University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Income eligible school choice: the effect of parent knowledge on advocacy

(USC Thesis Other)

Income eligible school choice: the effect of parent knowledge on advocacy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Income Eligible School Choice: The Effect of Parent Knowledge on Advocacy
Kristen D. Foster
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Kristen Foster
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kristen Foster certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kristi Cole
Christina Kishimoto
Gregory Franklin, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study sought to explore the lived experience of parents concerning school voucher programs
and determine whether parental knowledge of funding discrepancies between income-eligible
voucher programs and traditional public schools drives parents’ advocacy for vouchers. This
research is rooted in the interest convergence theory to explore and examine whether parents in
lower socioeconomic groups participating in school choice felt valued by policymakers. Using
the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) as a basis for this study, the researcher
interviewed current MPCP leaders about their activities to raise parental awareness concerning
funding discrepancies. The study surveyed participating MPCP parents regarding their
experiences and awareness of discrepancies and determined whether knowledge of discrepancies
influenced parents’ perceptions of value-added by policymakers. Finally, the study identified
whether knowledge of discrepancies leads to parents' interest in advocating for income-eligible
school choice programs. Interview results were analyzed using qualitative methods and
supported by steps to ensure trustworthiness. Survey results showed that parents are unaware of
discrepancies in funding and compliance and that leaders are doing little to inform parents.
Parents felt that legislation valued their choice while reporting not feeling directly valued by
policymakers. Despite discrepancies, parents reported they would continue in the MPCP.
Implications of the study lie in revealing the interests of parents to have higher quality
information even though leaders have not embraced the practice of informing. This separation
could result in slower pathways to legislative change, further marginalizing families. The study
concluded that parents desire to feel valued and informed and provided opportunities to advocate
for their choices.

v
Dedication
To my friend, Debi, I want to thank you for a lifetime of friendship and for the encouragement
every week you gave on a phone call from home.
To my parents, I want to thank you for teaching me and Lexi, from a very young age, that our
privilege was not earned and for helping us notice, discuss, and challenge injustices.
To my son, Logan, thank you for sharing me with USC for the past 3 years.
To my sister, Lexi, who did not live to see this part of my journey, yet somehow was in my heart
the entire time, cheering me on and, who, while on this earth, believed in me more than I
believed in myself, thank you for being the voice in my head.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my professors at the University of Southern California who have
reminded me of the importance of considering and uplifting equity for every child, family, and
educator who I have the privilege of working with and who empowered me to continue to
question the status quo. I would also like to thank my peers for 3 years of learning and growing
together and for the support shown each week as we progressed through this part of our journey.
Finally, I would like to thank Seton Catholic Schools for supporting me during these 3 years and
believing in my love of urban education and our call to social justice, uplifted through our faith.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristen Foster, 347 N.
Story Parkway, Milwaukee, WI. 53208. Email: fosterk@usc.edu

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 9
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 13
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 14
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 15
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 18
History of School Choice.................................................................................................. 18
Modern School Choice ..................................................................................................... 19
Wisconsin School Choice ................................................................................................. 23
Why School Choice for Parents........................................................................................ 36
CRT and Interest Convergence in School Choice ............................................................ 37
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 40
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................. 40
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 41
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 44
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 45

viii
Validity and Reliability..................................................................................................... 47
Summary........................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 50
Participants........................................................................................................................ 51
Results Research Question 1............................................................................................. 52
Discussion Research Question 1....................................................................................... 56
Results Research Question 2............................................................................................. 56
Discussion Research Question 2....................................................................................... 58
Results Research Question 3............................................................................................. 59
Discussion Research Question 3....................................................................................... 65
Summary........................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 68
Findings............................................................................................................................. 69
Limitations........................................................................................................................ 74
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 75
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 77
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 78
References..................................................................................................................................... 80
Tables............................................................................................................................................ 94
Appendix A: Parent Interview Recruitment Letter..................................................................... 101
Appendix B: Parent Interview Protocol...................................................................................... 103
Appendix C: Leader Recruitment Letter..................................................................................... 106
Appendix D: Leader Interview Protocol..................................................................................... 107
Appendix E: Parent Survey Questions........................................................................................ 111
Appendix F: School Leader Research Introduction.................................................................... 113

ix
Appendix G: Parent Survey Recruitment Letter—English Version........................................... 115
Appendix H: Parent Survey Recruitment Letter—Spanish Version........................................... 116
Appendix I: Parent Survey Recruitment Letter—Chin Version................................................. 118

