An Opportunity Scholarship Proposal for Kansas:
Providing Families a Choice and Taxpayers a Break
By Dan Lips


Dan Lips is an education analyst who has written extensively on education issues and published papers with numerous state-based think tanks across the country.

Executive Summary

Kansas lawmakers are currently considering various proposals to drastically increase state public education spending. In her recent budget proposal, Governor Kathleen Sebelius called for a $304 million increase in public education funding.[i] Her proposal comes in the wake of Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock’s ruling that Kansas' school finance formula was unconstitutional and requires even greater redistribution of resources between school districts. Bullock’s ruling called for an increase of approximately $1 billion over the $2.6 billion Kansas currently spends annually on education.[ii]

Indeed the need to improve Kansas’s K-12 system is urgent. The 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress examination found that only a third of Kansas fourth graders scored proficient in reading. Only four-in-ten scored proficient in math.[iii] Yet there is little evidence that increasing education spending leads to higher levels of academic achievement.[iv] This paper proposes a more promising, parent-centered education reform alternative – opportunity scholarship – to improve educational opportunities for Kansas students in a fiscally responsible manner.

According to the Heritage Foundation, six states currently have school voucher programs. Most recently, in 2003, Colorado enacted a school voucher proposal that could help up to 20,000 students by 2007. In January of 2004, Congress passed a school voucher program for students in the District of Columbia. This program, which will begin in the fall of 2004, will provide vouchers worth up to $7,500 students for 1,700 low-income school children.

Research shows private schools operate at roughly half the cost of public schools yet deliver comparable or superior education services.[v] If parents could be encouraged through scholarship subsidies to make better use of local private schools, the cost of Kansas’s education system to taxpayers would decrease. At the same time more students would receive a chance at a first-rate education. Importantly, academic research suggests that improving parents’ ability to choose their child’s school improve outcomes for both the students that leave the public school system for private schools, and those who remain in public schools.

This paper considers how Kansas policymakers could implement a school voucher program. The proposal, which is phased-in over a ten year period, would begin in 2005 by awarding 2,000 vouchers to low-income students. These vouchers would be worth up to 65 percent of the per pupil expenditure in public schools – or approximately $4,100 a piece. Each year, the number of participating students would increase by 2,000 until 2014 when 20,000 students would be receiving voucher scholarships. While every family in Kansas deserves the opportunity to choose the best school for their child, this voucher proposal is designed to focus the greatest assistance on those children from low-income families currently enrolled in public school.

In addition to increasing opportunities for disadvantaged children, the voucher proposal offers the additional benefit of saving taxpayers money. Since vouchers would be worth 65 percent of the per pupil expenditure and will be awarded only to low-income school children, the state saves resources when each child transfers from public to private school. In total, the proposal promises to save taxpayers a total of 95 million over the ten-year phase-in period.

Yet the true value of this reform proposal cannot be measured on the state ledger. More valuable than the fiscal savings is the plan’s promise to infuse the stagnant state education system with competitive forces. When families are given the power to choose the best school for their child, educators are encouraged to improve services to attract and retain students. Beginning down the path toward a system of widespread school choice will begin to foster an education marketplace that promises better educational opportunities for all Kansas students.

Options Make a Difference
There are many reasons why giving parents more control over their children’s educations should improve student outcomes. Our daily experience demonstrates that in general the private sector runs businesses more efficiently than does the government. Where would one expect faster and more efficient customer service, from the post office or Federal Express? Market competition and private enterprise gives Americans our bountiful, diverse supermarkets; the lack of it gave the Soviet Union its bread lines.

