HIPÓTESIS INICIALES PARA EL DESARROLLO DEL MODELO

In Chapter II, the literature review identified six controversial concepts associated with voucher programs in general, which concepts served to frame the acrimonious debate with its competing interests and ideologies. The six controversial concepts were: the market effect, the right to individual freedom of choice, the search for improved academic achievement, legal objections, racial segregation and equity, and funding issues.

As I analyzed the data from Milwaukee, I watched for arguments that paralleled or contradicted the literature, and looked out for new data that could inform my

understanding of the six concepts. New data did emerge as several arguments were approached from a different perspective in Milwaukee. For instance, the racial equity concept included the ongoing debate in Milwaukee about forced busing and failed

133

attempts at integration. The concept of choice gained dimension as a socially just choice for disadvantaged families who were underserved by the MPS. Below, I describe the varying extent to which all six concepts were salient in the Milwaukee data.

The Market Effect

The concept of applying market principles to education reform broadly covered several perspectives from both the opponents and the advocates in the WI debate: allowing competition to challenge and/or strengthen public schools, protecting the responsibility of the State to ensure an educated citizenry versus ending the monopoly of government as the provider of education, and striving for greater cost-efficiency in the delivery of education.

Clearly, some proponents of the MPCP attempted to advance their interests by infusing competition into the provision of educational services. One of the three themes identified by Schmitz-Zien (2003) in her study was that of the market theory. Schmitz- Zien documented the concerns of Milwaukee‘s business community at the low level of skills demonstrated by students from Milwaukee Public Schools. Business organizations were reported as overall in support of the MPCP and several political leaders made it clear that to end the monopoly of the state and bring competition into the mix would, in their perspective, provide an improved alternative to inner city families, compel the inner city schools to improve, or both.

The education establishment opposed the concepts of the market effect and competition, which they believe do not belong in the provision of public education. This opposition was as true for Milwaukee as the literature claimed it was throughout the

134

nation. However, Dr. Fuller assured me that, ―Polly never read Milton Friedman‘s, you know, Capitalism and Freedom. I don‘t even know that he advocated vouchers‖ (H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010). For the advocates who ultimately prevailed in advancing a targeted voucher program, their focus was not on building the business community or attacking public schools. The market effect was a marginal issue.

The Right to Individual Freedom of Choice

The concept of choice can at times overlap slightly with the market theory and competition. Naturally, with market influences, citizens would be free to choose their own options and choose where to assert their buying power. Also, with competition, as families choose the school they deem best for their child, the school not chosen may feel a degree of pressure to improve. Freedom of individual choice is critical to market and competitive influences having the desired effect, which is very limited in targeted voucher programs due to the relatively small numbers of families and schools participating.

In the case of Milwaukee‘s inner city families, providing choice through the MPCP was more about having an alternative to remaining in a persistently failing school in a persistently nonresponsive system. It was about underserved families being able to choose a quality school. Other reforms had been put forth to no avail. Overall, the proponents‘ battle was not compelled by a strong belief in and push for market forces or competitive influences. It was about a way of escape and securing a quality education for poor, mostly minority students. Ultimately, choice for MPCP families meant exiting the public school system and finding other options in an attempt to attain academic

135

improvement. Choice opponents argued the belief that academic improvement should be attained by staying in the school system and working to reform from within.

The argument to allow some families to choose through the use of a voucher merged with other concerns about the potential effects of vouchers: limited market influences, (perceived) competition to public schools, funding being transferred from the public school to a private school, and concerns about equitable solutions for minorities once they were operating in the free market. The overlap of these issues makes it difficult to identify exactly how critical the single concept of choice was to the controversy in Milwaukee; however, it is clear that the totality of these several issues were a large part of the argument from both sides of the voucher debate (Carl, 1995; H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Hill, 1998; Schmitz-Zien, 2003; Thompson, 1996; Wood, 1999).

It appeared from the Milwaukee data that the voucher advocates were not necessarily battling for choice, per se, as much as for the opportunity for ―low-income and working class parents [to] have the ability to choose quality‖ (H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010). They were not opposed to public schools or out to destroy public schools. As Fuller indicated, the voucher advocates continued to make the argument that ―there was clear evidence that there continued to be a failure to educate poor Black children.‖

One Senate participant in Woods‘ (1999) study, whose vote was critical to getting Williams‘ bill out of Committee, confessed, ―I really agonized over my vote because I‘m a supporter of public education. The statistics in Milwaukee were so bad that you

136

couldn‘t help but pay attention to it‖ (p. 512). Wood concluded that, ―For the first time poor families who were not being well served by the public schools could have an alternative choice of educational opportunity for their children,‖ and added, ―In the end, this made a critical difference for many legislators who might otherwise not have voted for the legislation‖ (p. 7).

Although a lesser degree of the data suggested the MPCP was accidental and a ―serendipitous alignment of forces‖ (Carl, 1996, p. 266), the bulk of the data aggregated around the concept of an intentional provision created for a deserving group of poor, inner-city students (Hill, 1998; Schmitz-Zien, 2003; H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Wood, 1999).

