Home > Archive

Archive

Private Scholarship Programs: A Matter Of Priorities
CER Action Paper
August 1,1999

For more information, check out: Private Scholarship Program FAQs All About School Choice School Choice Options State by State

The Need
The Demand
The Programs & the Progress
Testimonies

"My mother made education a priority in our home, which sometimes meant going without many luxuries," said Vivian Harrington, a participant of the Washington (DC) Scholarship Fund. "Thank you mom, for doing the best for me and standing beside me all the way."

As of August 1999, 79 private scholarship programs were providing some of America's most underprivileged families the opportunity to send their children to a school of their choice. (Link here for current list of Private Scholarship Programs.) For over 57,000 children, this education opportunity means an escape from failing inner-city public schools, and an enhanced likelihood of a productive and successful future. Over 1.25 million children remain on private scholarship program waiting lists because parents are demanding an alternative to unsafe and low-performing schools. Private scholarship programs are providing them that alternative - the means to a better education for their children. Such school choice options put each child's education first, over and above the pressures of a status-quo education system.

The Need

Since the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk, the weak academic achievement of U.S. students has been at the forefront of the education debate. Yet fifteen years later the nation's major indicators of academic achievement and progress, The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), reveal little progress. More and more, our nation's colleges and universities must offer remedial education to their under-prepared freshmen. And businesses lament the lack of qualified young workers. (For more information on the current condition of education, see CER's The American Education Diet.) The nation remains at risk.

For those most at risk, often in low-income urban areas, access to quality educational opportunity is as critical as it is scarce. While urban district spending rates are typically higher than their state's average, so too are their dropout rates, flying in the face of "we-just-need-more-money" apologists. The average dropout rate for large urban districts nationwide is 51%, going as high as 76% for Columbus, OH. In Denver, CO, the rate is 52%; Atlanta, GA, 57%; Chicago, IL, 52%; Indianapolis, IN, 72%; Detroit, MI, 68%; and St. Louis, MO, 73%. And the list goes on. Likewise, the academic achievement of urban districts falls far below their non-urban counterparts, indicating conditions of academic squalor that rob the students of opportunity. And urban school climate is characterized by problems of physical violence and weapon possession. The education or lack thereof, in many of our urban districts is intolerable.

In fact, many public school teachers, those that probably know the public schools best, are exercising an option that low-income families do not have - to opt out of ineffective public schools and send their children to private schools. A report of teachers' schooling decisions, Where Connoisseurs Send Their Children to School: An Analysis of 1990 Census Data to Determine Where School Teachers Send Their Children to School, found that, especially in urban areas, teachers are making this choice in increasing numbers. In Boston, 44.6% of public school teachers enroll their children in private schools; in Cleveland it's 39.7%; in San Francisco it's 36.7%; and in Chicago it is 36.3%.

Clearly, neither nationwide academic assessments nor a survey of urban school conditions casts an encouraging image of the nation's public school system, and families are trapped in these failing schools. And if public schools do not satisfy the educational requirements of the parents who actually teach in them, there can be no doubt that the system is failing others too. Shouldn't all parents whose children are forced to attend failing schools have the same choice that those teachers are exercising? Many Americans believe just that.

The Demand

A choice is what many parents, especially those often subject to the worst urban conditions, including America's minority families, are seeking. The Center for Education Reform's 1997 National Survey of Americans' Attitudes Toward Education and School Reform found that 82% of adults support offering parents a choice of where their children attend school. Seventy-two percent support allowing poor parents to use tax dollars to send their children to the school of their choice. The 1997 Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools found that 73% of those surveyed feel that allowing parents and students to attend the school of their choice would significantly improve student achievement, and blacks in particular overwhelmingly support publicly funded scholarships that allow students to attend any school. The Democratic Leaders Council (DLC) 1997 survey found 69% of respondents would be more favorable to Democratic leaders who made it a priority to allow disadvantaged students to attend private or parochial schools with public scholarships. And the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) found that support for school vouchers for use in public, private, or parochial schools is strong and growing. A majority of blacks and Hispanics supported school vouchers, especially those most likely to be looking out for better educational opportunities - young parents: 87% percent of blacks ages 26 to 35, and 66.4% of blacks ages 18-25 support vouchers.

A choice is what many parents, especially those often subject to the worst urban conditions, including America's minority families, are seeking. The Center for Education Reform's found that 82% of adults support offering parents a choice of where their children attend school. Seventy-two percent support allowing poor parents to use tax dollars to send their children to the school of their choice. The found that 73% of those surveyed feel that allowing parents and students to attend the school of their choice would significantly improve student achievement, and blacks in particular overwhelmingly support publicly funded scholarships that allow students to attend any school. The Democratic Leaders Council (DLC) 1997 survey found 69% of respondents would be more favorable to Democratic leaders who made it a priority to allow disadvantaged students to attend private or parochial schools with public scholarships. And the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (JCPES) found that support for school vouchers for use in public, private, or parochial schools is strong and growing. A majority of blacks and Hispanics supported school vouchers, especially those most likely to be looking out for better educational opportunities - young parents: 87% percent of blacks ages 26 to 35, and 66.4% of blacks ages 18-25 support vouchers.