The forces of competition will also lead to more efficient and effective education system. According to respected education scholar Andrew Coulson, throughout history education markets have consistently done a better job than state monopolies of serving both our individual needs and our communal goals.[vi]

Over the past two centuries, renowned economists and political theorists have proposed various forms of privatized education systems designed to use the private marketplace to deliver education services. In 1859, English political theorist John Stuart Mill argued that a private education marketplace would provide society and parents with a diverse and efficient school system.[vii] In 1955, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman proposed a voucher system that would provide society, through the spontaneous order of the marketplace, the most efficient allocation of resources for the educating of its citizens.[viii]

Today, the argument for school choice rests on more than economic theory. Empirical evidence of existing school choice programs shows that competition improves the entire public school system, helping both the students who switch to private school and the students who remain in the public schools.

For example, a study conducted by researchers from Harvard and Georgetown Universities and the University of Wisconsin released in 2001 found that African- American students receiving private scholarships in Ohio, New York, and Washington, D.C. scored significantly higher than their peers who remained in public schools.[ix] Overall, dozens of independent studies have found that school choice programs benefit the students who participate.[x]

However, it is short-sighted to only consider the benefits for the students who use education choice to transfer to private schools. Introducing competition into a stagnant public school system would force all schools to improve as well. Harvard University economist Caroline Hoxby has found that in metropolitan areas with even limited competition, choice forces schools to provide better outcomes at a lower cost.[xi] It makes sense: Like any business, the threat of losing customers encourages even the worst schools to try to get their acts together.

Columbia University scholars recently examined 35 empirical studies testing the effects of competition in the educational marketplace. Overall, they found that “a sizable majority of these studies report beneficial effects of competition across all outcomes.” The report, published by the nonpartisan National Center for the Study of Privatization of Education, concluded that existing research suggests “positive gains from competition that are modest in scope with respect to feasible changes in levels of competition.”[xii]

Vouchers: The Experience from Other States
Policymakers are increasingly looking to implement parent-centered education reforms. According to the Heritage Foundation[xiii], six states and the District of Columbia now have school voucher programs. In 2003, scores of parent-centered education initiatives were introduced in America’s state legislatures. This paper builds upon the experiences of these states to outline a voucher proposal for Kansas.

Maine and Vermont: Century Old Voucher Programs

Maine and Vermont have the nation’s oldest school voucher programs. Both programs are designed to help students in towns without traditional public schools attend public or private schools outside their district at public expense. Since 1869, Vermont has granted students across the state this opportunity and, in 1999, 6,505 students participated in the program.[xiv] Similarly, since 1873, Maine has been financing private school tuition for thousands of students annually. In 1999, 5,614 students took advantage of this program, according to the Cato Institute.[xv]

Milwaukee and Cleveland: Urban School Choice

Perhaps the most famous American school voucher programs exist in Milwaukee and Cleveland. The Milwaukee voucher program, created in 1990, provides school vouchers worth up to $6,000 to low-income families to purchase private school tuition for their child. During the 2003-2004 school year, the Milwaukee program will help more than 13,000 students attend more than 100 different private schools.[xvi] The Cleveland school voucher program similarly offers parental choice scholarships to lower-income families. The program, which began in 1996, is currently helping more than 5,000 students attend private schools. [xvii]

Florida: A+ Opportunity Program and McKay Scholarships

Florida is home to two unique and groundbreaking school voucher programs. In 1999, Governor Jeb Bush created the A+ Opportunity Scholarships Program, offering tuition vouchers to public school students in schools deemed “failing” by state accountability rankings. So far, only two schools have been deemed “failing”, thereby restricting eligibility of the voucher to very few students.[xviii] In contrast, Florida also has the nation’s most expansive school choice program: the McKay scholarship programs for special education students.[xix] Passed in 1999 and later expanded in 2001, the McKay voucher programs provides each of the 375,000 special education students in Florida access to a publicly funded voucher to purchase education services at a public or private school. Currently, 9,200 students are using McKay scholarship vouchers.

Colorado and the District of Columbia: New Programs for Low-Income Students

In the past year, two new school voucher programs were created. In Colorado, Governor Bill Owens signed a voucher program for low-income students in school districts deemed failing by the state. The vouchers, which would be capped at approximately 75 percent of the average per pupil expenditure in public schools, could be made eligible to up to 20,000 students by 2007.[xx] The program’s implementation is currently stalled due to a district court injunction. In January of 2004, Congress passed a school voucher program for the nation’s capital. The program will provide vouchers worth up to $7,500 to 1,700 low-income school children. The program will begin in the fall of 2004.[xxi]

Designing an Opportunity Scholarship Program for Kansas:
Important Considerations for Policymakers

The Private School Universe

In order to ensure the successful implementation of a school voucher program, policymakers must consider the ability of the private school marketplace to absorb new students. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, approximately 43,000 students were enrolled in private schools in Kansas in 1999. As opportunity scholarships become available to enable new students to enroll in private schools, the private schools will need able to adapt to meet this growth in demand. Naturally, it takes time for schools to build new classrooms, hire new teaches, and acquire the necessary supplies needed to educate additional students. However, according to economists Barry Chiswick and Stella Koutroumanes, private school supply is perfectly elastic over the long term, meaning that supply will expand to meet demand over time.[xxii] Nevertheless, it may be difficult to build new schools or expand existing private school capacity over night.

There is little information on the existing private school capacity in Kansas, however economic theory suggests that private schools would operate at or near capacity to ensure cost efficiency. In order to maintain a smooth transition, policymakers need to consider ways to phase in the program slowly to allow the private school marketplace time to expand gradually. The proposal under consideration in this paper is designed to phase in over ten years: allowing the private school marketplace time to adjust for increases in demand. Specifically, by awarding 2,000 new vouchers each year during the ten year phase-in, the proposal requires private schools to only increase by less than four percent annually.

Private School Tuition

In order to create a voucher program that reduces the burden on state taxpayers, the opportunity scholarships awarded to parents must be less than the per pupil expenditure in public schools. This paper considers opportunity scholarships worth 65 percent of the per pupil expenditure in Kansas public schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Kansas’s per pupil expenditure in 2000 was $6,300. This means that students would be awarded voucher scholarships on average worth $4,100. Since these vouchers would be awarded to students from low-income families, it is reasonable to question whether the voucher amount is sufficient to pay tuition costs.

Fortunately, there is strong evidence that a $4,100 voucher would be sufficient to provide widespread choice of schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the national average private school tuition in 2000 was $4,700.[xxiii] That year, the average per pupil expenditure in America’s public school was $6,900, meaning that the typical private school tuition is less than 70 percent of the per pupil expenditure in public school. If this relationship held true in the case of Kansas, the average private school tuition would be approximately $4,400. In 2003, the Cato Institute surveyed private schools in seven metropolitan areas across the country and found that in each location many private schools charged less than $5,000.

It is worth noting that private elementary schools typically charge less than $3,500 in annual tuition whereas the average tuition at a private secondary school is approximately $6,000. Therefore, policymakers could consider awarding different voucher amounts so that elementary school students receive a smaller subsidy than do those entering secondary school.

Nevertheless, even if these low-income families were required to pay a portion of their child’s education costs, it is likely that many would choose to do so. The Children’s Scholarship Fund, a leading national provider of tuition scholarships for needy children, requires that families pay a portion of the tuition costs for their child’s education. The Children’s Scholarship Fund estimates that the average scholarship is worth $1,049, while the average family contributes $1,100 toward their child’s tuition from an average family household income of $20,663.[xxiv] In 1998, the Children’s Scholarship Fund received more than 1.25 million applications from low-income families for the scholarship program that requires this co-payment.[xxv] This suggests that the ability to pay the additional tuition costs depends not only on income but also on attitude. Requiring parents to foot the additional tuition costs creates the necessary financial responsibility that encourages greater parental involvement and subsequently greater school responsiveness to parents.[xxvi]

