













































Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public


Volume 1, Issue 1 
2017 

Allies for Education 2017, 1, 1 
https://journals.library.csuci.edu/ojs/index.php/afe 

 
Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public  

 
Tiina Itkonen 
Associate Professor of Education and Political Science 
California State University Channel Islands 

Politics has become a negative word. When thinking of politics, some of us may have a mental image of 
that one relative or friend, who goes on and on at the dinner table about something, to the point that it 
becomes uncomfortable. Or the TV news that we turn off. 

But politics is actually a good word. It comes from the Greek word politikos, which means politēs 
‘citizen,’ and polis ‘city.’ If interpreted freely, these words basically suggest that people who live in the 
same area—be it a town or a village—share something in common. They have to interact to make 
decisions, through some collective process, on what life in the city should look like (Stone, 2011).  

Public Schools 
Take any public school as an example of politikos: Schools are located in some geographical area. People 
living in that area elect people onto a school board (assuming there is at least one school in the area), to 
represent them to make decisions. The local school board decides things like the direction of what is 
taught in schools in that district by, for example, adopting a curriculum (California School Boards 
Association, 2007). This is essentially politikos in action – citizens elect fellow citizens to make decisions 
about schools for the town’s children.  

Public schools then are pillars of democracy. Schools educate the public through collective decision 
making so that children become literate, responsible, contributing, civic minded members of their 
communities.  

What Does This Have To Do With Vouchers?  
Vouchers refer to parents being given money toward tuition at a private school. (Vouchers are not the 
same as charter schools which are public schools, but which parents get to choose for their children.) 
Arguments in favor of vouchers claim that they promote parental school choice, allow for competition 
that improves public schools, or that private school education is simply superior (e.g., Suarez, 1998).   

Regarding the superiority claim, one of the recent main arguments for vouchers has been that if low-
income parents send their children to a private school, the children will learn more (Dynarski, 2016). But 
studies have yielded mixed results on how voucher programs affect student achievement (Center on 
Education Policy, 2011; Chingos & Peterson, 2015). In Milwaukee, where these programs originated in 



Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public 
Tiina Itkonen 

Allies for Education 2017, 1, 1 
https://journals.library.csuci.edu/ojs/index.php/afe 
 

the nineties, there was no evidence for higher reading scores (Rouse, 1998), but a longitudinal study 
found that students who had attended a private school were more likely to graduate from high school 
and attend college (Wolf et al., 2013). In a New York City study, the results showed that the vouchers 
had positive impacts on test scores for African American students, but no impacts on test scores for 
Latino students (Bitler et al., 2015). One explanation for these mixed results, besides technical criticism 
on how the various studies were conducted (Kruger & Zhu, 2004), is that they may actually reflect 
whether or not the research was funded and conducted by voucher advocates (Lublenski & Brewer, 
2016).   

But more recent studies from Louisiana (Abdulkadiroglu, Parthak, & Walters 2015; Mills & Wolf, 2016), 
and Ohio, and Indiana (Figlio & Karbownik, 2016) actually have shown negative effects on learning for 
voucher students. Students’ achievement, which was considered “average,” actually fell from 50th to 
34th percentile in math in Louisiana after the first year in a voucher program. In April of this year, a 
large-scale report from the Institute of Education Sciences (2017) found that D.C. students’ achievement 
was likewise harmed by participation in a voucher program.  

These new findings (some of which were done by voucher-friendly organizations themselves) raise some 
questions on vouchers’ effectiveness. Dynarski (2016) suggested one explanation is that public schools 
have gotten better over time. Since No Child Left Behind, they have been under heavy pressure to 
improve test scores across a variety of students, while private schools have not been under similar 
accountability requirements. Hence, randomized group studies of students with similar backgrounds, 
after two decades of public school accountability policies, suggest that public schools actually fare quite 
well.  

Why Is This Important? 
Despite sound research reporting that the achievement gap is narrowing between public and private 
schools, including for low-income students – in some instances public students even scored above the 
states’ private school students (e.g., Indiana’s 4th graders in reading [Dynarski, 2016]) – vouchers 
remain a favorite policy with the current administration. The President’s proposed budget includes a 
$250 million voucher-grant program, and Secretary of education Betsy DeVos is a long-time proponent 
and enthusiast of school choice and religious private school vouchers.  

Voucher opponents have cited the conflict between separation of church and state, in that public tax 
payer funds should not go into funding private education. Vouchers have not been an option in 
California because our state’s constitution prevents any public body, from state down to the local school 
board, to use public money to go to a religious or private school.  

