1. Public Vouchers and Catholic Elementary Schools: Teacher and Principal Perceptions Barbara M. De Luca, Ph. D. Lucianne M. Lilienthal, Ph. D. Amy R. McGuffey, Graduate Assistant & Ph. D. Student Catholic Education Summit University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio July 14, 2014 1

2. School Choice What does it mean? How long has it been around? What forms does it take? Tuition Tax Credits Charter Schools Tuition Vouchers 2

3. 3 Voucher Program approved for students attending low- performing public schools two-of-the-latest three years Tuition-only scholarship 2014-15 school year -$4,250 for grades K-12 $5,000 for grades 9-12 Either scholarship amount of the private school’s actual tuition amount, whichever is less Scholarship must be used to attend a private school Voucher Program

4. 4 Purpose The purpose of this research study was to better understand the impact of publicly funded vouchers on schools, through the eyes of teachers and principals of Catholic elementary schools in an Archdiocese in the Midwest. Research Questions 1.What are the perceptions of Catholic elementary school teachers regarding the impact of voucher students on the identity, mission, and academic environment of their school? 2.What are the perceptions of Catholic elementary school principals regarding the impact of voucher students on the identity, mission, and academic environment of their school? 3.In what ways are the perceptions of teachers and principals similar and/or different Purpose and Research Questions

5. 5 Literature Review Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) was the beginning movement in removing legal barriers between school vouchers and their use in religiously affiliated private schools (McEwan, 2004). Overarching concern regarding the impact vouchers have on student achievement and the impact on traditional public schools (Forster, 2011; McEwan, 2004; Piolatto, 2010; Rouse & Barrow, 2008) Much of the research focuses more on the immediate academic outcomes rather than the quality and lasting effects (Lubienski, 2008). Research is mixed in regard to the voucher program being cost saving finding that it depends on the program structure (Lubienski, 2008). Catholic schools struggle financially, therefore, the voucher system has benefited many of them (Belcher, 2014; Prothero, 2014).

6. 6 Literature Review (continued) There are many external factors that are difficult to control when conducting research on the impact of vouchers (McEwan, 2004; Rouse & Barrow, 2008) Using the IEA Civic Education Study of 14-year-old students from 1999 and 2009 no evidence “of a decline in civic attitudes and therefore social cohesion” was found (Shafiq & Myers, 2013). Study in Ohio on five private schools (3 Catholic, 2 Evangelic) focused on gaining more insight into private schools that accept voucher students and identify the changes that occur to ensure quality education for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged (Belcher, 2014). Need for more research on the impact of vouchers due to the limited research and the lack of time spent on the research (Lubienski, 2008; McEwan, 2004; Rouse & Barrow, 2008)

7. 7 Protection of Subjects IRB –- Institution --- Superintendent of Catholic Schools Sample 28 Schools Contacted—10 chosen to participate Type—parochial, regional, consolidated Area—urban, suburban, rural Population—Percentage of EdChoice Method

8. 8 Interview Process Introduction of research with Principal Second Meeting with 4-6 teachers and Principal Interview – 15-25 minutes 18 teacher questions 24 Principal questions Method (continued)

9. 9 Questions of Interest 1. What is this school’s motivation for accepting EdChoice students? Money Enrollment 2. What do you think parents who qualify for the voucher program look for when choosing a school for their children? Safe, caring environment Academic excellence Teacher Quality Results

10. 10 3.Why do parents choose you school when provided with a voucher? Safety Academic excellence School’s reputation Location Tradition Religion 4.Does EdChoice increase the diversity in your school? Yes/No Types of diversity 5.What is to be gained by this diversity? Exposes our students to the real community. Helps us bring Christianity to our society. Teach moral standards. Results (continued)

11. 11 Results (continued) 6.How has this school changed since the inception of EdChoice vouchers? No longer homogeneous, parochial Catholic school Greater need of assistance for special needs Language barriers 7.What type of academic growth have you seen from students who come to you through EdChoice? Those who work hard make tremendous advancement within 2-3 years. Struggle to acquire “Academic Attitude”

12. 12 8.Define academic excellence. Students working to achieve at their level of ability In some cases, test scores declined 9.How has EdChoice impacted the Catholic identity of your school? Teaching faith better Greater awareness of their own faith No longer assumed faith foundation or familiar base Results (continued)