State Constitutional Issues

School choice proposals are often challenged in the courtroom. Opponents contend that education reform proposals that allow parents to educate their children in private, religious schools violate federal and state constitutional requirements prohibiting the establishment of religion. At the federal level, this issue was settled in 2002, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Cleveland school voucher program, ruling that a voucher program that allows parents to choose between many different schools for their child does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[xxvii]

But this important victory before the U.S. Supreme Court does not remove all legal questions surrounding school choice proposals. Some state constitutions present an even higher “separation of church and state” than the federal constitution, more explicitly prohibiting programs like vouchers and tax credits that allow students to use taxpayer funded scholarships to attend private, religious schools. [xxviii] Whether a school vouchers would be ruled constitutional in Kansas depends on both the state’s constitutional language and judicial interpretation. Kansas lawmakers designing school choice legislation should consult with legal experts at the Institute for Justice, the nation’s leading defender of school choice in the courtroom, to ensure the creation of a legally sound program.

Voucher Eligibility

A true system of market education would provide all families the opportunity to choose the best school for their child. Numerous proposals have been advanced to provide universal school choice to every student in a state school system. However, since more than 90 percent of the state’s student population is currently enrolled in public schools, it is reasonable to pursue incremental reforms such as the opportunity scholarship proposal considered in this paper to ensure a successful transition to a system of market education.

For example, policymakers should certainly consider providing financial relief to the families of the more than 43,000 school children currently enrolled in private school. These families are paying twice for education: once, in the form of taxes to support public education; twice, for tuition expenses at private school. By forgoing free public education, the families of these 43,000 children are currently saving the state approximately $270 million annually.[xxix] To consider how students enrolling in private school save the state resources, imagine a situation in which all the students currently in private schools transferred back to public school. Class sizes would balloon and state public education costs would skyrocket. Policymakers should consider reform options such as tuition tax credits or universal vouchers to provide financial relief for these families currently paying twice for education.

Scholarship Eligibility and Distribution

While all families in Kansas deserve the opportunity to choose the best school for their child, this voucher program is designed to assist those in the greatest need: low-income students. Specifically, voucher eligibility would be restricted to students qualifying for the federal free and reduced school lunch program in both public and private school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, approximately 10 percent of private school students are eligible for the school lunch program.[xxx] A far greater number of public school students would be eligible to participate. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 34.1 percent of all Kansas students are eligible for the national free and reduced school lunch program; therefore, approximately 160,000 public school students would qualify to receive vouchers.[xxxi]

Since voucher scholarships would be awarded randomly through a lottery by a state agency that administers the voucher program, for the purpose of our fiscal analysis, it is important to try to determine which students would likely receive scholarship, since only scholarships awarded to transferring public school students will have a positive fiscal impact for the state.

It is likely that all of the 4,300 eligible low-income students in private school would apply to participate. It can be assumed that a far less percentage of the eligible public school students would participate. For the purpose of this analysis, I will assume that 10 percent of all eligible public school students or roughly 16,000 students apply to participate in the voucher program. Since there would be no cost to applying for a voucher, it is likely that more than one in ten eligible families would apply for a scholarship, however in order to conservatively estimate the fiscal savings created through this program, this modest estimate of public school participation is assumed.

Since scholarships will be awarded randomly, it is likely that scholarships will be awarded proportionally to public and private school students. The total pool of eligible scholarships recipients would be 20,300, 21% of those are currently enrolled in private school and 79% are in public school. This suggests that during a typical year, the 2,000 scholarships would be awarded to 1,576 public school students and 424 private school students.

Why Target Low-Income Students?

Why should the lowest-income families in private and public school be the first to receive opportunity scholarships? Indeed, it is unfair to discriminate between students based on financial background. An ideal school choice proposal would provide all families with a greater ability to choose their children’s school. Policymakers could consider other phase-in methods that provide a more even school choice benefit across all income groups.

