Moderator: Welcome to a two-hour edition of Viewpoint with our guest, Clint Bolick. Clint, thank you for joining us. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon be reviewing the Cleveland school choice case. What are the basic facts and issues at stake in the case?

Clint Bolick: It's great to be with you -- thanks for the opportunity! This case raises the constitutionality of Cleveland's program that provides scholarships to low-income children that pay for 90 percent of private school tuition. The teachers' unions and others who are challenging it contend it is an "establishment of religion" in violation of the First Amendment, because most of the kids are using the scholarships in religious schools. We represent the parents and children, and argue that the program's "primary effect" is to expand educational opportunities for children in one of the worst urban school districts. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with us; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs.

Washington, D.C.: What is the worst possible ruling that the Supreme Court might make, from a school choice advocacy standpoint? If the Court sides against you, do you find it likely that they will take school choice out of the public arena completely, a la Roe v. Wade? Or might the Court find against the Cleveland plan but still leave the door open for other, more carefully tailored school choice plans?

Clint Bolick: Great question! The Court of Appeals decided the case very narrowly, ruling that too many kids were using the scholarships in religious schools due to the design of the program. That seems to me the worst-case scenario, given where the Court has been headed in its recent decisions. It would be correctable: the amount of the scholarship could be raised, for instance, or public schools (whose participation is voluntary now) could be required to participate. And it wouldn't affect other programs, like Milwaukee or Florida, where fewer kids are in religious schools; nor tax credit programs like Arizona, Illinois, Florida, and other states. No way will choice be off the table -- too many children need alternatives.

Columbus, Ohio: As they relate to the U.S. Constitution, are there any essential differences between vouchers and tuition tax credits?

Clint Bolick: The Supreme Court has analyzed tax credits -- which help people pay for private school tuition or to support scholarships -- the same way as vouchers. The key question is the program's "primary effect" -- is it to establish religion or to expand educational opportunities? In its last six opinions dealing with similar issues, the Court has upheld "indirect" aid where parents or students are deciding where to use their aid. We're on a six-case winning streak, and hopefully this is the lucky seven.

Washington, D.C.: How are families and their school-aged children chosen to receive these vouchers beyond the low-income requirement, because I am assuming that all low-income children cannot be given such aid?

Clint Bolick: Where there are too many children applying for the program or for a particular school, random selection takes place. That is the case in both Cleveland and Milwaukee. That process assures fairness and nondiscrimination; and it also ensures that that program is not "cream skimming." The idea is to help the kids most in need, and the combination of income requirements and random selection advances that goal.

Costa Mesa, Calif.: Universal tax credits are being considered by many states. Using the credit, individuals and businesses contribute to School Scholarship Organizations that help get poor children out of failing public schools and into private schools. Proponents sell credits as a better alternative to vouchers because government never touches the cash. This, they say, means less possibility of a court challenge because parents are in charge, not government. What do you think?

Clint Bolick: I support tax credits, both to help parents with their own tuition (Illinois and Minnesota have these) and to provide scholarships for other children (Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania have these). They have survived all court challenges so far, including Minnesota's tuition tax deductions in the Supreme Court. They also reduce the potential for government intrusion. But, they do not offer direct benefits for low-income children in all instances, which is where the need is most urgent. And in tough budget times, tax credits are often tempting targets for repeal. We at the Institute for Justice are very ecumenical. When asked do you support vouchers or tax credits, our answer is yes. In the quest to fulfil the promise of equal educational opportunities, let a thousand flowers bloom.

Milwaukee, Wis.: The choice/voucher impact has resulted in transferring dollars to private and religious schools without improving the documented academic skills of students. As a product of private/religious schools but a parent advocate of private education, should I expect the U.S. Supreme Court to be blinded to the issues of "separation of church and state" and all its related issues under the guise of upgrading the education of low-income parents by taking away much needed dollars from successful inner-city schools like Milwaukee?