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Racial Identification of Surveyed Parents 94
Table 2: Demographics of Interviewed Parents 95
Table 3: Interviewed Leader Education Information 96
Table 4: Practices of Informing Parents of Choice Legislation 97
Table 5: Impacts of Funding Disparity 98
Table 6: Amount of Fund Development Needed to Offset Funding Gap 99
Table 7: Parent Reasons for Participation 100
Table A1: Per Pupil Funding in Milwaukee per Educational Sector 101
Table H1: Per Pupil Funding in Milwaukee per Educational Sector—Spanish
Version
116
Table I1: Per Pupil Funding in Milwaukee per Educational Sector—Chin Version 118

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Factors When Choosing a School 73

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In the early 1990s, education reform evolved in the United States in the form of private
choice and public charter schools, mainly proposed to promote equity by offering parents a
choice of free K–12 education to meet their child’s needs versus a forced district school
assignment (Finn & Manno, 2021). Education reform proponents took on public policy, arguing
that parental choice offers children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, predominantly Black
and Brown students, access to educational opportunities that previously had only been available
to White and more affluent children.
Despite current political positions, school choice has a long, primarily unknown history.
According to Rotherham (2017), in the 1950s and 1960s, school choice was the resistance to
racial integration founded on the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court decision
focused on integrating schools. Rotherham noted that federal courts in the 1970s shut down prior
school choice schemes, and instead, school choice law began to focus on the conditions needed
to shift the flow of public dollars to religious schools. In addition, in the 1960s, Berkeley law
professor Jack Coons, Harvard sociologist Chris Jenks, and other academics and advocates
envisioned school choice as empowerment for low-income families (Rotherham, 2017). This part
of the story does not address a complete narrative on the topic.
The Cato Institute (2023) has described and provided an understanding of the historical
timeline of school choice. This timeline shows the start of voices speaking out for educational
equity in the form of school choice. Instances from the timeline include:
• 1780: John Adams called for public support of both public and private education.
• 1783: Georgia granted land to private schools.

2
• 1791: Thomas Paine became the first government proponent to support funding for
poor parents to educate their children. 811826
• 1795: New York City redirected its education appropriation to eleven schools- ten
private religious schools and one for free Blacks.
• 1802: Pennsylvania passed a law that funded low-income families, allowing them to
send their children to any school in their neighborhood, including religious schools.
• 1810: Virginia funded Sunday school for those in need, focusing on religion and
literacy.
• 1840: Governor Seward of New York proposed allowing Catholic schools to become
part of the state system and maintain their private charter and religious affiliation.
• 1840s: Milwaukee Catholic schools received public funds with educational access
equal to the public Protestant schools.
• 1846: New Jersey passed a law creating common schools, allowing religious schools
to receive “just and ratable” funding.
• 1847: Voluntaryist Edward Baines, Jr. wrote that parents should be allowed to pay for
schools of their choice using aid for people experiencing poverty in the form of a
weekly allowance.
• 1852: Catholic Bishops pushed for the public funding of Catholic schools.
This detailed list suggests how the fight for equitable access to education evolved through
parental choice. This fight was meant to empower parental voices and provide access to lowincome and marginalized communities and has continued to contemporary times but remains a
politically controlled battle. A notable quote by Mill in 1859 (as cited by the Cato Institute,
2023):

3
If the government would make up its mind for every child to receive a good education, it
might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the
education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school
fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school's expenses for those
who have no one else to pay for them. (p. 97)
Over the past three and a half centuries, Mill put into words the earliest vision of
educational equity for families marginalized by socioeconomic status. Today, the political battle
over a child’s education continues through school reform movements grounded in parental
choice. In spaces where school choice, in the form of income-eligible vouchers, has found a
place, the awareness of disparities by parents taking advantage of their choice seems minimal.
Background of the Problem
Currently, 15 states have voucher programs to help parents pay for private schools,
including religious schools. Five states and the District of Columbia have programs for lowincome families (Weida, 2023). Every state faces controversy over vouchers as public-school
proponents have viewed vouchers as taking resources from the public sector, forcing budget cuts,
and undermining public education. Conversely, school choice proponents have argued that
school vouchers empower parents to choose schools unique to their child’s needs (Chen, 2020).
No matter the side of this debate, the children on the receiving end of an income-based voucher
program are marginalized through poverty, and even when receiving choice dollars to attend
schools chosen by their parents, they often experience funding disparities when entering a choice
or voucher program. This problem exists in both modern school choice and the history of the
nation’s longest running choice program, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
Modern School Choice