However, there are valid reasons to target incremental, phased-in programs to benefit those in the greatest need of assistance; in this case, low-income students. For example, the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress examination found that only a third of Kansas fourth graders scored proficient in reading. Only four-in-ten scored proficient in math.[xxxii] Importantly, low-income students scored considerably lower than more affluent students on the NAEP Exam. According to a 2003 NAEP Report, “the average reading scores for fourth- and eighth- graders who were eligible for free lunch were lower than the scores for students who were eligible for reduced-price lunch, and both were lower than the scores for students who were not eligible.”[xxxiii] While all students deserve the better opportunities afforded by school choice policies, this program is designed to assist the neediest students first.

Avoiding Unnecessary Regulation of Private Schools

Kansas policymakers should take necessary steps to implement the voucher proposal to avoid unnecessarily regulating the state’s private schools. According to the Cato Institute, a recent survey of a thousand private schools across the country found that “the directors of many private schools would rather turn down "free money" than compromise the core qualities of their schools.”[xxxiv] Policymakers should carefully review the language of existing, successful school voucher programs to avoid threatening the private school marketplace.

The Fiscal Impact of the Voucher Program

The voucher program under consideration in this paper is designed to maintain fiscal neutrality. This means that the program can be implemented without raising taxes or cutting programs. In fact, it is designed to save taxpayers significant resources over the life of the program. According to conservative projections, the program will save taxpayers $1.7 million during the first year and a total of $95 million over the ten-year phase in.

For the purpose of this analysis, the amount awarded to students receiving vouchers – 65 percent of the average state per pupil expenditure or approximately $4,100 – is a direct revenue loss to the state government. At the same time, however, the voucher scholarships will enable students to transfer from public to private schools, resulting in significant saving to the state and local government. For instance, if a dozen students transfer from public to private schools using opportunity scholarships, that’s 12 students for whom the state no longer has to pay education expenses. Therefore, I assume that every student transfer saves the state the money that otherwise would have been spent on that student. These savings could be returned to taxpayers or be allocated for other use.

There is reason to believe that this analysis greatly underestimates the fiscal savings that will result from the scholarship program. To calculate fiscal savings, I have relied on the United States Department of Education’s estimate for per student expenditure. In the most recent year reported, the National Center for Education Statistics states that per student spending in Kansas was $6,294 in 1999-00.[xxxv] In the fiscal analysis below, it is assumed that every student that transfers out of the public school system saves this amount, the estimated per student expenditure.[xxxvi]

This per pupil expenditure figure may be an extremely conservative starting point for estimating cost savings. Bob L. Corkins of the Kansas Public Policy Institute recently estimated that the average price per student in Kansas’ public K-12 education system was $7,447.[xxxvii] This estimate for per student funding outpaces the Department of Education’s estimate because it includes all public revenues raised to support education.

Leading national experts concur that United States Department of Education estimates for per pupil funding often overlook some hidden costs. For example, Myron Lieberman, chairman of the Education Policy Institute, lists at least eight possible costs of public education at the state level that are typically omitted from per pupil spending figures, including pensions, textbooks, and administrative costs.[xxxviii]

Traditional opponents of school choice also point out that the public school system often faces additional costs that are typically not included in per student funding estimates. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, recently estimated that 88 percent of all public schools in Kansas report a need to upgrade or repair their building to good overall condition. In total, the NEA estimates that the Kansas public education system faces, “a $2.3 billion cost for school modernization, including $1.8 billion for infrastructure and $504 million for technology needs.”[xxxix] As the voucher program helps students transfer out of public schools, it is likely that some of these estimated costs can be reduced as class sizes become smaller and resources are freed for other use. Considering these additional and hidden costs that are not reflected in the per pupil expenditure figure, we believe our projections for fiscal savings are a conservative estimate of the program’s positive fiscal impact.