Clint Bolick: The transfer of funds is not to schools, but to parents. We are entrusted to make almost all essential decisions in our life -- including when government is providing financial support -- why not choosing schools, which is most important of all? Actually, all studies of choice programs have found academic gains; the debate is over how much. Equally important, choice programs in Milwaukee and Florida have demonstrably spurred improvements in the PUBLIC schools. Your hometown newspaper (may I mention a Post competitor? -- uh oh), the Milwaukee Jounal Sentinel, was a choice opponent for many years, until it became clear that it was a catalyst for long-overdue reform in the Milwaukee Public Schools. That's why arguments about religion are a charade -- this is about education, and that's why the defenders of the status quo oppose it so much.

Montgomery Village, Md.: School vouchers is a short-sighted alternative to the chronic problems facing the public school system. In order to ensure that all children have access to a good education, the public school system should be fixed. This means that more money should be spent on training teachers and paying them more, giving children extra help, lowering class room sizes, etc. This will certainly take more time and money than the panacea of school vouchers. School vouchers will only be able to benefit a rather insignificant proportion of those in under-performing schools. The question I have is, what about the countless number of children who are left to fend for themselves in bad schools, while a small few are able to escape by using vouchers? Not all children will be able to attend better- performing schools. Aren't BAEO and other supporters of vouchers just seeking an expedient solution to a complicated problem?

Clint Bolick: If money were the answer, Newark, New Jersey ($14,000 per pupil), would be among the best in the country. School choice is not a panacea; but they are a prerequisite to overall improvement of public education. If you or I had a child in a terrible school, and the school failed to improve, what would we do? We'd move to a better district or send our children to private schools. We would not sacrifice our children in the hope that someday the school would improve. But low-income parents are asked to do just that. Florida's system demonstrates the broader benefits: if a public school fails for two years, the school is targeted for extra help AND the kids are allowed to go to private schools or better public schools. The result? With the threat of choice, EVERY failing school in the state lifted its performance.

Tallahassee, Fla.: In Florida, we have opportunity scholarships for kids in failing schools, but it looks like the state doesn't want to give any more schools an F grade. So, only a few schools in Pensacola have vouchers, and it's been that way for three years now. Wouldn't it be better to have universal vouchers and let everyone choose their school?

Clint Bolick: You're right! I understand that the standards are being tightened so truly failing schools will receive an F grade. Ultimately I favor a system in which the state funds students, not districts; and all schools (including public schools) receive their funds based on where parents choose to send their children. The schools -- the principals and teachers, not some bureaucrat -- would decide how to spend the money. That is student-based education funding, but it is really a universal voucher system. Still, we have to remember that the most urgent need is economically disadvantaged kids in failing schools -- and that is where the emphasis correctly is placed right now.

Miami, Fla.: I, too, am a staunch supporter of public school vouchers. But I believe faith-based public service organizations whose product is nonsecular must not discriminate as to who has public access to their product, or even who they sell their product to, although I believe they can discriminate within their production process. Please note, the primary puropse of any faith-based organization using public funds must be non-secular. Do you agree?

Clint Bolick: The Supreme Court has made a very useful distinction here. If the aid is DIRECT -- that is, a subsidy to a religious organization that is providing social services -- then the religious mission must be separated from the delivery of social services. But if it is INDIRECT -- that is, where the choice of where to spend the funds is in the hands of the beneficiary (such as Pell Grants, the GI Bill, or school vouchers) -- then religion can be included. There are two reasons. First, the choice is an individual one. Many parents in the inner city choose Catholic schools even though they are not Catholic, because of the schools' quality and values. Second, if individuals are making the choices, there is no perception of governmental endorsement of religion. So I expect this program will be upheld even though religious schools are allowed to do their thing -- so long as they teach kids the educational basics, which they do extraordinarily well.

Annapolis, Md.: Why the resistance to school choice from the teachers' unions and PTAs? Do they want to protect their monopoly?