Communities want choice. Families need choice. That message is uniting politicians and people from all backgrounds and ideologies. But until legislative solutions are realized, families remain the losers in the political debate. Here is where private scholarship programs, free of politics, can truly make a difference.

The Programs and Progress

J. Patrick Rooney, Chairman of the Golden Rule Insurance Company of Indianapolis, first popularized the idea of privately funded educational choice in the summer of 1991 with the formation of the Educational CHOICE Charitable Trust. The CHOICE Charitable Trust was founded to provide low- income children with the same educational opportunities that Indianapolis' wealthier families already enjoyed. The program pays one-half tuition, up to $800, to any elementary school child who wants to attend a private school, and operates on a first-come, first-served basis. To qualify, the applicant needs to be an Indianapolis Public School District family who qualifies for the federal free- or reduced-price lunch program. In the first year, response to the program was overwhelming, and CHOICE helped over 750 children. The Golden Rule example was set for many cities to imitate.

In 1992, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Atlanta, and Battle Creek (MI) followed the Indianapolis example. In 1993, Albany, Austin, Denver, Detroit/Grand Rapids, Little Rock, Phoenix, and Washington, DC launched programs. In 1994, a $2 million grant by the Walton Family Foundation launched CEO America to offer a national perspective and to help generate momentum behind the private scholarship movement. CEO AMERICA assists new and existing programs with dollar-for-dollar challenge grants and with technical assistance for funding, set-up, and administration. Also in 1994, private scholarship programs bloomed in Dallas, Houston, Midland (TX), Oakland and Los Angeles. In 1995, Orlando, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Knoxville, and Bridgeport began programs. In 1996-1997 Jersey City, Elizabeth (NJ), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Baltimore and Chicago joined the roster of cities offering private pre-college scholarships modeled after the Golden Rule CHOICE program. 1998 was a banner year. In the first half of the year Dayton (OH), San Francisco (CA), Birmingham (AL), Memphis (TN), Louisville (KY), Minneapolis (MN), Chattanooga (TN), and Hartford (CT) signed on. Of particular note, on April 22, CEO America launched an historic choice project in San Antonio (TX). CEO and San Antonio Business leaders committed $5 million a year for at least ten years to provide full tuition scholarships to the 14,000 "at risk" students of the San Antonio Edgewood School District. In 1999, the movement took off. The Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF) invigorated existing scholarship programs and created new ones across the country. On June 9, 1998, Forstman and Walton pledged $100 million to recruit matching partners and establish programs to give scholarships to poor children in 43 cities and 3 entire states, but demand far exceeded supply. So in February 1999, CSF committed $30 million in new funds for communities across the country without existing programs. Families had to be low-income to apply (average income was less than $22,000) and pay to supplement the partial scholarships. In April, CSF randomly selected families for 40,000 four-year partial scholarships, worth $600 to $1,600. Demand for CSF scholarships was overwhelming. There were, in total, 1.25 million applicants - 30 for every one scholarship. As demand for the program has been high, so has the public support. In less than a year, CSF attracted diverse and bipartisan backing. National board of advisors include Erskine Bowles, Will Smith, Barbara Bush, Henry Cisneros, Senator Tom Daschle, Martin Luther King III, Colin Powell, Peter Lynch, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Pat Riley.

The Golden Rule Program is the most popular funding model, but it is not the only one. Student-sponsor programs, boarding school programs, religiously affiliated programs, and archdiocesan and Catholic school aid programs have been providing parents a choice for years. Since 1966, Chicago's Link Unlimited has been providing scholarship assistance to inner city African-American students to attend private and parochial high schools. One-to-one mentoring is emphasized, as well as academic effort through three required years of summer school. In 1986 Peter Flanigan founded New York's Student-Sponsor Partnership, with a similar mentoring emphasis, offering scholarships to students deemed likely to drop out of traditional public schools. Inspired by Flanigan, a Student/Partner Alliance sprang up in Newark, NJ, to support students at risk of dropping out. In June of 1998, Michael Carricarte, a South Miami-born businessman, created the non-profit Miami Inner City Angels to provide tuition scholarships to 100 low-income qualified students. Examples abound of organizations, individuals and archdioceses helping out needy children through a variety of programs, and throughout runs a common thread - putting the child above the system and providing the children of all families the opportunity of education already enjoyed by those with wealth.

Private School Benefits

In 1980 the late James Coleman completed a comprehensive study (funded by the U.S. Department of Education) of academic performance in private and Catholic secondary schools. He made some compelling findings. The achievement test data indicated that students in Catholic schools learned more than students in public schools. Catholic school students were also more likely to improve their scores in math, reading, writing, and vocabulary than their public school counterparts. In 1997, after tracking the progress of more than 10,000 students since 1979, Derek Neal, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, sustained Coleman's conclusions in an essay published in The Public Interest. Professor Neal found that while 62% of minority students at urban public schools graduate, the graduation rate for similar students of corresponding background in Catholic schools is 88%. Among urban minority students who graduate from public high schools, 11% go on to complete college. On the other hand, 27% of those who attended Catholic schools graduate from college. (A similar 10% increase in the college completion rate exists for white urban students.) "It's time to get past this argument that it had to be just a difference in the students," comments Neal. He noted that Catholic schools help improve the economic future of their urban minority students by seeing that more of their students become college graduates, who tend to earn more than those without a degree. "You can look at the Catholic schools as an anti-poverty program," he said.

