Privatization

Vouchers, Tax Credit Scholarships, and Education Savings Accounts

Updated 1/13/2014, 10/2/2014, 1/18/2016, 2/27/2017

Vouchers are state-funded certificates that are used to pay tuition to private schools. Mississippians have been so opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund private schools that our constitution bans these voucher payments. Savvy folks who have long sought to privatize our public schools now are attempting to circumvent the constitution – and the will of the people – through tax credit scholarships, also called neo-vouchers, and education savings accounts, another method of funneling state tax dollars to private schools.

What the research says about vouchers and tax credit scholarships:

The most recent research on the academic impact of private school vouchers finds that voucher students experience significant losses in achievement. Prior research showed that gains in achievement were about the same for low income students receiving vouchers as they are for comparable public school students.1

Long-term studies of voucher programs in Milwaukee2, the oldest school choice/voucher program in the U.S., Cleveland3,4, and the District of Columbia5 found no advantage in academic achievement for students attending private schools with vouchers.

In Louisiana’s voucher program, students lost the equivalent of almost half a school year’s learning in math and lost ground in reading, science, and social studies as well. Louisiana students using vouchers to attend private schools were 24-50% more likely to score below Basic (failing) in the four tested subjects than comparable students in public schools.6  By the end of year 2 of Louisiana’s voucher program, voucher students trailed their public school peers by 16 points in math and 8 points in reading.7

Ten years of longitudinal data on Ohio’s EdChoice voucher program found persistently lower achievement for voucher students relative to public school peers in both math and English language arts, with the greatest disparity in math (2003-2004 through 2012-2013).8

Milwaukee, which introduced vouchers in 1990 and by 2014 provided them to 25,000 students annually, requires its voucher students to take the same Wisconsin state tests used in the public schools. This allows a comparison of private school voucher students and public school students, all of whom reside within the city of Milwaukee. Performance results from the 2013-2014 school year showed slightly lower proficiency rates for voucher students in both math and reading as compared to their public school peers.9

Annual studies of Florida’s tax credit (voucher) program continue to show negligible changes for private school voucher students.  Of the 158 private voucher schools reporting more than 30 students, only 18 schools achieved statistically significant, though small, gains in reading and math from 2011 – 2014. Another 31 schools produced statistically significant losses over the three-year period. Most schools’ voucher students performed about the same as they had in previous years, neither gaining nor losing ground when compared to their peers nationally (Florida no longer reports comparative scores for in-state public school and voucher students).10

Competition and choice have failed to produce achievement gains in the countries that have tried the approach, while global leaders in achievement (Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Canada) have succeeded by building capacity within public schools. A study of Indiana’s voucher program found that all of its core concepts are contrary to these best practices of high-achieving nations – improving teacher quality and instructional practices, encouraging mentoring and collaboration, and investing sufficient resources to implement changes.11

A real-world example of how competition affects achievement:

School choice proponents claim that the mere existence of competition from voucher-receiving private schools generates improvement in nearby public schools. Milwaukee offers a real-world example of how a “competitive marketplace” of education options affects achievement in traditional public schools. After 25 years of voucher competition, more than 80% of the city’s public school and voucher students are not proficient in reading and math.12 Moreover, Milwaukee Public School District is among the lowest ranking in NAEP scores of all large urban districts in the U.S.13

How tax credit scholarships and education savings accounts actually work:

Tax credit scholarships circumvent the school funding process by granting dollar-for-dollar state tax credits to those who provide private school tuition “scholarships.” For example, if you owe $5,000 in state income taxes but you make a $5,000 “donation” for a tuition scholarship to a private school, you get a $5,000 tax credit – so you owe the state nothing in taxes. In essence, the state has paid the tuition scholarship by granting you a tax waiver. It is a clear circumvention of the intent of our constitution. Nevertheless, some are eager to pass a bill making it legal in Mississippi.

Education savings accounts are proposed in model legislation by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This tactic also is designed to circumvent state law, this time by handing parents state tax dollars that have been diverted from public schools in exchange for a commitment from the parents to use the funds for any of a variety of “educational” purposes, such as private schools, tutoring, cyber schools, textbooks, etc. In ALEC’s model legislation, there is little to no accountability or oversight for the expenditure of these funds.

As outlined above, research confirms that these sorts of schemes – even when they are intended to help low-income students escape failing schools – provide no achievement benefit. The students do no better in the private schools than they did in the public schools.

Sources:

1 Keeping Informed About School Vouchers: A Review of Major Developments and Research, Center on Education Policy, 2011  See report

2 Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Summary of Fourth Year Reports, 2011

3 Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Summary Report, Indiana University, 1998-2004, 2006

4 The Evidence on Education Vouchers: An Application to the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, City University of New York, 2006, commissioned by the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education

5 Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report, University of Arkansas and Georgetown University, 2010, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education

6 School Vouchers & Student Achievement: First-Year Evidence from Louisiana Scholarship Program, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015  See report

7 How Has the Louisiana Scholarship Program Affected Students? A Comprehensive Summary of Effects After Two Years, Education Research Alliance of New Orleans and School Choice Demonstration Project, 2016  See report

Evaluation of Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship Program, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, July 2016  See report

9 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2014

10 Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Program, Florida State University, 2015

11 Analysis of Indiana School Choice Scholarship Program, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, 2015  See report

12 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2014

13 National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013