Lawmakers have the opportunity to determine where these savings are actually realized. In Kansas, educational funding is broken down by three different levels of government. The U.S. Department of Education reports that the revenues for public elementary and secondary schools in Kansas in 1997-98 were raised as follow: 62.4 percent from the state government, 28.7 from local and intermediate governments, and 6.3 percent from the federal government.[xl] Since the state government pays most marginal costs, the majority of the savings will occur at the state level; however, some significant savings may occur at the local level. This proposal assumes that the voucher is a direct revenue loss for the state government’s general fund, which funds the bulk of the state’s education spending.

The Results: Providing Increased School Choice, Saving Taxpayers Millions

Table 1 details the likely fiscal impact of a voucher program for Kansas phased in over ten years. Each year, 2,000 scholarship vouchers will be awarded randomly to eligible low-income students that applied from either public or private school. As mentioned above, since scholarships will likely be awarded proportionally to applying public and private school students, I assume that each year 1,576 scholarships are awarded to public school students and 424 vouchers are awarded to private school students. Each voucher would be worth $4,100. The cost of awarding $4,100 vouchers to these 2,000 students is $8.2 million. However, during the first year, since 1,576 of these students would be transferring out of public schools, the state would also save $6,600 per student or a total of $9.9 million. Therefore, in 2005, the total fiscal impact of these 2,000 vouchers for would be a net savings of $1.7 million for the state.

Table 1, Projected Fiscal Impact of Awarding 2,000 Vouchers Annually to Low-Income Students, 2005-2014

Year	Vouchers Awarded	Private School Students	Public School Students	Voucher Amount	Per Pupil Cost in Public Schools	Savings per Transfer Student	Cost Of Vouchers Awarded (Millions)	Savings From Student Transfers (Millions)	Total Fiscal Savings (Millions)
2005	2,000	424	1,576	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$8.2 M	$9.9M	$1.7M
2006	4,000	828	3,152	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$16.4M	$19.9M	$3.5M
2007	6,000	1,272	4,728	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$24.6M	$29.8M	$5.2M
2008	8,000	1,696	6,304	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$32.8M	$39.7M	$6.9M
2009	10,000	2,120	7,880	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$41M	$49.6M	$8.6M
2010	12,000	2,544	9,456	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$49.2M	$59.6M	$10.3M
2011	14,000	2,968	11,032	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$57.4M	$69.5M	$12.1M
2012	16,000	3,392	12,608	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$65.6M	$79.4M	$13.8M
2013	18,000	3,816	14,184	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$73.8M	$89.4M	$15.6M
2014	20,000	4,240	15,760	$4,100	$6,300	$2,200	$82M	$99.3M	$17.3M

These projections suggest that the program will save Kansas taxpayers $1.7 million during the first year and up to $17.3 million annually after ten years. In total, over the ten year-phase in, the program promises to save Kansas taxpayers a total of $95 million. As discussed above, there is good reason to believe that these are conservative estimates of the likely fiscal savings for taxpayers. In addition, these estimates assume that public education spending holds constant. As public school costs increase, it is likely that the savings will be even greater than these projections. It is also likely that moving 15,700 students out of the public school system over the ten-year period would likely alleviate some potential costs of building new public schools or renovating existing facilities. On the other hand, it should be noted that the state will incur some costs in administrating the program; however, this small administrative cost will have only a very small impact of the positive fiscal implications of the program.

Allowing the Private School Marketplace Time to Expand Gradually

Table 2 details the voucher program’s impact on the private school marketplace. The voucher program promises to both expand gradually over time, while also providing a major expansion of the private school marketplace. Specifically, the greatest expansion would occur in the first year as the private school marketplace would expand by 3.7 percent. Each year, the percentage of expansion would grow smaller. On average, during the ten-year phase-in, the average percentage increase would be 3.2 percent. This seems like a reasonable expansion of the private school marketplace, especially since the long-term nature of the phase-in would give potential private school operators the time to plan ahead to increase supply. While the program is smoothly phased-in over the ten-year period, if enacted, it would be one of the most expansive school choice proposals in the nation, as it would increase the private school marketplace in Kansas by more than 36 percent.