4
Examples of modern voucher programs among states include Florida, Indiana, Maryland,
North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Each state currently has funding
disparities between average vouchers and traditional public school per pupil spending (Weida,
2023).
The most current voucher controversy in Florida is in the form of House Bill 1. This
controversial bill removed low-income requirements from the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship
Program, giving all Florida students, regardless of income, access to private schools (Collins,
2023). Opponents argued that House Bill 1 would provide the highest-income families, who can
afford private schools, access to public dollars. In addition, Collins (2023) noted that opponents
further argued that House Bill 1 harmed public schools, while proponents from the Foundation
for Florida’s Future stated that through universal choice, public schools must improve to
compete, and that universal choice was “the tide that lifts all boats” (para, 13). According to the
Florida Department of Education Fact Sheet on the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program
(2021), Florida’s average per pupil spending in 2021 for students attending traditional public
schools was $10,006, while students attending private schools through the Florida Tax Credit
Scholarship Program received $7,408 per pupil. House Bill 1 passed before for the 2022–23
school year, removing income eligibility, and providing children access to approximately $8000
to attend a private school (Litz, S., 2023).
In Ohio, the Income-Based Scholarship Program, an expansion of the EdChoice voucher
program, had an average voucher amount of $4,972 in the 2022–2023 school year, amounting to
approximately 36% of the state’s average per-pupil spending (EdChoice, 2023a). According to
the Thomas Fordham Institute (2023), traditional public schools in Ohio currently spend an
average of $13,387 per pupil. Vouchers in this program are worth up to $5,500, and families

5
qualifying as low income by meeting 200% of the federal poverty level are not required to pay
the difference between tuition and the voucher amount if tuition is higher than the voucher.
According to Private School Review (2023), Ohio's average K–8 private school cost is currently
$7,096.
Three other states offering income-based voucher programs are Indiana, North Carolina,
and Maryland. In these states, the funding levels are similar to those schools mentioned above,
but in two cases, they are lower. Indiana’s 2021–2022 average voucher amount was $5,439, 50%
of public school per pupil spending (EdChoice, 2023b). In 2022–2023, North Carolina’s average
Opportunity Scholarship voucher was $2,769, only 28% of public school per pupil spending.
Furthermore, North Carolina’s eligibility is 323% of the federal poverty level, and in 2021–2022,
only 1% of qualifying students used one of North Carolina’s voucher programs (EdChoice
2023c). Finally, Maryland’s Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today
(BOOST) Program includes the most considerable funding discrepancy between public school
per pupil spending and average voucher amounts. With an average voucher amount in 2021–
2022 of $3,134, this voucher is 19% of the average per-pupil spending in Maryland. Like North
Carolina, only 1% of eligible children participate in Maryland’s BOOST Program (EdChoice,
2023d).
Finally, the oldest voucher program in the United States resides in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. As with all the income-based voucher programs discussed, the MPCP faces funding
discrepancies despite its 30-plus-year history and lengthy battle for equity. In the 1980s, a group
of education reform pioneers in Milwaukee began conversations promoted by Black parents’
voices who wanted more from education than Milwaukee’s public schools offered. Fuller (2015),
when speaking of the beginning of parental choice in Milwaukee, stated that Milwaukee was a

6
community searching for radical ideas to ensure low-income, working-class parents had
alternatives to failing public schools. Milwaukee's fight for school vouchers has been constant
since these earlier advocacy movements. To this day, the MPCP focuses on the vital need for
low-income parents to access high-performing private schools as an alternative to failing
traditional public schools or any other reasons they deem essential for their children’s education.
A quote in The ‘74 (Fitzpatrick, 2020) captures the school choice fight when it draws the
battle line, stating, “opponents to school choice are debating someone else’s child” (para, 4).
This hard-fought battle for school choice, as it pertains to empowering marginalized
communities, is best captured in the long history of the MPCP.
History of Milwaukee School Choice
Throughout the past 30 years, enrollment in private choice and public charter schools in
Milwaukee has increased, accounting for 46% of Milwaukee’s student population (Thompson,
2020). While enrollment has increased, per-pupil funding has remained significantly lower for
children participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), and accountability
metrics have risen. Currently, students enrolled in a private choice school in Milwaukee receive
76% of per pupil allocation compared to their public-school peers (EdChoice, 2023e). With this
disparity in funding, private choice schools face challenges in attracting highly qualified
teachers, affording research-based curriculums and resources, and maintaining facilities. Henry
Tyson (as cited in Anderson, 2022) noted, “in the voucher world, it is the voucher plus
something” (para, 14). Tyson described that his schools run by raising 15% each year to
supplement the funding gap to maintain arts programs, physical education, and coaching for
teachers while maintaining facilities.