Clint Bolick: You've got it! The unions do not care about "religious establishment" -- they care about jobs, money, and clout. That's the reason for their existence. They fear that if low-income kids are allowed to choose, many of them will leave. Their view is shortsighted. Good teachers will always be in demand. It is true that administrators will lose jobs -- and they should. That's a huge part of the problem with public schools -- in many systems, 50 cents is siphoned off every educational dollar before it reaches the classroom. Greater choice and competition means greater autonomy at the school level, which would be great for teachers and students. That's what's been happening in the public schools in Milwaukee after 10 years of choice.

Houston, Texas: Is there a certain type of set format that is allowed under the "choice" guidelines? What I am asking is whether it is possible to receive funding for school programs where students are more engaged and motivated to learn, and therefore more apt to stay in school, when what they are learning about is culturally specific and grounded in cultural and familial values? Or is this discussion only applicable to religious programs?

Clint Bolick: Different choice programs are shaped in different ways. For instance, Cleveland's invites suburban public schools to participate at much higher levels of support (though none chose to open their doors to inner-city schoolchildren). Florida's scholarships are triggered by failing public schools, and choices are both public and private. In all programs, private schools may choose whether or not to participate. All of this is leading toward a child-centered, rather than school-centered, system of public education. Just as every child's needs are different, so should every parent be able to choose the schooling that best meets the child's educational, cultural, and social needs. The money should follow the child. We should be less concerned WHERE education takes place and more concerned WHETHER education takes place.

Detroit, Mich.: Again and again, I hear the argument that vouchers targeted to certain communities (based on income, ethnicity, etc.) will help students get into "better" schools ... which may be true. However, it seems like "targeted voucher" programs are always under pressure to be transformed into universal voucher programs. This was true in Milwaukee, where the income level below which people were eligible has moved up (and the number of eligible schools has expanded). After all, if choice is good for one child, it should be good for another as well. In Cleveland, many or most of those getting tax-funded vouchers were already in private schools ... families who could already afford it just transferred the cost to us. Do you think vouchers should be targeted or universal (the title of your group seems to imply targeted)? If you think it should be targeted, how do you propose to resist pressures from ineligible families and market advocates to make it universal? After all, Polly Williams, who started the Milwaukee program, says it was "hijacked" by conservative business groups who used her to promote universal vouchers.

Clint Bolick: These are terrific questions! As my friends in BAEO point out, affluent families already have school choice. They can buy homes in communities with good public schools, and claim hefty tax deductions for their mortgages and taxes. And of course they can also choose private schools. If someone proposed to me: Clint, you can have a choice program, but it must forever be limited to low-income children, I would happily take that deal. The need is extremely urgent. Trouble is, nobody's offering that deal, least of all the unions, which resist any and all choices that include private schools. Ultimately, I'd like to see student-based education funding for all children, with enhanced funding for kids with special needs. Right now, politically, I only see support for targeted programs; and given the appalling conditions faced by kids in inner-city school systems, that's fine with me.

Brunswick, Maine: Clint, Maine has had a form of school vouchers for well over 100 years in the form of the town tuitioning system, described in a recent publication of the CATO Institute. Last week 84 percent of the voters of Lewiston, Maine, the second largest city in Maine and home district of Sen. Olympia Snowe, voted to retain their system of public subsidies for private and religious schools. Does this mean that the voters are now strongly behind public financing of private education? Do you see Maine's system of school choice using town tuitioning as a model for the rest of the U.S. to follow?

Clint Bolick: Glad you brought up this fine program, and there is a virtually identical one in Vermont. Rural school districts that did not build their own public schools "tuition" kids to go to public schools in adjacent districts or to private schools. (Right now, religious schools are not included.) It is a model for school choice. Indeed, Maine and Vermont turn on its head the old adage of people choosing a community because of its public schools -- in those two states, folks often choose schools because there are NO public schools! The programs are lightly regulated and, as you say, very popular. Choice opponents have a huge advantage when the issue is abstract -- they use all sorts of scare tactics. But where there are actual, functioning programs, they are popular. That's why we fight to get them established -- and the unions fight them -- no matter how small. It's the only way to prove the sky won't fall -- in fact, it gets a heck of a lot brighter.

