Dollars to Discriminate: The (Un)intended Consequences of School Vouchers

The Reinvention of Vouchers for a Color-Blind Era: A Racial Orders Account

“…The fight between advocates of compensatory vouchers and those who favor 'universal' vouchers mirrors the clash between race-conscious and color-blind forces. It has been sharpened by the recent finding that color-blind voucher statutes provide insufficient protection against racial discrimination in private school admissions (Eckes, Mead, and Ulm 2016). In May 2017, under questioning from House appropriations committee members, US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos declined to say if the federal government would step in to prevent voucher-receiving private schools from discriminating against students (Resmovits 2017).…”

“…It has been sharpened by the recent finding that color-blind voucher statutes provide insufficient protection against racial discrimination in private school admissions. 135 In May 2017, under questioning from members of the House Appropriations Committee, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos declined to say if the federal government would step in to prevent voucher-receiving private schools from discriminating against students. 136 DeVos argued that decisions should be left to parents, an approach to voucher politics that is quintessentially color-blind in its elevation of individual choice over direct and purposeful state action.…”

Media Strategies in Policy Advocacy: Tracing the Justifications for Indiana’s School Choice Reforms

“…Soon after Pence was selected, national-level attention toward Indiana’s school choice reforms began to increase, and this attention intensified after he nominated frequent Pence ally Betsy DeVos for U.S. Secretary of Education. Although DeVos and Trump were quite interested in scaling up these programs, they paid little attention to the empirical record—ironic in an age of “evidence-based policy.” In fact, research was indicating that the three main promises of these reforms—equity, achievement, and efficiencies—were not playing out as reformers had promised (Berends & Waddington, 2018; Eckes, Ulm, & Mead, 2016; Turner et al, 2017; Waddington & Berends, 2018). The main implication for this study was that school choice advocates shifted their stated rationales for these programs through the media, and with the implicit consent of the media, which failed to hold policy advocates accountable for their previous promises.…”

Under the Law: Discriminatory practices in voucher programs

“…According to the Court, the state has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination, which substantially outweighed whatever burden the denial of tax benefits placed on the schools’ abilities to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Likewise, the Court found there to be no violation of the Establishment Clause because the IRS policy was implemented on a neutral, secular basis (see Eckes, Mead, & Ulm, 2016).…”

“…However, most of those states have done little or nothing to prevent other forms of discrimination (see Eckes, Mead, & Ulm, 2016). To date, only Maryland has specifically prohibited voucher programs from discriminating against a broader range of historically marginalized student populations.…”