7
When reflecting on the original aims of Milwaukee’s parental choice, Howard Fuller has
been a visionary. According to Hale (2021), Fuller’s vision for school choice was not built
around a conservative agenda to privatize public schools, despite the appearance of his alignment
with republican figures who are polarizing in their political agendas. Instead, his quest was for
Black children to access and receive quality education by any means necessary. Hale noted that
the grandfather of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, gave a 1978 speech concerning how reforms
focused on balancing racial demographics, rather than improving education for Black children,
hurt Black children. To keep North Division High School open in Milwaukee, Fuller responded
to a 1935 call by W.E.B. Debois, arguing that Black educators should focus more on building
Black schools versus integrating. Fuller proposed an all-Black district in Milwaukee that would
enroll 6,000 students. Although Fuller’s proposal gained some traction, legislators in Wisconsin
opted, instead, for a voucher plan. This plan was supported by Annette “Polly” Williams, a
Democratic state representative in Wisconsin, who supported Fuller’s all-Black District proposal
(Hale, 2021).
The Republican Party, which had long aligned with the privatization of schools through
reforms such as vouchers, took this opportunity to support the voucher plan in Milwaukee.
Criticized by the NAACP and other organizations not aligned with Republican politics,
Representative Williams stated, “If you’re drowning and a hand is extended to you, you don’t
ask if the hand is democratic or republican” (Hale, 2021, para, 16). Despite over 30 years of
existence and increasing enrollment, this partisan approach to parental choice has remained the
landscape for the MPCP. As the reform began and politics took its place, at its core, the MPCP is
in existence today because the status quo had failed Black children, and families were seeking

8
equity. Gary George and Susan Mitchell joined Fuller and Representative Williams, united and
unmoved by critics; the MPCP was born (School Choice Wisconsin, 2024a).
Mitchell (2022) noted that unlikely partnerships that crossed racial, religious, economic,
and political lines were critical in developing the MPCP. Using these partnerships, the MPCP has
endured three significant legal challenges. The positive results of students participating in the
MPCP are evident despite eligibility, fiscal, and regulatory obstacles that continuously test this
education option. Although they aimed at creating equity, income limits exclude approximately
half of Wisconsin families, and, as Mitchell noted, many of the best private schools in
Milwaukee do not participate in the MPCP due to the state's regulation on participating schools.
Finally, students participating in the MPCP are succeeding despite a significant funding gap in
per-pupil allocation, as noted by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty ([WILL], 2018),
where 68% of MPCP schools were meeting or exceeding expectations on the state report card as
compared to less than 50% of Milwaukee Public Schools.
Statement of the Problem
Research is needed to gain insight into parents’ understanding of funding disparities
schools encounter while participating in income-eligible vouchers. In Milwaukee’s program,
parental lack of knowledge is of concern, as during the 2022 school year, approximately 80% of
the under-18 population in Milwaukee has been made up of Black and Brown children (City
Forward Collective, 2023a). With 28% of Milwaukee’s children attending private choice
schools, funding and accountability disparities are primarily affecting the education of
marginalized students (Bronson, et al., 2021).
The discrepancies created by differences in funding and accountability metrics placed on
participating schools in the MPCP have created barriers to a child receiving equitable access to

9
education. These barriers include allowing the MPCP to be competitive in teacher hiring
practices, acquisition of research-based curriculums and resources, and the ability to update the
most in-need facilities. In addition, barriers are further created by the need for MPCP schools to
adhere to all accountability and compliance metrics and timelines during a school year. Funding
disparities affecting children attending participating MPCP schools could be decreased with
increased parental knowledge of the differences in per-pupil funding between MPCP students
and traditional public-school students in Milwaukee. In addition, increased advocacy concerning
school choice by Black and Hispanic parents could result from increased parental awareness of
funding inequities. This issue is vital as every child deserves the same educational opportunities
regardless of where they are educated.
Purpose of the Study
Delving deeper into parental knowledge of funding discrepancies in income eligibility
choice programs across the United States, this study addressed the MPCP. Specifically, the study
includes an in-depth analysis of parents’ awareness of the allocations children receive to attend
their choice of schools compared to traditional public-school student allocations. Finally,
legislative decisions that place more significant compliance requirements were considered within
the MPCP. This study focused on the MPCP to address whether increased parental knowledge of
funding and compliance disparities in income-eligible voucher programs could lead to increased
parental advocacy.
The following research questions were considered:
1. What are leaders doing, if anything, to raise parental awareness around legislative
disparities in the MPCP?

