The Supreme Court's voucher decision last Thursday produced cheers from many quarters, some of them expected (Institute for Justice, Senator Voinovich), others less so (President Bush, New Republic legal specialist Jeffrey Rosen). And of course it produced a predictable hail of negative reactions from teacher union heads, the New York Times editorial page, and sundry politicians.
In the chorus of commentary, however, one set of singers was notably muted: those who lead and speak for U.S. private schools. Tepid was the word that came to mind as I read their reactions. Sure, everyone in this crowd lauded the Court for making the right decision and everyone said nice things about freedom, the value of choice and the educational contributions of private schools. But there was practically no suggestion that U.S. private educators are ready to press for more vouchers so that their schools can serve more disadvantaged children.
The Catholic bishop of Columbus, Ohio, James A. Griffin, said that the high court's ruling was right but that the jury is still out on the effectiveness of the Cleveland program and he isn't counting on any more vouchers. He doesn't even seem to want them. Indeed, he told the Columbus Dispatch that he does not plan to ask the legislature to widen the program to include his community. (I had earlier heard through other channels that Ohio's Catholic leaders have no intention of becoming voucher advocates, never mind that most of the Cleveland youngsters taking advantage of this program are benefiting from their schools-and bringing millions of dollars into those schools.)
National Catholic leaders were slightly more bullish. Sister Glenn Ann McPhee, Secretary for Education at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, pronounced herself "delighted" with the decision and "encourage[d] members of Congress and state legislators to join Ohio and other states in offering scholarship or tax credit programs." But her statement also implied that such encouragement might fade at the first sign of opposition: "This decision in no way threatens the viability of the public school system."
Her counterpart at the National Catholic Educational Association, the estimable Michael Guerra, while terming the Zelman ruling a "great victory," sought only the moral high ground: "Now that the constitutional debate is over, advocates and opponents of school choice will focus exclusively on the public policy question: Is it wise or foolish for government to support the decisions parents of modest means would like to make about the schools in which their children are educated? We believe it is not only wise, but also just."
The National Association of Independent Schools was mute as an organization even as it posted carefully nuanced guidance for its members as to how they might want to answer voucher questions. For example:
"Would/do you accept vouchers?
CONSIDER- Would accepting vouchers affect your school's program (curriculum or position on standardized testing)?...
CONSIDER- Would vouchers allow your school to maintain its selective admission process?
DISCUSS the importance of finding the right match between the school's program and the child's abilities and style of learning....
CONSIDER- Are there enough openings for admission at your school to accept a large number of voucher students?"
Among the private-school reactions that I spotted in a brief web tour, the most gung-ho came from Joe McTighe of the Council for American Private Education, who declared that "This could be a watershed moment in the history of school reform if states choose to seize the opportunity presented by the court today." But he, too, then drifted into a mushy discussion of public-private partnerships.
What did America's private school leaders NOT say? They didn't say that they yearn to serve more children, especially poor, inner-city minority youngsters. They didn't say that they will fight for the legislative and political victories that might make that possible. They didn't demand fiscal equality whereby voucher-bearing kids are worth as much as students attending government-run schools. They did not, in short, say much that would lead an observer to conclude that the Court's ruling affords them and their schools an opportunity that they intend to seize. In truth, many seemed sheepish, wary lest someone think them insufficiently loyal to the principle of public education.
One might have expected the country's private schools to be the loudest voices in this chorus. Institutionally, they have the most to gain from Zelman. Morally, it vindicates what they do as a bona fide option for poor kids, one that society is now free to encourage. As educators, it says they can do more educating of more kids, including those who need it most.
But nobody said anything of the sort.
What is going on here? Why are private schools so diffident? I don't know for sure, but can suggest five possible explanations.
First, they may be behaving in a politically astute way, not gloating or divulging their plans, just calmly praising the court while remaining vague about what it means for them. (I wish I believed this, but I've never found private school people a terribly cagey bunch when it comes to politics and strategy.)
Second, they may be suffering from a touch of the Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their jailers and feeling nervous about saying or doing anything that might be construed as less than 100% support for public education. They have, after all, been in this policy prison for a very long time and are apt to have picked up some of its habits and values. They've lost their edge, their passion, their gusto, their mission to serve (and, in the process, to thrive).
Third, they may simply lack enterprise and vision. It's rare in the private-school world (outside its small for-profit sector and a few "Christian school" heads) to find educators who want their schools to grow, to open additional campuses, to recruit more clients. Most seem content to stick with what they are doing, keeping their schools as they are, more disposed to opt for a longer waiting list and greater selectivity-which in some circles confers greater status-than to educate more young people.
Fourth, they may really not feel ready to succeed with larger numbers of disadvantaged, at-risk and special-needs kids. In other words, they're not sure they're up to the education challenge. (And when insecurity about change merges with inertia and lack of enterprise, the combination practically assures continuation of the status quo.)
Fifth, some, maybe many, are nervous about the governmental interventions and policy shifts that they fear will accompany vouchers (or other public funding except-maybe-through tax credits. The independent schools are open about this: they don't want to embrace those state academic standards, take those state tests, or have the state tell them which youngsters to enroll. They'd rather stay poor, small and exclusive than let the government set foot on their campuses.
Voucher opponents are already playing on that last concern, insisting (e.g. the AFT's Sandra Feldman) on the proverbial "level playing field" for any "voucher schools." This, of course, poses a risk to private schools' independence and in its most virulent form could (as in some other nations) leave them independent in name only, subject to nearly every rule and procedure that entangles the regular public schools. (This is also a profound issue for charter schools.)
The "level playing field" is a shrewd argument in a country where most people value fair play and believe that competition should be based on equal terms. And it's partly right: I agree with Feldman & Co. that schools getting state dollars should have to take the state tests and report their results. That doesn't necessarily mean they must embrace the state's academic standards, however. When the test results come in, parents can judge for themselves whether their children's schools are focusing on the right things. So long as private (and charter) schools are willing to be publicly accountable for their results, they should be free to produce those results however they wish. And why not extend that principle to "regular" public schools, too? How about deregulating them instead of regulating their rivals?
The playing field, moreover, must be level from both directions. It's outrageous to expect the same results from private schools when they're given less than half the operating dollars per pupil that flow to government-operated schools-and no capital financing, either. (Charter schools end up with about 80% of the per-student operating budget but, in many states, little or no capital funding.) Fair is fair.
That means trade-offs, yes. Private schools keep their freedom of means but become subject to public accountability for results. Public schools get deregulated. And everyone gets the same per-student funding (perhaps adjusted upward for disadvantaged and disabled youngsters.)
But it does little good to suggest such policy precepts if private schoolers have no zeal to serve more children. And their first round of reactions to Zelman suggests that they're finding it easy to keep that ardor under control.