Laurel, Md.: Taking "student-based funding" and a market-driven school system to its obvious final state, wouldn't all school became "private?" And is that a bad idea?

Clint Bolick: I think the lines are blurring between public and private, and that's a good thing for the public schools. For instance, charter schools in some states can be operated by private entities. Likewise, some districts contract out management of public schools to private firms. To me, the goal is to make public schools behave like private firms -- responsive not to political concerns, but to consumers. A great book on this is Chubb and Moe, "Politics, Markets, and America's Schools," published awhile back by Brookings. By the way, in any system, many schools will remain militantly private, taking no government funds -- and that is, to me, a very good thing.

Washington, D.C.: So many of the people I talk to about vouchers pretty clearly have it out for the teachers' unions, and really love the idea of defunding public education. It's really hard to see through that, to the merit of the arguments! I mean, none of us want to deprive poor people of options -- but not a whole lot of us want to side with those who are out to kill public schools!

Clint Bolick: I agree! And such advocates rarely enjoy much support. My two sons are both in public schools. But that is by choice, not compulsion. It seems to me that we need to separate public schools from public education -- the former are supposed to be means to an end, not ends in themselves. A kid getting a poor education in a public school is not serving the ends of public education; a kid getting a good education in a private school is serving the ends of public education. To fulfil the goal of opportunity, we need to cast a wide net, encompassing every possible option. As for unions -- sadly, they are an impediment to any meaningful reform. I am in favor of empowering teachers in any way possible -- but unions are an obstacle to true decentralization and deregulation that would make that happen.

Crystal City, Va.: The problem with school vouchers is that they largely benefit the wealthy. The impetus for the push by the right for school vouchers has been the desire to offset the expense incurred by wealthy parents who send their children to private schools. In addition, it is unfair to compare the achievement of public schools to private schools. Whereas private schools can expell students for little or no cause, public schools are essentially required to teach every student who comes through their doors. The result is that public schools are faced with educating students who have learning disabilities and/or behavioral issues. If only public schools were able to toss out those students who were difficult to teach then maybe they would be able to brag about the achievement of their programs and students.

Clint Bolick: Both of these are widespread fallacies, and I appreciate the chance to address them. First, all current voucher programs are limited to poor kids or children in failing schools. The median family income in the Cleveland program is about $16,000! I see very little political potential for choice programs targeted to the wealthy. Likewise, private schools in the inner city have far lower expulsion rates than public schools. The reason: the rules are clear and consistently enforced. That may be the biggest difference between inner-city public and private schools. Every study I've ever seen, starting with the eminent sociologist James Coleman in the 1980s, have found that low-income kids do better in private than public schools. I think public schools should have greater disciplinary autonomy; and here's my offer: for a school district that creates a contract for student behavior, I'll defend it, free of charge, from the inevitable ACLU lawsuit.

Moderator: Clint, how would a school choice program address the special needs of children with disabilities?

Clint Bolick: Interestingly, the nation's largest choice program is for disabled kids. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Supreme Court has ruled (unanimously) that when a public school defaults on its obligation to provide an "appropriate" education, the district must reimburse families for private school tuition. Choice programs add yet another layer of choices for disabled children, who are still entitled to "equitable participation" in public school special-needs programs. This year, Florida expanded its McKay Scholarship program to provide choice to all children with disabilities.

Colorado Springs, Colo.: Hi Clint, why is it when the discussion about educational choice begins we are talking about the survival of children, but somewhere in the midst of the conversation the opposition begins to change the course towards the survival of a system? Isn't it true that the system was created for the children and not the other way around?

