When policymakers, from school board hopefuls all the way up to candidates for the White House, talk about improving schools, the subject often turns to vouchers. On the surface, vouchers sound appealing because they appear to be a way to offer parents more choices over where to send their children to school. But once you get past the surface and move beyond the misleading rhetoric of voucher proponents, it becomes clear that vouchers are no solution. In fact, they could be a disaster for the future of our public schools.

To tell the true story of vouchers in a straightforward manner, the AFT has developed a variety of materials, most recently a booklet titled, "Who Chooses? Who Loses? A Closer Look at School Choice." The following questions and answers about vouchers are based largely on that booklet.

What are vouchers?
It's important to know that when people talk about vouchers, they are talking about taking public funds--your tax dollars--and using them to pay for students to attend private schools (including religious schools). With public funds, there's a limited pot. So if a state or local district--or even the federal government, as some in Congress would like--helps pay for students to attend private schools, that means less money is available for public schools and other public services. In other words, just as many districts--especially in urban areas--are turning around their schools by focusing on what works, they have to make do with less because the money to fund vouchers often comes directly from their local budget. (More on that shortly.)

Shouldn't parents and students have a choice of schools?
Of course they should, and the AFT supports the right of parents to send their child to any school they want. What the pro-voucher forces fail to point out, however, is that vouchers do not necessarily open the door to any private school. Far from it. Most private and religious schools have admissions tests and requirements, and they can reject students for almost any reason. What's more, even with a voucher, most urban families can't afford private schools. In fact, many voucher programs are designed in such a way that they primarily help students already in private school. In Cleveland, for example, of the 3,000 students enrolled in the city's voucher plan in 1997-98, only 25 percent had attended public schools the year before. So when you hear voucher proponents promote them as a way to help students "escape" low-performing public schools, you should be skeptical.

How do vouchers hurt disadvantaged students?
As noted above, in some places--such as Florida, with its recent statewide program--money to pay for vouchers comes directly out of local school district budgets. In Milwaukee in 1998-99, the public schools lost $22 million due to the city's voucher program. In Cleveland, $1.4 million in public school funds was used to pay for taxis to transport voucher students to school. And just because a handful of students leave the district and attend private schools, that doesn't mean the cost of running the public schools will drop significantly. Moreover, evidence indicates that voucher plans often skim higher-achieving students and involved parents from the public schools, leaving behind an even more disadvantaged student population--with fewer resources.

Those millions could have been used far more productively to help the vast majority of students who remain in public schools. (And it's important to note that 90 percent of all students--and a much higher percentage of minority students--attend public schools.) The money spent on vouchers in Milwaukee could have lowered class sizes for 13,000 students. In Cleveland, the $10 million spent on vouchers in one year could have brought Success for All--a proven reading program--to all 80 of the city's public elementary schools, with $6 million to spare.

What are the alternatives to vouchers if we're serious about improving low-performing schools?
Many schools and districts across the country have made significant progress in improving student achievement in recent years by focusing on what has been proven to work. A couple of key reforms are mentioned in the previous paragraph: lowering class sizes to allow teachers and paraprofessionals to spend more time with individual students, and using proven programs that help all children learn to read. In addition, school buildings need to be repaired and modernized so children have access to technology and can learn in a safe, healthy and comfortable environment. And while some reforms cost money, others don't. For example, school districts need to establish and enforce firm discipline codes that prevent one or a handful of students from disrupting the learning of other students.