In November, California voters will decide whether the state should fund a voucher program. Should voters decide in favor of Prop. 38, California will provide $4,000 in tuition support for any K-12 public school student who chooses to attend a private school, religious or non-sectarian, beginning in the 2001-02 school year. Students already enrolled in private schools would also receive vouchers, although their eligibility would be phased in over a four-year period. Key to the voucher debate is the question: How will Prop. 38 likely affect students' access to private schools?
This question is critical because without access, greater opportunities for school choice will not exist. To answer the question, WestEd [a nonprofit research, development and service agency that serves as one of the nation's designated Regional Educational Laboratories] surveyed private schools, reviewed relevant literature, and interviewed experts in California and across the nation. The resulting report considers the current and projected enrollment capacity, tuition and other costs, and admissions practices of California's private schools - the most critical factors that affect access. Following is a synopsis of the findings.
Implications for enrollment capacity
The success of any voucher program intending to increase choice depends on the capacity of the private school system to accommodate additional students. Regarding the capacity of California's existing private schools, many are already full, or nearly so. Furthermore, at many private schools - both religious and nonsectarian - applications already exceed the number of spaces available.
Moreover, the barriers to creating new spaces, either through expansion of existing schools or establishment of new schools, are substantial. Many private schools are explicitly opposed to expansion as they believe increased size will harm educational quality. Furthermore, given the practical and financial considerations of enlarging existing schools, it seems unlikely that $4,000 vouchers would fuel any extensive expansion. As for the creation of new schools, it seems improbable that parents, educators, or entrepreneurs would be able to open many new facilities without charging substantially more than the voucher amount. Thus, any considerable increase in capacity - and, therefore, access - would likely be restricted to the more affluent. For low-income parents, Prop. 38 is unlikely to extend school choice significantly.
Implications for tuition and other costs
Based on WestEd's survey of tuition costs at California's private schools, it appears that, at least for the next few years, a $4,000 voucher would cover tuition at most religious schools, particularly elementary schools. However, that affordability is neutralized by the fact that so many of these schools are already full or nearly full. At many religious schools and the overwhelming majority of independent schools, the voucher would not cover tuition and typical additional costs (textbooks, sports, and transportation). In such cases, families would have to augment the voucher to cover the remainder.
For schools whose current tuition is under $4,000, vouchers could serve as an incentive to raise their tuition, especially if the schools were seeing demand rise. Even schools already charging more than $4,000 might increase tuition on the theory that their families could now afford to pay more. Therefore, the $4,000 vouchers would most likely serve to partially subsidize costs for currently enrolled private school students. The vouchers might also allow more middle-income families to access previously unaffordable schools. But the new vouchers would probably not greatly increase access for low-income families. Nor would the program likely expand access for families who want their children to attend a non-religious school.
Implications for admissions practices
Unlike other publicly-funded voucher programs, which call for an open admissions policy for voucher students, Prop. 38 would not require private schools to alter their admissions criteria in any way. In other words, Prop. 38 would not provide an incentive for private schools to enroll under-performing students, special populations, or any other students that would not be admitted under current admissions policies. Already, many private schools screen students for academic ability, and the likely increase in applications under Prop. 38 would probably cause them to become more selective. Those students who are either below grade level or who score poorly on an admissions test would not be likely to receive a space. Similarly, unless new schools were opened specifically targeting special education students - unlikely, given the per-pupil cost of doing so compared to the voucher amount - these students would probably continue to have little access to the vast majority of private schools. Families of English language learners seeking schools that provided distinct programs to address their children's language-related learning needs would face the same situation.
In conclusion, access to private schools would not expand appreciably if Prop. 38 were adopted. While Prop. 38 would offer a voucher to any school-age student, the details of the initiative, coupled with the projected capacity, costs, and admission practices of California private schools, would largely limit any expanded private school choice to more-advantaged families. Prop. 38 does not contain mechanisms for stimulating notable change in school choice.
Erica Adelsheimer
Adelsheimer is the principal researcher and author of WestEd's "Analysis and Implications of California Prop. 38: Will Vouchers Improve Student Access to Private Schools?" For the full text, visit the WestEd Web site[http://www.wested.org/] or call toll-free (877) 4WestEd. ©WestEd, September 2000