13. 13 10. Is there a strong Catholic Identity in this school? Absolutely! Catholic Dogma Catholic practices Prayer 11. If an EdChoice student exhibits behavioral issues, how are they addressed? Is there an increased number of behavioral issues from EdChoice? Code of Conduct Initial impact—schools unprepared Parent participation and expectations Homework Results (continued)

14. 14 Conclusions, Recommendations, and/or Where Do We Go From Here? Conclusions/Recommendations Parents need to become invested in the school Schools need more support with respect to support services “Pews on Sunday” vs. teaching morals, values, Christianity Catholic identity very strong Where do we go from here? Study the interviews in detail Look at academic data and assess actual achievement Look at long term impact on postsecondary efforts

15. 15 References American Federation of Children. (2011). Existing Programs. Retrieved from http://www.federationforchildren.org/existing-programs. http://www.federationforchildren.org/existing-programs Belcher, E. (2014). Pluck & tenacity: How five private schools in Ohio have adapted vouchers. Columbus, OH: Thomas Fordham Institute. Carl, J. (2011). Freedom of choice: Vouchers in American education. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. In J.L. Wakelyn & Connolly, M.J. (Eds.). Praeger Series on American Political Culture. Carr, M. (2011). The impact of Ohio's EdChoice on traditional public school performance. CATO Journal, 31(2), 257-284. Children’s Scholarship Fund (2011). Retrieved from http://www.scholarshipfund.org/drupal1/ Chubb, J. & Moe,T.M. (1990). Politics, Markets, & America’s Schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Coulson, A. (1999). Market Education: The Unknown History. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Forster, G. (2011). A win-win solution: The empirical evidence on school vouchers. The Foundation for Educational Choice National Research. Retrieved from www.edchoice.org Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Orlando:FL Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing. Lieberman, M. (1989). Privatization and Educational Choice. New York, NY: St.Martin’s Press. Lubienski, C. (2008). Review of “Promising Start: An Empirical Analysis of How EdChoice Vouchers Affect Ohio Public Schools.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-promising-start McEwan, P. J. (2000b). The potential impact of large-scale voucher programs. Review of Educational Research, 70, 103-149. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1170659.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true McEwan, P. J. (2001). The effectiveness of public, Catholic, and non-religious private schools in Chile’s voucher system. Education Economics, 9(2), 103-128. Retrieved from http://academics.wellesley.edu/Economics/mcewan/PDF/effectiveness.pdf

16. 16 References (continued) McEwan, P. J. (2004). The potential impact of vouchers. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(3), 57-80. Retrieved from http://academics.wellesley.edu/Economics/mcewan/PDF/voucherupdaterevised.pdf Neal, D. The effects of Catholic secondary schooling on educational achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 15(1), 98-123. Parents Advancing Choice in Education (2011). Retrieved from http://www.pacedayton.org/http://www.pacedayton.org/ Piolatto, A. (2010). Education and selective vouchers. Economics of Education Review, 29(2010), 993-1004 Prothero, A. (2014). Last-minute campaign seeks to revive New York tax credit bill. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/charterschoice/2014/06/school_choice_advocates_in_new.html Research for Action. (2010). Questions and Answers about Educational Vouchers: Facts, Figures and a Summary of the Research. Retrieved from http://www.researchforaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Educational-vouchers-Facts figures-and-a-summary-of-the-research.pdfhttp://www.researchforaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Educational-vouchers-Facts Rouse, C.E. & Barrow, L. (2008). School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence, remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 17-42. Retrieved from http://www.ers.princeton.edu/workingpapers/28ers.pdf. Shafiq, M. N. & Myers, J. P. (in press). Educational vouchers and social cohesion: A statistical analysis of student civic attitudes in Sweden, 1999-2009. American Journal of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP218.pdf Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York, NY: The Modern Library. Sutton, L. C., & King, R. A. (2011). School vouchers in a climate of political change. Journal of Education Finance, 36(3), 244-267 Welner, K.G. (2008). NeoVouchers: The Emergence of Tuition Tax Credits for Private Schooling. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Witte, J.F. (2000). The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of America’s First Voucher Program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.