Investor’s Business Daily, July 1, 2002

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a school-choice plan in Cleveland constitutes true private choice, not state furtherance of religion and is, therefore, constitutional. Thursday’s 5–4 ruling is a victory for all Americans, a blow against the failed government education monopoly, and a lesson for policymakers nationwide.

Those who welcome the ruling as an emancipation proclamation do not exaggerate. No longer will the most disadvantaged children be trapped in failed, dangerous schools such as those in Cleveland, where the graduation rate was a pathetic 28 percent. A federal court shifted control of Cleveland schools to the Ohio state legislature, which in 1996 decided to give choice a chance.

The plan targeted some 4,000 low-income parents, 75-percent minority, with incomes under $20,000. Single mothers head 70 percent of the participating families. The plan provides a voucher of up to $2,250 to help pay for tuition. Most of the parents opted to send their children to private parochial schools, for good reason.

These schools charge no more than $2,500 per year, so parents can afford them. But these schools also have a record of achieving better results than the government school system, even though they spend much less. The scholarships were valid at any school but local public schools refused to accept any choice students.

Since the plan allowed parents to choose private religious schools, opponents argued that the program violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In 1999, a federal judge struck down the Cleveland choice plan, sending the case (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has now ruled that since parents, not the government, decide where to spend the scholarship money, there was no direct government aid to religion and, hence, no constitutional violation. For this there is a precedent.

The post-war G.I. Bill, one of the most popular and successful programs in U.S. history, funded individuals, not any educational system. Recipients could take their government money and study at UCLA, Brigham Young University, or opt to attend seminary. The dollars followed the scholars, and nobody raised First Amendment issues.

Despite the success of this program America’s educational establishment, particularly the teacher unions, has resisted extending the same choice to parents and students in elementary and high school. That is a major reason why schools nationwide continue to underachieve. With captive clientele and a steady flow of taxpayers’ money despite poor results, the government monopoly system has little incentive to improve.

As the Cleveland and Milwaukee choice plans confirm, choice helps children achieve and does not, as opponents charge, “take money from public schools.” Neither does it promote elitism or segregation. There was never any academic reason to oppose educational choice and now there is no legal reason. There never should have been in the first place. Future generations will wonder why it took so long to extend personal choice, a cornerstone of American life, to schoolchildren and their parents.

Legislators and policymakers should ignore the furious reaction from the anti-choice education establishment, especially from those who send their own children to exclusive private schools. Armed with the high-court ruling, which amounts to a G.I. Bill for children, legislators nationwide should now make parental choice in education the cornerstone of their policy. As Institute for Justice’s Clint Bolick says, “This was the Super Bowl for school choice and the students won.”

Instead of the large-scale efforts that have failed at the polls, legislators should follow Cleveland’s example and start with a limited plan for low-income parents. As economist Milton Friedman notes, there is a way to ensure that more public schools participate.

Increase the amount of the scholarship to $7,000, or whatever the states spend on each student per year. This will give recipients more choices and, of course, motivate the schools to produce better results.

The liberal opposition to education vouchers is hypocritical. Food stamps are vouchers that allow low-income people to buy food at the store of their choice. Government housing vouchers do not oblige the recipients to seek lodging in government barracks. Vouchers that allow needy parents to choose better schools should find no opposition from supporters of these other programs. But educational choice programs must not be limited to any particular group, or just a few cities.

Every parent in America, as part of their basic civil rights, should be empowered to choose the school they believe best meets the needs of their children. Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling will help make that a reality.

Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.