Year	Number of New Voucher Students	Private School Enrollment[xli]	Annual Percentage Increase	Total New Vouchers Awarded	Total Private School Expansion
2005	1,576	43,100	3.66%	1,576	3.66%
2006	1,576	44,676	3.53%	3,152	7.31%
2007	1,576	46,252	3.41%	4,728	10.97%
2008	1,576	47,828	3.30%	6,304	14.63%
2009	1,576	49,404	3.19%	7,880	18.28%
2010	1,576	50,980	3.09%	9,456	21.94%
2011	1,576	52,556	3.00%	11,032	25.60%
2012	1,576	54,132	2.91%	12,608	29.25%
2013	1,576	55,708	2.83%	14,184	32.91%
2014	1,576	57,284	2.75%	15,760	36.57%

Additional Considerations for Policymakers

This proposal is designed to begin providing school choice to underprivileged students in Kansas while saving taxpayers significant resources. Depending on policymakers’ preferences, there are other important school choice programs that could be pursued. In addition to the numerous voucher programs across America, six states have education tax credit programs that foster increased school choice. Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota have tuition tax credits and deductions for children’s education expenses such as tutoring or private school tuition. Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania have scholarship tax credits that allow individuals or businesses to receive a tax credit for donations that are used to fund private school scholarships. Like voucher programs, these scholarship tax credit programs are helping tens of thousands of students attend private schools each year.

This proposal should only be considered a starting point for introducing competition into the Kansas state school system. Policymakers should pursue other reforms such as additional voucher programs or education tax credits that will help all Kansas families have more power over their children’s education.

Conclusion

Kansas lawmakers are currently considering drastic increases in education spending designed to improve performance in the state public school system. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that simply increasing the resources devoted to education will lead to improved outcomes. Fortunately, there is a promising, proven alternative: introducing greater competition into the state school system.

This paper considered a proposal to award 2,000 new opportunity scholarships annually to low-income students from across the state. Since more than 1,500 of these scholarships vouchers would be awarded to students transferring out of public schools, the state stands to save significant resources during each year of the program. According to conservative projections, the state will save $1.7 million during the first year of the program and a total of $95 million during the ten-year implementation of the program. While this program is designed to phase-in gradually to allow the private school marketplace time to expand, it will ultimately expand the number of private school students by more than 36 percent.

Kansas lawmakers should abandon plans to pump new money into education and instead adopt parent-center reforms that will improve Kansas school system and create real opportunities for the state’s neediest students.

---

[i] “Kansas Lawmakers Oppose Governor’s Budget Plan,” The Salina Journal, February 27, 2004.

[ii] “Bill allowing quick school finance appeal goes to governor,” The Wichita Eagle, February 25, 2004.

[iii] The National Center for Education Statistics, State Profiles: Kansas, available online: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.

[iv] For a discussion of the research on education spending and student achievement, see: Eric A. Hanushek, “The Failure of Input-based Schooling Policies,” Stanford University, 2002, available online: http://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/papers/input.pdf.

[v] For a summary of research and literature on this point, see Andrew Coulson, Market Education: The Unknown History (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1999), pp. 207–9, 259–90; and Anthony Bryk et al., Catholic Schools and the Common Good (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993).

[vi] Coulson.

[vii] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Penguin Books. New York: 1997.

[viii] For an in depth discussion of Friedman’s original voucher program see Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.)

[ix] William G. Howell and Paul Peterson, The Education Gap, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002.)

[x] Howell and Peterson.

[xi] Caroline Hoxby, “Analyzing School Choice: Reforms That Use America’s Traditional Forms of Parental Choice,” in Learning from School Choice, ed. Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1998).

