Rethinking the Welfare State: The prospects for ... - e-Library

Notes 254
120 Ibid., p. 24.
121 Ibid., p. 25.
122 See Dante Contreras, “Vouchers, school choice and the access to higher education,” Center
Discussion Paper No. 845 (2002), available at: www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp845.pdf.
123 Edwin G.West, supra note 56.
124 Dante Contreras, supra note 122, p. 4.
125 Edwin G.West, supra note 56.
126 Dante Contreras, supra note 122, p. 21.
127 Edwin G.West, supra note 56.
128 Dante Contreras, supra note 122, p. 14.
129 Witte, supra note 2, p. 74. Note that the inclusion of erstwhile private school students in a
voucher regime dilutes the per-student funding of those who were in the public system for
the entire time, while at the same time putting pressures on the voucher system for increased
funding.
130 Ibid., p. 196.
131 See Peterson, supra note 74.
132 Witte, supra note 2, pp. 191–2.
133 Isabel V.Sawhill (with Shannon L.Smith), “Vouchers for elementary and secondary
education,” in C.Eugene Steuerle, Van Doorn Ooms, George Peterson and Robert
D.Reischauer (eds) Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services (Washington, DG:
Brookings Institution Press, CED, Urban Institute Press, 2000), p. 261.
134 The suggestion is that, with a one-time introduction of a voucher programme, erstwhile
private institutions may be highly oversubscribed while schools that were previously part of
the public system may be undersubscribed. Upon allocation of places in each school, some
students would inevitably have no alternative other than to attend a previously public
institution. This alternative might not, as a matter of fact, be a poor one once the erstwhile
public school is set in a different institutional environment with much stronger incentives to
perform. Psychologically and symbolically, however, parents most concerned about the
quality of their child’s school will most likely seek schools that were previously private.
135 Weale, supra note 11, p. 484.
136 Witte, supra note 2, pp. 197–9.
137 Ibid., pp. 7, 18.
138 Such as those suggested by the Panel on the Role of Government, Investing In People:
Creating a Human Capital Society for Ontario (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2004),
p. 14.
139 Williams, supra note 48, pp. 21–2.
140 Arthur Hauptman, “Vouchers and American higher education,” in C.Eugene Steuerle, Van
Doorn Ooms, George Peterson and Robert D.Reischauer (eds) Vouchers and the Provision of
Public Services (Washinton, DC: Brookings Institution Press, CED, Urban Institute Press,
2000), p. 363.
141 This, along with the question of the state-to-state constitutionality of school vouchers for
private religious primary and secondary education, is the most important legal issue in the
voucher debate in America. For a discussion, see Joseph P.Viteritti, “School choice and state
constitutional law,” in P.E.Peterson and B.G.Hassel (eds) Learning from School Choice
(Washington, DG: Brookings Institution, 1998), p. 409.
142 Lemon v.Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971)
143 Lemon v.Kurtzman, pp. 612–13. Quoted in Elisha Winkler, “Simmons-Harris v. Zelman,”
American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, 10 (2002), p. 758.
144 Mitchell v.Helms, 530 US 793, 845 (2000).
145 Frank R.Kemerer, “Reconsidering the constitutionality of vouchers,” Journal of Law and
Education, 30 (2000), p. 443.
146 Zelman v.Simmons-Harris, 122 S. Ct. 2460 (2002).