In contrast to the motive of social justice, Pedroni (2007) stood out as the sole researcher in my study who disavowed any truly good intent of the MPCP and asserted that ―market-oriented voucher advocates first positioned parents … whose sole constraint consisted of artificially limited, market-defined choice (my italics)‖ a choice which he claimed the parents are essentially unable to make (p. 34). Pedroni‘s position is aligned with other education leaders who contend that sometimes marginalized families end up ―choosing not to choose,‖ (Wells & Crane, 1997, p. 179), as stated in Chapter III. The WI data did not support this concern for the MPCP and its advocates.

Academic Achievement

The literature mostly addressed academic achievement in terms of concerns about comparative assessments for both voucher and public schools, whether or not voucher schools would improve student performance, and how to hold voucher schools

137

accountable for assessments and academic performance. The controversy in Milwaukee, however, was specifically about the low level of academic achievement demonstrated by poor and minority students in the inner city public schools. The low academic

achievement level of MPS inner city schools and the glaring achievement gap based on socioeconomic level and race was the focus of the MPCP proponents‘ distressing argument for some type of intervention, which ultimately was the MPCP.

Not only was poor academic achievement an impetus for reform efforts in Milwaukee, it appeared by some accounts to be the impetus for the MPCP, particularly given decades of persistent failure, high drop-out rates, and the failed efforts of other reforms. Again, the overlap of concepts intermingled motives, consequences and, ultimately, ideologies. The situation of poor and minority students trapped in academic failure was seen as a social injustice, while persistently low public school performance elicited calls for choice, competition, and market influences (Holt, 2000; Schmitz-Zien, 2003; H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Witte, 1985; Wood, 1999).

Unlike the opponents in the literature, who countered the attacks of academic failure with arguments defending the performance of public schools, MPS was

defenseless in the face of the 1985 Study Commission. The lack of academic achievement for the disadvantaged students of the MPS was central to the voucher cause.

Legal Objections

The separation of church and state stood out as the most controversial legal issue surrounding the MPCP. Other legal concerns were not raised as major arguments in the MPCP debate, although they became more prominent once the legislation passed and

138

implementation of the MPCP began. Legal issues such as devising a framework of regulations for voucher schools, developing systems of accountability, and educating students with disabilities, have become more prominent concerns in the two decades the MPCP has operated.

The separation of church and state was argued by legislators during the

development of the voucher legislation, to the point that parochial schools were excluded from participating in the 1990 bill. There were opponents to vouchers who fought that legal argument, as well as supporters of vouchers who also believed religious schools should not be allowed to participate. This concept would apparently make or break the passage of the voucher legislation, since earlier versions which included parochial schools were defeated, but the 1990 MPCP legislation passed.

Catholic schools in the inner city were known for serving disadvantaged youths and it was believed they could provide greater capacity to accept more students. There were Catholic schools willing to participate in the MPCP program, but they were excluded in the drafting of the legislation.

Racial Segregation and Equity

The concept of racial equity was as important to the MPCP debate as academic achievement, since Milwaukee‘s disaggregated data at the time of the controversy indicated a persistent achievement gap based on race. The two concepts overlap, as we have seen with other concepts, and diverse reactions also characterized the advocates‘ perception of what constitutes racial equity.

139

Schmitz-Zien (2003) named racial equity as the first of three themes arising from the data, describing the struggle of low-income Black citizens dating back into the 1960s. As the Milwaukee School Board neglected to adequately address the widening gap in achievement, many Black families and the advocates working with them determined to work outside of the public school system to find equity (Holt, 2000; Wood, 1999).

Some participants across the several collections of narrative data named socioeconomic status (or class) as the area in need of equitable solutions. The

achievement gap affected both concepts, particularly since inner city minority families were typically low-income, although poor White families lived there as well. The focus of the voucher program, however, wasn‘t aimed at race only but was, in fact, based on income level and city residency as the criteria for participation. As the data gathered around the concept of racial equity, it included descriptors inclusive of both criteria, such as poor and minority students, poor Black students, low-income and working class minorities, poor Whites and inner city minorities, and low-income families of color (Hill,1998; Holt, 2000; Pedroni, 2003; Pedroni, 2007; Schmitz-Zien, 2003; H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Wood, 1999). Furthermore, Holt summarized the feelings of many voucher advocates when he noted, ―We made it a racial issue. Because when you are talking about low income kids the majority are going to be Black‖ (Wood, 1999, p. 440).

Segregation was a concern for voucher opponents in WI, believing that

segregation would have an adverse effect on racial equity. Dr. Fuller identified concerns about resegregation as a major argument of the voucher opponents in the MPCP

140

controversy. Although integration was not balanced in the MPS, opponents believed it would worsen with the implementation of vouchers (H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010). Studies dating back to 1981 and others more current indicate that many private schools are more likely to have diverse populations than public schools. Studies have also indicated that many times poor and minority children perform better in

religious schools than public schools (Coleman, 1987, as cited in Shokraii, 1996; Forster, 2006b); Viteritti, 1996; Viteritti, 1999).

