education for all students. The way to ensure that every child has an equal and valuable education is to invest in our public school system.

[1] Chris Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski, Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Mathematics Data, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2006. www.ncspe.org/readrel.php?set=pub&cat=126

[2] Clive R. Belfield, The Evidence on Education Vouchers: An Application to the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2006. www.ncspe.org/list-papers.php

National PTA supports public funds for public schools only, and opposes using tax dollars to finance education vouchers for private and religious schools. National PTA opposes tax credits and deductions for elementary and secondary school tuition and other education-related expenses for public and nonpublic school students. Vouchers, tax credits, deductions, and other such funding sources do not provide the means for bringing about improvements in our public schools.

National PTA supports our nation’s system of public education as the major vehicle for perpetuating the basic values of a democratic system of government. Our system of public education must be strengthened, must be supported by adequate funding, and must continue to be governed by public officials who are accountable to the public.

Talking Points

• Vouchers divert money from public schools (where 90 percent of all school-age children are enrolled) to private schools (where the public has no oversight of how those public dollars are spent), while doing nothing to improve public education.
• Vouchers will not ensure parental “choice.” Private and religious schools may deny applications for enrollment for any reason. The “choice” in “choice programs” lies with private school administrators, not with parents.
• There is no strong evidence that voucher programs—whether funded directly, or indirectly through education tax subsidies—improve student achievement.
• Americans have consistently rejected vouchers, both in surveys and in referendums.
• The primary beneficiaries of education tax subsidies are wealthy families whose children already attend private or religious schools or whose children are home-schooled, as opposed to families whose children attend public schools.