Clint Bolick: Hi, Colorado Springs! You are SO RIGHT. The system is supposed to serve children, not the other way around. Technology gives us a multiplicity of options to address the individual needs of children. The U.S. should not be lagging behind former Soviet republics in math and science -- but it is. The recent graduation rates for minority schoolchildren released by Jay Greene and the Manhattan Institute are horrifying -- as are recent National Assessment of Educational Progress scores showing the skills gap widening between blacks and whites. With conditions like this, we should not be asking whether reform proposals are too radical; we should be asking if they are radical enough.

Leesburg, Va.: Is home schooling by parents considered a choice by your organization? If so, should vouchers be available for those parents who choose home schooling as an option?

Clint Bolick: The Institute for Justice is a champion of home-schoolers. Early in my career I provided pro bono advice to home-schoolers who were in danger of going to jail for the heinous crime of educating their children at home. How far we've come! It is a mainstream phenomenon now, and kids regularly attend Yale and Harvard (and win spelling bees) who are schooled at home. Enlightened school districts allow children to opt into science labs, physical education, etc. I would extend vouchers or tax credits to home-school families -- again, it fulfils the goals of public education.

Moderator: What are the major differences between charter schools and school voucher programs and what is the current status of charter schools in the United States?

Clint Bolick: "Charter" schools are deregulated public schools, often run by teachers, universities, nonprofit groups, for-profit groups, etc. Their contours vary widely though they now exist in some form in a majority of states. They are "public" schools, in that they receive public funds (usually less than regular public schools). But the schools decide how to spend it. In Arizona, some charter schools now pay higher salaries than regular public schools. Charter schools are part of the continuum of choice; and conceptually, anyone who supports charters should support vouchers, and vice-versa. Bill Clinton once said all public schools should act as charter schools -- flexible, autonomous, mission-driven -- and I agree.

Brunswick, Maine: Clint, the "evaluation" of publically-funded school choice programs seems to start and end with academic performance. Both the Milwaukee evaluation by Peterson and the Maine study by Heller revealed the depth of benefits that a child and their parent(s) receive. An 8th grader in Maine selects the "best" school for them based on a multitude of factors, enabling them to succeed in that school and better select the "right" college to attend. Will you be able to present these many benefits to the Court in detail?

Clint Bolick: You bet. We just filed our Supreme Court brief (phew!--that was a big one), and readers can find it on our Web site (www.ij.org), along with others filed in the case. (Readers may also send tax-deductible contributions to aid the cause, which are greatly appreciated!) Ah, but I diverge from the question. In our brief, we viewed our goal as demonstrating the real-world "primary effect" of school choice; and you're right, the benefits go far beyond academic performance. Other briefs, such as those filed by Mayors Giuliani and Norquist, BAEO, and the American Education Reform Council, make similar arguments.

Alexandria, Va.: Both the Cleveland and Milwaukee voucher programs allow for existing private school students to receive vouchers. In the 1998-99 school year, when the Milwaukee program experienced its largest enrollment gains, close to half of the new students receiving vouchers had already been enrolled in a private school before receiving a voucher. Likewise, in the last school year, close to 40 percent of the new students receiving a voucher in the Cleveland program had already been enrolled in a private school before being given a voucher. How do the public schools improve by suddenly losing tax dollars that now pay for the tuition of students that already attended a private school? And, how does a movement that publicly portrays itself as being about helping students "escape" low-performing public schools justify awarding vouchers to students that were not even enrolled in public schools?

Clint Bolick: A very fair question. The crucial point is that all participating students must meet income eligibility requirements. Family incomes in both programs are below $20,000. That means students who are in private schools are there precariously. To have them move to the public system would cost a great deal of money -- much more than the cost of the voucher. The numbers for the Cleveland program are inflated because each year the program has expanded with a new kindergarten, and of course those kids previously were neither in public nor private schools, but they are counted by choice opponents as not having been in public schools. As an aside, choice opponents frequently cast the debate as school choice versus public school improvement. It is a false dichotomy. And in terms of spending, the Florida and Milwaukee choice programs both were accompanied by huge increases in public school spending.