The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that vouchers do not violate the Constitution, since parents (not the 
school) make the choice on how to use the money given to them. But this may change soon, as the 
Supreme Court was about to hear another case on the matter. This case before the Court was different, 
because an elected school board actually created the nation’s first school board-approved school 
voucher program. Students in that district in Colorado could apply for a tuition scholarship to attend a 
private school of their choice. This case could have overturned the so called “Blaine Amendments” in 
our state’s and many others’ constitutions, and pave the way for school boards to pass voucher 



Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public 
Tiina Itkonen 

Allies for Education 2017, 1, 1 
https://journals.library.csuci.edu/ojs/index.php/afe 
 

programs in all 50 states (Komer & Neily, 2007). In other words, make vouchers possible if a school 
board so decided. 

Wait…what are Blaine Amendments? For those interested in history: The name Blaine Amendment 
comes from Congressman James Blaine who, back in 1875, proposed an amendment to the Constitution 
that would have prevented states from funding any religious education. It did not pass back then, but 
many states included similar provisions in their state constitutions because they believed that public 
money is for public purposes.  

But then the Supreme Court ruled in June 2017 on another private-public school dispute that a faith-
based preschool must be granted publicly funded recycled tires for its playground paving, thus rejecting 
that it would have violated separation of church and state. The Court ended up not hearing the 
arguments in the Colorado case on whether a publically-elected school board can actually enact voucher 
programs (even though it was already on the “docket,” or the list of cases the Court had agreed to take). 
Instead it sent the case back to state courts for reconsideration in light of the playground ruling.  

Case not closed, in other words. 

So What Does This All Mean?  
Besides the fact that the Colorado case will most likely end up back in the Supreme Court, many things. 
First, public schools are just that – they are public. If you do not like the decisions or directions of a 
school board, members serve a four-year term and can be elected to continue, or voted out (elections 
are actually staggered so that there are school board elections every two years). Second, public schools 
are held accountable. Teachers have to hold proper certifications and go through performance reviews. 
While many of us do not agree with the culture of testing in schools these days, the fact is that test 
results, among many other district activities and decisions are also made public. Last, and perhaps most 
importantly, the purpose of public schools is to educate the polity: to ensure that education is provided 
for every child regardless of their cultural, linguistic, family, and ability backgrounds. The idea behind 
public schooling is for each student to have an opportunity to reach their potential for the good of the 
nation as a whole.  

Vouchers challenge this. You have to just flip the previous arguments around to see what hidden 
consequences there are in a voucher program. Private schools are – well – private. They use public 
money for private enterprises. They do not have to disclose what they teach and how, or who they 
admit. They set up their own entrance requirements and policies that keep out students whom they do 
not want – often the most vulnerable students. They can also set up tuition rates so that a voucher 
covers just part of the annual cost. This automatically excludes students whose families cannot afford to 
pay the difference (thus controlling who they let in). Regarding parental rights, there are eight states 
that offer private school voucher programs for students with disabilities, but the parents must waive 
their special education due process rights to enroll their child. So private schools can do as they please. 
As John Suarez (1998) put it, it is really the schools doing the choosing, not the parents, regardless of 
how much “choice” you put in packaging the argument. The public would simply have no monitoring 
mechanisms of what students are taught, by whom, and whether students actually learn in those 
schools. There would be no accountability for your tax dollars. Most importantly, the public would have 
no say on whether those schools systematically discriminated against some students and their families. 



Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public 
Tiina Itkonen 

Allies for Education 2017, 1, 1 
https://journals.library.csuci.edu/ojs/index.php/afe 
 

 

Does This Mean That Public Schools Are Perfect?  
No, by all means. But you actually have a say. Interestingly, when asked about their own children’s 
public schools, parents are actually satisfied (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). When 
asked about public schools in general, the same parents rate them lower (Gallup, 2016). So, the parents 
actually feel that the schools are doing the job in the politiko – in their own community for their own 
kids. 

 

Now What? 
If you have not been interested in education policy before, this might be a time to check out your own 
school district’s website, what their stated mission is, and who currently sits on the school board (the 
district website has a link for school board members, meeting dates and locations, and minutes). Many 
Ventura County school boards also include their member bios. Even if you do not have school-aged 
children, you can vote; after all, schools are public organizations, it is your taxes, it is your community. 