[xii] Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin, “The Effects of Competition on Educational Outcomes: A Review of US Evidence,” National Center for the Study of Privatization of Education, Columbia University, March 2002, www.ncspe.org/keepout/papers/00035/688_OP35V2.pdf.

[xiii] Kafer, Krista, School Choice 2003, Heritage Foundation 2003, page ix, available online: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/Schools/schoolchoice_overview.cfm.

[xiv] Sternburg, Libby, “Lessons from Vermont: 132-Year Old Voucher Program Rebukes Critics,” Cato Institute, September 10, 2001, available online: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-067es.html.

[xv] Heller, Frank, “Lessons from Maine: Education Vouchers for Students Since 1873,” Cato Institute, September 2001, available online: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-066es.html.

[xvi] American Education Reform Council, February 2004.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Florida Department of Education, February 2004, available online: https://www.opportunityschools.org/Info/OSP/default.asp?&noCache=200422918920.

[xix] Jay Green and Greg Forester, “Vouchers for Special Education Students: An Evaluation of Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program,” Manhattan Institute, June 2003.

[xx] “Vouchers' next test Colorado looks to other states to gauge effect on students,” Denver Post, June 15, 2003.

[xxi] “Voucher program approved for D.C.,” The Washington Times, January 23, 2004.

[xxii] Barry R. Chiswick and Stella Koutroumanes, “An Econometric Analysis of the Demand for Private Schooling,” Research in Labor Economics 15, (1996): pp.209-37.

[xxiii] NCES, 2002 Digest of Education Statistics, Table 61. Available online at: http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt061.asp.

[xxiv] Dan Lips, correspondence with Rick Hough, National Program Director for the Children’s Scholarship Fund, March 9, 2001. Karl Eschbach, a demographer in the Department of Sociology at the University of Houston, derived the estimate for the Children’s Scholarship Fund.

[xxv] The Children’s Scholarship Fund, http://www.scholarshipfund.org.

[xxvi] For an in-depth discussion of the benefits of financial responsibility, see: Andrew Coulson, “Toward Market Education: Are Vouchers or Tax Credits the Better Path?” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 398, February 23, 2001.

[xxvii] The Institute for Justice, February 2004, http://www.ij.org/cases/school/ohio.shtml.

[xxviii] Richard Komer, “School Choice: The State Constitutional Challenge.” Liberty & Law, The Institute for Justice, September 2001, Volume 10, Number 5, http://www.ij.org/publications/liberty/2001/10_5_01_f.asp.

[xxix] Dan Lips, author calculations. NCES reports that 43,113 students attended private school in Kansas in 1999. In 2000, the NCES estimates that the average per pupil expenditure (fall enrollment) was $6,294. (NCES, Table 169.)

[xxx] National Center for Education Statistics, Private Schools: A Brief Portrait, 2002, available online: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf.

[xxxi] National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.

[xxxii] The National Center for Education Statistics, State Profiles: Kansas, available online: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.

[xxxiii] NCES, “The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003,” page 15, available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2003/2004452.pdf.

[xxxiv] H. Lillian Omand, “The Struggle for School Choice After Zellman: Regulation vs. the Free Market,” The Cato Institute, 2003.

[xxxv] NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2002, Table 169.

[xxxvi] These savings can be returned to taxpayers, reinvested in public education, or freed for other use. [xxxvii] Bob L. Corkins, Kansas Public Policy Institute, KPPI K-12 Finance Study, (Publication Date Unknown -- 2001), http://www.wiba.org/k-12%20finance%20study.htm

[xxxviii] Myron Lieberman, Public Education: An Autopsy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 118–19.

[xxxix] National Education Association, School Modernization Facts, May 23, 2001. http://www.nea.org/lac/modfacts/Ksfacts.html.

[xl] NCES, Digest of Education Statistics 2002, Table 157. 2.7 percent of all funds were raised from private sources.

[xli] This assumes that the private school population would have remained constant during the ten-year period without the voucher program.