To Crystal City, Va.: To add to Clint's argument about the fallacies in the subject post, we strain to keep our youngest in private school, and have just switched the oldest to public middle school because it is time to save for college. Nearly all of the private schools in Prince George's County have special programs for the learning disabled. In addition, they make accomodations for children with behavioral problem with special education and physical limitations. It's part of the ministry. For a child to get thrown out of a private school in our area, they really have to work at it!

Clint Bolick: You raise a very good point. With all the concerns we hear about choice, the current system often looks to private schools to meet needs it cannot fulfil. And so it should be! But why should a parent have to wade through all the bureaucracy to secure the right school for his or her child? Again, it skews the system in favor of parents with greater sophistication or resources. This is one area where we desperately need a money-back guarantee: if the system fails to provide an adequate school, the consumer should be free to leave and take (at least part of) her resources with her. As Florida's program demonstrates, that makes the system much more responsive to families who presently have very little clout.

Jacksonville, Fla.: I am the PTSO President of S.O.S. Academy Charter Middle School in Jacksonville, Fla., and my question is where can we obtain help to establish real education reform in Jacksonville? We are up against the Duval County School Board, a School Board that has put stumbling blocks at every turn for the local Charter Schools. We have been everywhere for help including your organization. I am also a member of BAEO. Thank you.

Clint Bolick: So far, the courts have not enforced their state constitutional education guarantees in a meaningful way -- they often give more money to the failing school districts (imagine if a court awarded more money to Ford or GM for building faulty cars!), but so far have not awarded "voucher" remedies to students in failing schools. We tried in Illinois and California without success; but we'll likely try again. Apart from that, it is very difficult to obtain choice-oriented reform at the local level. My advice is to contact your legislators to ask them to ratchet up the standards for failing schools in Florida. If the district has a tangible fear of choice and competition, it will become more reform-minded and responsive to consumers.

Washington, D.C.: I have heard folks argue that vouchers are mere conduits for supporting religious schools and draining resources from traditional public schools. This argument leaves the parent out of the equation. Could you expand on the role of the parent and how their decisions fit into public education?

Clint Bolick: Exactly. The teacher's union argued in the Cleveland case that the parents are "inconsequential conduits" for the transmission of funds to religious schools. That phrase is our battle cry. For the first time, economically disadvantaged parents in Cleveland are NOT inconsequential with regard to basic educational decisions. They may choose charter schools, magnet schools, private schools, or regular public schools along with tutorial assistance grants. That range of options puts the parent in control, much more than a system in which the child goes to the school assigned by the central administration. Here, if a school fails to serve a student, the student can leave -- and take part of her funds along!

Washington, D.C.: Why do you believe voucher programs will improve public schools? There is no reliable research that indicates voucher programs improve public schools, or that voucher students outperform their public school peers. In fact, since voucher programs divert scarce funds from public schools that are already inadequately funded, they contribute to the creation of a two-tiered education system, in which the wealthy attend private schools, their tuition partially paid by publicly-funded vouchers, and the other 90 percent of all children attend schools devastated by budget cuts and abandoned by the public. Turning around low-performing schools is not easy. Decreasing funding and “skimming” the best students will not help them. The voucher argument distracts attention from real needs and diverts funding from proven solutions.

Clint Bolick: Fortunately, there is tangible evidence that choice has benefitted public schools. The laws of economics are not suspended at the schoolhouse doors. In Milwaukee, private school choice spurred the public schools to adopt "choice" programs of their own, and to offer a guarantee that it would hire tutors if children were not reading at a certain age. In Florida, I already mentioned that all failing public schools lifted themselves from the "F" list, by spending more money in the classroom, providing tutors for slow learners, etc. -- what they should've been doing all along. To establish the tangible connection, we sent Freedom of Information Act inquiries to all districts with failing schools, and from their internal documents we established that the threat of choice spurted reform. Improvement in Cleveland is slower, but there are signs: two years ago, the Cleveland Public Schools satisfied zero of 27 state performance criteria, last year it satisfied three. Progress there is glacial; but in the meantime, 4,000 low-income kids are doing well in private schools.

