In the past children were condemned to only attend the school in their area or their district where they lived. "In 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court promised equal educational opportunities for all children."(Kim, p. 234) The only problem with that was only those people who had enough money to move to areas that had better school districts could benefit. This pushed a lot of minority parents into urban areas and poorer school districts. "Vouchers will give families of all income levels the option to choose which school they want their children to attend, public or private, religious or secular."( Kim, p. 234) Another supporting view to the school voucher program would be the fact that school vouchers help to promote competition between schools. Since funds are distributed to each school based on the percentage of passing and failing students that they have, each school is held responsible for putting programs in place to help students that may be having a hard time with their school work. Also, if a school is facing the problem of having a high transfer and/or drop out rate, and is in danger of losing the necessary funds to keep running properly, that should be an incentive to force them to make improvements to the current system they already have in place. So supporters might say that vouchers put the control of education in the hands of the parents and makes the school and teachers more accountable for the quality of education that is being taught to our children. Now a third point that I thought was very interesting was the fact that supporters of the voucher programs actually say that private schools are better than public schools. Greeley's analysis showed that children that were enrolled in Catholic private schools did better academically than students in public school. Actually the study also showed that Catholic schools that had an enrollment of 81 to 100 percent of minority students scored better than schools with the same ethnic composition.