The literature contained charges from voucher critics that voucher programs still leave many poor and minority students without quality options and that Black students and White students would consequently become resegregated. Some voucher proponents had come to believe that integration was not as important as a quality education in a local community school, whatever the ratio of Black and White students. With the previous attempt of Polly Williams and sectors of the Black community to develop an all-Black school system, it was evident she and others were looking for quality alternatives without regard to racial balance. Opponents used the lack of racial balance that was likely to occur in a voucher program as ammunition to criticize the voucher legislation, but ultimately the lack of success of other reform efforts, including that of mandated and voluntary integration, left opposing arguments weak and ineffective (Schmitz-Zien, 2003; H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Wood, 1999).

As a researcher, although the question was not raised in the data, I wonder if it is racially equitable to provide for 1% of the MPS student population (as the initial MPCP did), leaving all other poor and working class families to fend for themselves. Likewise,

141

is it more equitable to leave the students in the troubled public schools to partake in reforms, as MPS insisted was best, or to allow them to move to schools that are

considered less accountable for performance? These and other questions are still up for debate in Milwaukee and elsewhere. What became clear from the Milwaukee data is that many poor, mostly minority families in the MPS inner city schools wanted an alternative for as many students as the legislation would allow.

Funding Issues

At its inception, the MPCP earmarked $2.5 million to fund choice for 1% of the MPS student population, totaling 970 students of the 97,000. Each student was given a voucher valued at $2,500, which was the amount of MPS per pupil state aid (leaving federal and local funding in place at the MPS school) to use at the non-sectarian school of their choice. The MPS was spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per student, with the average cost around $5,700. During that first semester, of the 970 eligible students, 345 low-income, mostly minority students were placed in the seven participating schools (Innerst, 1990; Nicholson, 1990; Putka, 1990; Wells, 1990; Wilkerson, 1990).

The same budget bill that allocated $2.5 million to the MPCP, designated $40 million in state funding for public school construction and repairs in the ―Aging Schools‖ legislation. The previous year, teachers‘ unions, the largest and most vocal opponent of vouchers, worked hard to push through the early retirement legislation, sometimes known as the pension bill, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to cover the 50,000

members of WI‘s education union, as well as another 150,000 state employees (Wood, 1999).

142

As legislators attempted to fund both public school concerns and fund the new voucher program, the opponents of the voucher legislation decried the diverting of any money away from public schools and into the hands of private schools. Ultimately, the Joint Committee on Finance reduced the amount of tuition offered to participating private schools. Rather than tuition of 53% of the MPS per pupil expenditure, the language was changed to read that ―the State would pay a lesser amount equal to the per pupil

equalization and supplemental aid payments‖ (Wood, 1999, p. 501).

The final legislation allocated $2,500 per child rather than the initial $3,100. The state‘s general fund would have a net cost of $-0-. The MPCP was legislated to be budget neutral and to remain budget neutral in all future years (Wood, 1999).

The belief among the legislators in support of the bill was that the bill would not pass without these changes to the monetary allocations. However, some supporters advocated for the MPCP because they believed it would be a cheaper reform than other options or that it would benefit their own district financially.

Dr. Fuller expressed the belief that the legislation would not have passed if a funding analysis indicated it would harm the other school districts in the state. Funding was a controversial and court-challenged concept in the MPCP, but legislators were able to come to a consensus in the passage of the bill and advocates accepted the funding outcome (H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Wood, 1999). The bottom line for opponents is the concern that vouchers will drain money away from the public school system.

143

The final and overriding argument of opponents to the MPCP was that to divert money away from the public schools was an attempt to destroy public schools. Dr. Fuller charged that ―the major argument is the one that they continue to make: that this was an effort to destroy public schools. That was the principle argument that resonated. And it still resonates today: that this is about destroying public schools‖ (H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010).

These charges came from the largest and most powerful opponents of school choice vouchers—the teachers‘ unions, educational associations, the NAACP, and the ACLU. For the most part, the leaders of these organizations did not align with some of their key constituents in agreeing on the purposes and intent of the voucher program. As Dr. Fuller claimed, this argument resonated to opponents then and now. Removing students, draining funds, and seeking solutions outside of the public school system structure were and are seen by opponents as destructive tactics to the framework within which they function to provide education (Holt, 2000; Schmitz-Zien, 2003; Thompson, 1996; H. Fuller, personal communication, March 22, 2010; Wood, 1999).

Summary of the Six Concepts

The analysis of the WI data revealed that, indeed, there were arguments and debates surrounding each of the six concepts. However, none of these concepts achieved a level of prominence that deterred the proponents of vouchers and, ultimately, the opponents could not prevail based on one, or even a conglomerate of all of these

controversies, although court challenges immediately followed the passage of the MPCP legislation in 1990.

144

The controversy in WI was centered around the poor and minority children attending failing inner city schools and, in fact, the advocates of vouchers were

successful in keeping the focus on those students, rather than on any one issue or debate found in the literature. Although there was controversy about various concepts, there was not significant controversy over the deservedness of this disadvantaged group.

My first research question asks, ―What areas of controversy were prominent in Milwaukee, WI, and how did the voucher policy advance in spite of such controversy?‖ Whereas one group saw these voucher efforts as an attack on public schools, the other group believed the public schools in MPS inner city were doing an injustice to the