The democratic structure of public education is at the core of American values. According to Larry 
Cuban, a former social studies teacher, superintendent, and Stanford professor, schools’ primary duty is 
to “…seriously and deliberately educate students to think and act democratically inside and outside of 
classrooms” (2003, p. 47). In other words, public education and publically elected decision-makers – 
school boards – are the only way to protect the politiko. Or as George Washington put it: “A primary 
objective should be the education of our youth…who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of 
the country.” 

About the Author 

Dr. Tiina Itkonen is an Associate Professor of Education and Political Science with over fifteen years of 
experience in public schools, having served as a special education teacher and a district specialist. She is 
experienced in positive behavioral supports, inclusive education, collaboration, teacher education, and 
systemic change. Dr. Itkonen studies interest group behavior in special education as well as education 
policy and politics.

References 
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Parthak, P., and Walters, C. (2015). School vouchers and student achievement: First-
year evidence from the Louisiana scholarship program. Working Paper 21839. Cambridge, MA: National 
Bureau of Education Research. Retrieved from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21839  

Bitler, M., Domina, T., Penner, E., & Hoynes, H. (2015). Distributional effects of a school voucher 
program: Evidence from New York City. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(3). 419–450. 
Retrieved from: https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-and-findings/projects/an-
evaluation-of-new-york-city-school-voucher  



Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public 
Tiina Itkonen 

Allies for Education 2017, 1, 1 
https://journals.library.csuci.edu/ojs/index.php/afe 
 

Center for Education Policy. (2011). Keeping informed about school vouchers: A review of major 
developments and research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522161  

 

California School Boards Association. (2007). School board leadership: The role and functions of 
California’s school boards. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: 
https://www.csba.org/~/media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ashx  

Chingos, M., & Peterson, P. (2015). Experimentally estimated impacts of school vouchers on college 
enrollment and degree attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 122, 1–12. Retrieved from: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.11.013  

Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York: Teachers College Press.  

Dynarski, M. (2016). On negative effects of vouchers. Brookings Institute Evidence Speaks Reports, 
1(18). 1-5. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/research/on-negative-effects-of-vouchers/ 

Figlio, D., & Karbownik, K. (2016). Evaluation of Ohio’s EdChoice scholarship program: selection, 
competition, and performance effects. Columbus, OH: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.  

Gallup (2016). Five insights into U.S. parents’ satisfaction with education. Retrieved from: 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195011/five-insights-parents-satisfaction-education.aspx  

Institute of Education Sciences (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance) 
(2017). Evaluation of the D.C. opportunity scholarship program. U.S. Department of Education. 
Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174022/pdf/20174022.pdf  

Komer, R., & Neily, C. (2007). School choice and state constitutions. Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice. 
Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514959.pdf  

Krueger, A. & Zhu, P. (2004). Another look at the New York City school voucher experiment. American 
Behavioral Scientist, 47(5). 658–698. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w9418  

Lubienksi, C., & Brewer, J. (2016). An analysis of voucher advocacy: Taking a closer look at the uses and 
limitations of “gold standard” research. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(4), 455-472. Retrieved from 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1207438  

Mills, J. N., & Wolf, P. J. (2016). The effects of the Louisiana scholarship program on student 
achievement after two years. University of Arkansas School Choice Demonstration Project. Retrieved 
from http://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/2016/02/report-1-the-effects-of-the-louisiana-
scholarship-program-on-student-achievement-after-two-years.pdf  

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). National household education surveys program 2012 - 
parent and family involvement in education survey. Retrieved from: 
http://educationnext.org/files/2012depted-parents-poll.pdf  



Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public 
Tiina Itkonen 

Allies for Education 2017, 1, 1 
https://journals.library.csuci.edu/ojs/index.php/afe 
 

Rouse, C. E. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee 
parental choice program. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2): 553-602. Retrieved from: 
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5964.pdf  

Stone, D. (2011). Policy Paradox (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton. 

Suarez, J. M. (1998). School vouchers: Yesterday, today and forever. Secular Humanist Bulletin, 14(2).  

Wolf, P., Kisida, B., Gutmann, B., Puma, M., Eissa, N., & Rizo, L. (2013). School vouchers and student 
outcomes: Experimental evidence from Washington, D.C. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 
32(2). 246–270. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21691 


	Why Vouchers Aren’t Good for the (Re)Public
	Public Schools
	What Does This Have To Do With Vouchers?
	Why Is This Important?
	So What Does This All Mean?
	Does This Mean That Public Schools Are Perfect?
	Now What?
	About the Author
	Dr. Tiina Itkonen is an Associate Professor of Education and Political Science with over fifteen years of experience in public schools, having served as a special education teacher and a district specialist. She is experienced in positive behavioral s...
	References

