Sunday, November 15, 1998

Court should have clarified voucher issue

The Supreme Court ducked a chance to decide the constitutionality of public money going to private religious schools through the medium of vouchers. With no explanation, the court last week let stand a taxpayer-funded voucher program in Milwaukee.

It's easy to see why the justices evaded the case. The issue is emotional, divisive and, thanks to the high court's electing to take a pass, still confusing. Some voucher supporters insist the court's nonaction means programs identical to the Milwaukee model are constitutionally acceptable. Others say it was less than an explicit endorsement.

Opponents argue that just because the program is legal in Wisconsin doesn't make it legal elsewhere, such as in Texas, where Gov. George W. Bush and new Lt. Gov. Rick Perry advocate a pilot voucher program that is sure to become a major issue when the 1999 Legislature convenes in January.

Existing program expanded

Milwaukee raised taxpayer-funded voucher programs to a new order of magnitude three years ago when it expanded a pilot program to include religious schools. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the program did not violate the constitutional separation of church and state because the Wisconsin voucher money -- $5,000 a head -- went to the parents, not directly to the schools.

The preliminary evidence hardly proves that vouchers benefit the kids who can make use of them. Studies in Wisconsin show only slight gains in math scores and none in reading scores by youngsters in the voucher program. Even more in doubt are the benefits to the students and public schools left behind, whose financial support is depleted by voucher money. One justification of vouchers, rather lame and without corroboration, is that somehow the competition will improve the public schools.

Broader principles

Vouchers appear to be a case of trying to do a specific good -- invariably the target areas are inner cities -- at the risk of eroding broader principles. Plus, the driving force behind the movement does not seem to be students or parents or teachers but ideologues like columnist Cal Thomas who think public education is some kind of government plot or prospective builders of private schools who foresee big profits from taxpayer money and are making large contributions to politicians.

Not all children are eligible for vouchers because of income or space limitations. The private schools can accept whom they like, but they may find to their cost down the road that government regulation inevitably follows government money. And despite Wisconsin's finding payments to religious schools acceptable if they are laundered through the parents, some taxpayers understandably object to the idea of their money supporting someone else's religion.

Voucher programs are still scattered and experimental, but challenges in at least four states are headed toward the federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to address this issue sooner or later. It should have done it this time around.