In the last decade or so, lots of educational reforms have been tried to improve America's public schools--smaller classes, higher teacher pay, charter schools, regular assessment testing, and more. One of the most promising and popular options, though, has had trouble getting a chance.

Education vouchers, which give parents financial aid for tuition at private or public schools, offer plenty of promise. But lawmakers have been reluctant to embrace the idea because opponents argued that any program helping to finance parochial school tuition is a violation of the 1st Amendment's ban on government aid to religion.

For two decades, the question of constitutionality of vouchers overshadowed the entire debate over their potential value. Last week, in one of the most important church-and-state decisions in American history, the question was answered. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that a program offering vouchers in Cleveland "does not offend the establishment clause."

The program came into being for a simple secular reason: The Cleveland public schools were among the worst in the country. Vouchers were embraced as a way to give parents other options, stimulate public schools to improve and encourage innovations that would benefit students.

Critics of the Cleveland program complained that, in practice, the aid goes mostly to religious schools--which make up 82 percent of the participating private schools and get 96 percent of the students using vouchers. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist stressed that many students take advantage of "choice" options offered within the public schools, including charter schools and magnet schools. Even if most of the parents choosing private alternatives opt for religious schools, that is the result of individual choice--not any government effort to enrich churches.

"There are no financial incentives that skew the program toward religious schools," wrote Rehnquist, concluding that "where a government program is neutral with respect to religion" and the aid flows through individuals "as a result of their own genuine and independent choices," there is no constitutional problem.

Voucher opponents say the government has no business forcing taxpayers to support religious institutions whose doctrines they may reject. But religious hospitals get more than a third of their revenue from the federal Medicare program. Hundreds of millions of dollars in federal college loans and grants go to church-affiliated schools. In these instances, the government is merely providing benefits to individual citizens, who are free to use those benefits at either secular or religious institutions.

This type of aid is not an education panacea. At the levels offered in Cleveland (up to $2,250 for tuition), vouchers may leave many poor families with few options beyond dismal public schools. Getting private schools to accept students with learning disabilities may require extra funds. And vouchers still face stiff opposition from entrenched interests.

Voucher opponents have long preferred to debate the question of what's constitutional. Now it's time to consider what's best for our kids.

Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune