| Print Report | Donate |
What the Cleveland Case Could Mean for Connecticut
Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a verdict in the so-called "Cleveland voucher case," determining that the use of public money to purchase a private or parochial education for schoolchildren does not violate the Constitutional separation church and state, just as long as parents are free to choose the non-public school their son or daughter attends. This landmark ruling in the case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris could have broad implications for the future of Connecticut’s public education system.
The most immediate impact could well be on Sheff v. O’Neill, the lawsuit seeking a race-based solution to Hartford’s long-standing education problems, which went back to trial on April 16. The plaintiffs in the Sheff case would have our state's taxpayers spend an estimated $87 million to turn every Hartford school into a magnet school for attracting white suburbanites, while simultaneously doubling the number of slots at suburban schools to receive minority children bussed in miles from their homes in city.
With any luck, the judge hearing the Sheff case will conclude that the only effective solution to Hartford’s educational problems is the one that’s been shown to work in Cleveland: allowing parents to use public funds to send their children to schools of their choice. Given that tuition at the average parochial school in Hartford is less than $2,600 -- as compared to a per pupil cost in the Hartford public schools of more than three times that figure -- it doesn’t take a mathematician to see that a voucher program for disadvantaged school children would not only improve the quality of education in our capitol city, but make available vast sums of money to improve the existing public schools, all at no additional cost to the taxpayers.
With even more luck, the judge may take a look at the new school choice plan in the state of Pennsylvania, signed into law by Gov. Tom Ridge just before he became director of Homeland Security. Instead of having the city or state directly fund private education vouchers, the Pennsylvania plan gives a tax credit to corporations that contribute funds to non-profit organizations, which in turn give private school scholarships to poor and needy children. The advantages to this approach are 1) that dollars previously budgeted for public education are never touched, and 2) the private and parochial schools receiving the scholarship students never have to deal with government bureaucrats.
Beyond the Sheff case, the Cleveland decision makes two other reforms possible in our state. The first is the use of vouchers to allow the parents of a learning-disabled child to place their son or daughter in a private or religious school of their choice. A similar program, called the McKay Scholarship Bill, was passed in Florida two years ago and has proved immensely popular. For the academic year just ended (2001-02), Florida state officials estimate that the number of learning disabled students receiving voucher assistance has quadrupled to 4,000, while the number of participating independent schools has tripled to over 300.
Second, vouchers may help stem the growing taxpayer rebellion against ballooning municipal expenditures throughout our state. In northern Fairfield County alone, communities that had always been known for spending lavishly on their public schools -- Brookfield, New Fairfield, Newtown, Redding, and Ridgefield -- are for the first time seeing their education budgets seriously challenged.
One answer for towns that are projecting a steep rise in student enrollments is to forgo expensive new school construction and use municipal grants to send a percentage of their kids to non-public schools. The Yankee Institute has developed an online calculator (available at www.yankeeinstitute.org) that shows that many towns facing new school construction can save millions annually by sending some of their children to independent schools.
Finally, the Cleveland decision points the way to resolving Connecticut's latest dilemma: the fact that 28 schools across the state have just been designated as "failing" under the recently passed federal No Child Left Behind Act. Instead of attempting the impossible task of transferring the effected children to better performing public schools in their districts by the fall, as federal law requires, why not give those parents who are interested a private school voucher? Better still, why not subsidize the state’s successful (and non-profit) privately funded voucher programs to help place some of the children and use the savings from dramatically lower religious school tuitions to improve the remaining public schools?
Until the Cleveland decision, the only substantive objection to any of these innovations was the legal uncertainty surrounding the use of public funds at religiously affiliated schools. Now it may only be a matter of time.
Dr. Lewis M. Andrews is Executive Director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy Inc. at Trinity College, a Connecticut research and educational institute.
| Print Report | Donate |
The Yankee Institute for Public Policy, Inc. is a nonpartisan educational and research organization founded more than two decades ago. Today, the Yankee Institute's mission is to "promote economic opportunity through lower taxes and new ideas for better government in Connecticut." The Yankee Institute for Public Policy, Inc. is classified by the IRS as a 501 (c) (3) public charity. Contributions are deductible to the extent allowed by law.
