UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE CLEVELAND SCHOLARSHIP AND TUTORING GRANT PROGRAM: NOW THAT THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HOW DO WE APPLY ITS LESSONS TO OKLAHOMA? A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION By SANDRA MULHAIR CINNAMON Norman, Oklahoma 2010 THE CLEVELAND SCHOLARSHIP AND TUTORING GRANT PROGRAM: NOW THAT THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HOW DO WE APPLY ITS LESSONS TO OKLAHOMA? A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND POLICY STUDIES BY _________________________________ Dr. Kathrine Gutierrez, Chair ________________________________ Dr. Lawrence Rossow, Co-Chair _________________________________ Dr. John Chiodo ________________________________ Dr. Gregg Garn _________________________________ Dr. Jeffrey Maiden _____________________ _ __ Professor Michael Scaperlanda ©Copyright by SANDRA MULHAIR CINNAMON 2010 All Rights Reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Kathrine Gutierrez, Dr. John Chiodo, Dr. Gregg Garn, Dr. Jeffrey Maiden, and Professor Michael Scaperlanda for their support and encouragement on this study. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Dr. Lawrence Rossow for his counsel and words of motivation for what became a very, long journey. I would like to thank my husband, Terry, and my daughters, Jessica and Emily, for their help, patience, and sacrifice. Without the assistance of my family, this undertaking would not have been completed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. iv LIST OF TABLES . .viii ABSTRACT . ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . .1 A. Statement of the Problem . 5 B. Background to the Problem Statement . .5 C. Purpose of the Study . 7 D. Research Questions . 7 E. Significance of the Study . .8 F. Assumptions of the Study . 8 G. Limitations of the Study . .9 H. Definitions of Terms . .. 10 I. Organization of the Study . .10 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . .13 A. Description of Vouchers . .13 B. Original Voucher Programs . 14 C. Subsequent Programs. 15 D. Legal History of Vouchers . 16 E. An Analysis of Cleveland, Ohio’s Voucher Program . 21 F. Parental Attitude in Choosing a School . 50 v G. Oklahoma Voters’ Position in Choosing a School . 53 H. Summation . .. .55 III. METHODOLOGY . .56 A. Introduction . .56 B. Design of Study . .57 C. Sample . .60 D. Data Collection Techniques . 62 E. Procedures . 71 H. Methods of Analysis. ..74 I. Limitations . .75 E. Conclusion . 76 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. .77 A. Introduction . .77 B. Legal Research . 78 C. Quantitative Research . .84 D. Grouping the Questionnaire Statements into Five Reasons . 101 E. Qualitative Research . .108 F. Comments on the Questionnaires . 108 G. Conclusion . 110 V. FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATION. .111 A. Introduction . 111 B. Findings and Limitations . 111 C. Summary. 121 vi D. Recommendation . 124 REFERENCES . .130 APPENDICES . .136 - 158 Appendix A: School Improvement List . 136 Appendix B: Original Questionnaire . 140 Appendix C: Cover Letter . .146 Appendix D: Interview Guide. 149 Appendix E: Revised Questionnaire . .151 Appendix F: Revised Interview Guide . .157 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number of Questionnaires Sent, Received, and Percentage of Returns by Each School . 86 2. Demographics for Clinton Middle School. 89 3. Demographics for Gilcrease Middle School. 90 4. Demographics for Rogers Middle School. 91 5. Number of Yes and No Answers by Each School . 92 6. Responses Given for Staying With the Public School. .. 94 7. Responses Given for Staying with Clinton Middle School by Parents Whom said They Would Use a Voucher to Send their Child/Children to a Private School . 96 8. Responses Given for Staying with Gilcrease Middle School by Parents Whom said They Would Use a Voucher to Send their Child/Children to a Private School . 97 9. Rogers Middle School’s Questionnaires from Respondents Who Will Use Vouchers . 99 10. Rogers Middle School’s Questionnaires from Respondents Who Will Not Use Vouchers . 100 viii ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to research and discuss if: (a) a voucher program is legal in the state of Oklahoma; (b) if legal, would parents use vouchers; and (c) what would impact parents’ attitude to use vouchers. The research of the legality of a voucher program was conducted under the framework of the Oklahoma Constitution, statutes, and caselaw. To determine if the parents would use vouchers to a secular or non-secular private school, questionnaires were sent out to three middle schools listed as a failing school on the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s 2008 - 2009 School Improvements List under the No Child Left Behind Act, 70 U.S.C. § 6301 (2001). The completed questionnaires were analyzed and the finding was that parents would use vouchers. However, the data showed that the distance to the private school from the child’s home, having to pay tuition or other costs, and the need for the private schools to be associated with a variety of religions would preclude parents from using vouchers. ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Legislature shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools wherein all the children of the state may be educated (Okla.Const. art. XIII, §1). The words of the Oklahoma Constitution are simple. However, the implementation of programs that will not only educate the children of the State of Oklahoma but will also provide them with a quality education is a perpetual goal. Arguably, the objective of a quality education encompasses both the altruistic view that a free public education system should be of the highest quality and the more realistic ideal that quality is needed in order to produce a competitive work force. Moreover, the social cost must be recognized as an intricate part of providing public education: “[e]ducation has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs . when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and schools upon which our social order rests” ( Plyler , 1982, p.221). Considering the enormity of issues involved in providing a free public education, the subject of improving the quality of education draws suggestions from numerous interested parties, including parents, 1 business groups, members of government, and educational entities. One such suggestion involves the implementation of “school choice” programs. School choice consists of the belief that children and families should be provided with options for particular schools and educational programs (without regard for the neighborhood in which they live) to include a broad range of options. School 1 The term “parents” will be used throughout this study as a general term indicating those individuals who are guardians of the school-aged children discussed herein. Those individuals who are guardians of the school-aged children discussed herein. 1 choice programs can take many forms, i.e. magnet schools, alternative schools, charter schools, and tax credits for tuition (Metcalf & Tait, 1999). The State of Oklahoma has entered into the arena of school choice with the authorization of charter schools by the Oklahoma Legislature in the Oklahoma Charter School Act (2007). The Legislature authorized another school choice type program in the Education Open Transfer Act (2007). The Act allows students to request a transfer from their residential school district to any school district which.