Badajoz-Spain: Sir, will the tax-support school voucher be a fine tool to bring up freer citizens?

Clint Bolick: Taking the debate international! Emphatically, yes. Greater choices of where to spend tax money, and greater competition in education add up to greater freedom. That is especially true among the most-disadvantaged members of our society, for whom education is a prerequisite for upward mobility. A parent's right to control the education of his or her children is an essential liberty here in America. Unfortunately, Americans lag far behind citizens of other nations in the degree to which they may choose schools. That may explain why our postsecondary system of education, in which public funds may be used at public or private schools, is second to none and has both a flourishing public and private system; but our K-12 system, with fewer choices, lags embarassingly behind other nations.

Colorado Springs, Colo.: Clint, I realize that much of the controversy that arises in the school choice debate stems from the teachers' unions, but it seems to me, as a former educator, that educators all know (at least if they have spent any real time in the classroom) children learn differently. No single delivery instruction method or environment can effectively educate a group of children. It is imperative that a learner, in particular a child, be taught within their zone of proximal development in an environment that can speak to their educational needs. Is this a topic of debate that has been raised among the teachers' unions as they vehemently oppose providing the children with an education that is their constitutional right?

Clint Bolick: That is so true. And indeed, teachers are very informed consumers and exercise their own power to send children to private schools in much higher percentages than other professions. The reason is exactly what you say: there is no "one size fits all" in education, though our system too often pretends otherwise. Surely every child should learn civics, history, math, reading, etc. -- and the laws ensure that. But Montessori is perfect for one child and military school for another -- and mainstream public schools pretty good for most. We have the capacity to personalize education to all children's needs -- why don't we do it? Dragging the unions into the 20th Century -- much less the 21st -- is a big part of the problem. Individual teachers understand the problem and solution -- especially when they are acting as parents.

Baton Rouge, La.: The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the Cleveland voucher program is strikingly similar to Brown vs. Board of Education, which ended dejure (legal) segregation in public schools. Both address the availability of better educational opportunities for disadvantaged children and their families. In the 1940s and 50s, the NAACP played a significant role in ending desegregation in education. This time around, the NAACP is not supporting an effort that seems to be in-line with their interests and the interest of the people who they claim to serve. However, the Black Alliance (BAEO) seems to have successfully taken the lead on education issues. How involved are they in advancing school choice and supporting the Supreme Court case?

Clint Bolick: Wow, you echoed the theme of our brief! Those who stand in the schoolhouse doors -- and those whose path is being blocked -- bear eerie resemblance to their forebears in Brown v. Board. The NAACP has joined with People for the American Way in an anti-choice alliance against the interests of its constituency. Polls show overwhelming support among black and Hispanic Americans for school choice. Fortunately, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, through its legal brief, its ads, and its grass-roots organizing is providing an outlet for black parents and activists who want to fulfil the promise of Brown v. Board of Education. Others such as Andrew Young, Floyd Flake, Kurt Schmoke, and the Urban League of Greater Miami are helping win the battle as well. It is a moral -- and constitutional -- imperative.

Clint Bolick: Thanks to washingtonpost.com for providing a splendid forum for this very important topic -- and thanks to the participants for excellent questions. We should hear from the Supreme Court in June 2002, hopefully lifting the constitutional cloud once and for all! In the meantime, please check out the Web sites for the Institute for Justice, BAEO, and the others by clicking on the links provided on this page.

Moderator: Our thanks to Clint Bolick, BAEO, the Institute for Justice and all who participated.