• Studies of the Indianapolis, San Antonio, and Arizona private scholarship programs support Coleman and Neal's findings. In Evidence from the Indianapolis Scholarship Program, Hudson Institute scholar Carol D'Amico found that the private school experience increased parents' satisfaction and participation in their child's education. That combined with the upward academic progress of the private school children, in contrast to the sliding performance of the public school children, gives positive evidence for school choice. "We conclude that giving parents a choice over how and where their children are educated also gives them ownership and enthusiasm that contributes directly to performance outcomes."


• The University of North Texas Center for the Study of Education Reform examined the private school choice program in San Antonio. They found that the private school choice children were more challenged academically, experienced less fighting and disorder than their public school peers, and that their parents were more involved in their school and with their studies.


• Arizona's Goldwater Institute analyzed the impact of The Arizona School Choice Trust upon its participating families (ASCT is modeled after Golden Rule). It found that 90% of parents believed their chosen school was doing an excellent job, and they based their approval largely on matters of academics, individual instruction, and discipline and order. Without the help of the grants, 75% of the participating children would have to leave their current private or parochial school. Half of the children previously in public school had a poor or worse experience there, according to their parents, and most of the others had a mediocre public school experience.


• According to 1997 figures, 75% of graduates from Milwaukee's Partners Advancing Values in Education (PAVE) program have gone on to college or technical school. Putting students that might otherwise be lost in the system in a strong private school setting has led to positive results.

Just as the statistics verify the benefits of private scholarship programs, so too do the personal testimonies.

• Barbara Lewis has this to say about the impact of the Indianapolis Choice Charitable Trusts on her son: "When he was in the public school system, you could just see the light going out. He just wasn't interested. He did not want to go to school." With CHOICE Charitable Trust, "I saw the possibility of saving Alphonso's education and his future. He had to get used to the discipline and the homework, he missed his old friends. But Alphonso began to learn about citizenship, discipline, and doing your lessons. The values I was teaching him at home were finally being reinforced at school."


• In San Antonio, Texas, Juan Alvarez is a partially disabled father who watched as his oldest daughter, despite the family's best efforts, came under the influence of gangs. His attempts to get school officials involved were useless. They claimed they couldn't do anything about the gangs. He knew that unless he could put Myra in a good school, away from the gangs, he could lose her just like the scores of others whose lives take a wrong direction during the middle and high school years in this inner-city area. Yet, Mr. Alvarez could not afford to move to a better neighborhood or pay private school tuition. Then he read in the newspaper about the Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation of San Antonio. Like Alphonso, Myra had to adjust to the new school, but the results speak for themselves: Myra became a model student, running on the track team, and receiving exemplary grades.


• A relieved foster mother writes a letter of satisfaction to Milwaukee's PAVE program:

…Up until last year, Gwendolyn was in a public school. She has an attention deficit disorder and is slow in math. The school would send home good interim reports with smiling faces. When the report cards came her grades were very low. Gwendolyn was placed in a class for retarded children because she was 'slow,' and the teachers said she had a learning disability. There was nothing more the school could do. Even with three aides in a room, no one could work with her. Also, Gwendolyn was bused to school and that was so hard. Some days the bus was very late and at night she would not get home until almost 6:00 p.m. Plus, the bus drivers would let the kids fight on the bus.
        Since she has been in a private school her grades have gone from D's and F's to C's and B's. The teachers worked with her and with her parents to even teach us how to help her. She still has math problems but is more motivated to try harder. The school atmosphere is better. My daughter can be comfortable and learn. She is not afraid. My foster children are from a very rough area. They were abused and have had a very hard time. This will be their second year in a private school. They are much more calm and settled and doing well in school. I thought sending them to a private school would give them a better chance in life than what they have had.

• Chicago parents John and Kathryn Kuranda testify: "The experience with our oldest child in the Chicago public schools convinced us that we had no other option with our two younger children but to try to get them into a private or parochial school, The bottom line is we believe FOCUS Fund scholarships saved our kids' lives."

As evidenced by the studies and personal testimonies, the private scholarship movement is allowing parents to take educational matters into their own hands by providing them the opportunity to choose a quality education for their children. As the demand and need for school choice continues to build momentum, new programs continue to spring up all across the nation, but the task remains challenging. The programs are young and must negotiate successes and difficulties as they encounter them, from financing to serving a more transient population to handling media relations. Yet, for the families and the communities benefiting from the programs, the efforts are worth it, and the results speak for themselves.

David A. DeSchryver
Director of Research
August 1999

# # #