News Release

October 29, 2003

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

School Choice Policies Must Sidestep Regulations
The Supreme Court has approved school choice, now schools must be kept free

WASHINGTON, D. C. - With its landmark June, 2002 ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court opened the door for a wide range of constitutional school choice programs. Now supporters of a free market in education must focus on the details of specific policies, ensuring that the emerging market is not stifled by new regulations, according to a new Cato Institute study.

In a survey conducted with the Children's Scholarship Fund of more than 1,000 private schools, H. Lillian Omand asked principals about various regulations that could be imposed along with school choice programs. In "The Struggle for School Choice Policy after Zelman: Regulation vs. the Free Market," she reports that many schools would not participate in school choice programs if doing so would entail a loss of their unique curriculum, control over admissions practices, or a separation of religious instruction. Omand, a student at the University of Virginia School of Law, was formerly associate program director of the Children's Scholarship Fund and program director of the Washington Scholarship Fund.

Omand cautions that the greatest risks come from regulations enacted after school choice programs are in place. "The real threat of school choice programs to existing private schools is not regulations proposed up-front but those imposed after the schools have become dependent," she argues. For this reason, Omand recommends forms of school choice that minimize political pressures for additional regulation, as well as direct legal barriers.

In addition, Omand notes the importance of making funds available to cover tuition at non-Catholic schools, because extensive church subsidization and other financial factors allow Catholic schools to charge much lower tuition than many other private schools. When voucher or tax credit amounts are too low "new schools have almost no hope for survival," which she asserts is harmful in the long run to families seeking either Catholic or non-Catholic education.

Now that the constitutionality of school choice has been established, proponents of educational freedom must ensure that new policies do not destroy the very market they are intended to create. As Omand concludes, "If children, present and future, are to receive the maximum benefits of school choice, policies must be crafted to preserve and expand the freedom and independence of private schools."

A more detailed analysis of the survey results and existing school choice programs will be published in an upcoming volume of The Journal of Law and Politics.