Florida's Voucher Plan: Public Schools at Last?

John E. Coons and Stephen D. Sugarman

In all the excitement over Florida Governor Jeb Bush's school choice program, who remembers that "vouchers for the poor" was initially proposed by Democrats? Lyndon Johnson, a former teacher, understood that free choice by middle class parents made suburban schools work - and that the lack of it helped assure failure in the city. It remains a paradox that, in our "democracy," we still sort ourselves among government schools by our ability to pay for housing. If "public" means open to all, our society has few public schools. It has, instead, a school market in which the well-to-do can shop by residence and the have-nots get conscripted.

To date, the politics of school choice has prevented America from creating an authentically public system that respects all social classes. Democrats loudly claim to represent the poor. But when it comes to liberating low-income families to make choices like the middle class, the party's dependency on the teachers unions has silenced all but a few inner-city Black and Latino officials. The Republicans meanwhile endorse the ideology of choice and the family, but many of their constituents already have choice and worry about rocking this happy boat. Hence, GOP leaders have tended to promote schemes like modest tax credits or $1000 scholarships for all children - gestures that won't buy entry to a private school for low-income and working class families.

Suddenly, we see Florida Republicans (plus a handful of heroic Democrats representing ethnic minorities and the poor) moving distinctly in the direction of an authentic public system. Under Governor Bush's plan, every Florida child assigned to an "F" school (as measured by standardized tests) will gain genuine school options. Most importantly, these children will qualify for a $4000 scholarship usable in any participating private school. In addition, they will have the right to attend public schools in adjacent districts where space is available; and within their own district, they will be entitled to attend a nearby public school with a "C" grade or better (at least where the district has such a school).

One can criticize details of the plan. For example, failure on tests can be as much a measure of the poverty and culture of the student body as of the teaching. Even so, these are the very families who most need the flexibility so dear to the well off. Perhaps more troubling, even though tuition in many existing private schools is less than $4,000, this amount may not suffice to encourage formation of new, high quality, private schools to serve the refugees from the "F" schools. Another thousand dollars or so would stimulate new providers.

Requiring participating private schools to admit voucher-carrying pupils on a random basis (apart from sibling preference) is one way to handle admissions. And we endorse the inclusion of religious schools (on the understanding that schools will comply with federal anti-discrimination provisions and individual pupils may not be required to pray). Whether religious school involvement is constitutional must await a determination by the U.S. and Florida Supreme Courts.

Any "failing school" plan of this sort is bound to have some awkward elements. For example, it is envisioned, and for good reason, that pupils who opt out of an "F" school will be entitled to vouchers all the way through high school. This means, however, that if the "F" school improves its grade, those who neglected to bail out early won't be able to do so later on. At the same time, the child who took the voucher will apparently remain eligible even if the child's family moves into a home in a more successful district where other families won't have access to vouchers. These difficulties could be avoided if the plan were simply concentrated on low income families regardless of the grade given to their children's neighborhood school. But perhaps that solution is best left for some other state to try out. In our federal system we should hope for an array of fair voucher plans, as different states extend school choice to the ordinary family.

One thing not to worry about is the objection that the "best" students will leave government schools, making them worse. First of all, evidence from the Milwaukee school voucher plan shows that transfer students are predominantly those who are not doing well in their compulsory school. That is why their parents are pulling them out when finally given the opportunity to do so. Moreover, there is more than a little hypocrisy at work here. Those in favor of coercing the poor are almost never willing to have their own children assigned to an "F" school.

The hinges are creaking on this monopoly system so inhospitable to the ordinary family. With luck the Florida experience could lead America at last to the creation of authentic public education.

Coons and Sugarman are law professors at the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) and co-authors of "Making School Choice Work for All Families" (Pacific Research Institute 1999) and "Education by Choice: The Case for Family Control" (Educator's International Press 1999, republishing their 1978 University of California Press classic with a new introduction).

Contact Sugarman at sugarman@law.berkeley.edu or by phone 510-642-0130 or by fax 510-643-2672.

Carried by Knight-Ridder Syndicate, May 13, 1999