10
2. If parents participating in MPCP are aware of legislative disparities between the
MPCP and traditional public schools, how, if at all, are they advocating or willing to
advocate for equity?
3. For parents participating in MPCP, how does knowledge of legislative funding
disparities influence their sense of belonging and continued participation in the
MPCP?
Further, using the MPCP as the focus, the hypothesis was tested, and it was found that
increased parental awareness of funding disparities between students participating in incomeeligible voucher programs and those attending traditional public schools increased parental
advocacy at the legislative level to support closing the funding gap.
This study took a granular approach to critical race theory, known as interest convergence
theory, as a framework. Hurie (2021) reviewed Bell’s explanation of interest convergence. Hurie
cited Bell’s 1980 work, which described interest convergences as occurring when the interest of
Black people achieving racial equality are met when they converge with the interests of White
people. Hurie added that racial justice is sometimes met with interests deemed necessary by
courts and policymakers. Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) is an example of interest
convergence where desegregation raised the prestige of the United States to the world stage
while also creating opportunities for Black children to attend White schools that offered better
opportunities (Shih, 2017).
Bell’s definition is challenging to ignore when considering interest convergence related
to school choice. Through school choice, the interests of those marginalized by socioeconomic
status, primarily in Black and Hispanic communities, converge with the interests of
policymakers. Green and Paul (2021) reasoned that school choice creates competitive pressure

11
on traditional public schools through generous eligibility requirements. As marginalized
communities’ interests converge with the interests of the policymakers, racial justice emerges.
Jenson (2022) discussed Representative Williams’ original vision concerning the MPCP;
from 1980 to 1996, Williams referred to her vision of choice as agency, justice, and selfdetermination. Agency is the ability for parents to choose a school in their neighborhood, and
justice is related to policies that create equality between Black and White parents. Selfdetermination is the local control over schooling in the Black community. Whereas William’s
vision focused on community and racist policies in the local community, conservative ideas
about school choice focused on the individual. Jenson described that for Williams, choice
represented freedom from the racist and oppressive policies of the public school system, while
conservatives viewed it as something entirely different. Ultimately, according to Jenson (2022)
Williams felt the MPCP was hijacked by White middle-class interests, transforming the use of
public funds for private education to include middle-class students.
Although Wisconsin legislation continues to underfund students participating in the
MPCP compared to traditional public-school students, interests appear to converge as
predominantly marginalized communities have an opportunity to remove their children from
underperforming Milwaukee Public Schools. At the same time, MPS receives a percentage of the
choice students’ total per pupil allocation. MPS also receives high-poverty aid to offset the loss
of MPCP students in their enrollment and the inability to raise property taxes due to lower
enrollment by the loss of these students. The deficit created by the inability to count enrolled
MPCP students is partially recovered through high-poverty aid payments. The deficit adds some
of the responsibility for MPCP onto taxpayers to cover the high-poverty aid; however, Wisconsin
policymakers have set an end to higher taxes by decreasing high-poverty aid to MPS each year

12
until it ends in the 2024–2025 school year (WILL, 2018). As with many other states, the
argument surrounding choice in Wisconsin concerns the impact on traditional public schools.
WILL (2018) referred to a study by Lueken (2021), indicating that because of the lower perpupil funding for choice students, Wisconsin taxpayers have saved over 376 million dollars since
the program's inception in 1990.
As Hurie (2021, as cited by Aggarwal, 2018) noted, the MPCP and other forms of school
choice can be viewed as twinned character of choice, which couples private choice with the right
to exclude. This twinned character of choice manifests when marginalized communities are
given the option to participate in the MPCP. At the same time, choice can be viewed through the
lens of race-taming as policymakers have slowly taken control of the choice program,
implementing policies that benefit middle-class populations and move further from the original
vision of choice (Hurie, 2021). Hurie also referred to Chapman and Anthrop-Gonzalez’s view on
interest convergence as differing from the typical view in which the dominant culture gives up
something, such as social standing, while marginalized communities gain, known as a loss-gain
binary. Instead, they see interest convergence as something that allows minorities access to more
significant equity while also sacrificing something unknown and unforeseen. When considering
the MPCP, Wisconsin’s policymakers’ market-based reforms could be viewed as ignoring race
and undermining the initial interests of progressive Black leaders and politicians who held a
different view of what the MPCP would become, despite their support of school choice.
Using Chapman and Anthrop-Gonzalez’s description of interest convergence of equity
gained through an unforeseen or unknown sacrifice, an understanding can be gained on the
MPCP through the appearance of the racial justice gained through providing school choice to

13
qualifying families based on socioeconomic status, while, as this research theorizes, unknown
and unforeseen inequities for these same marginalized families exist, such as the funding gap.
Significance of the Study
Despite attempts to restrict the MPCP, it has continued to grow. School Choice
Wisconsin (2022) indicated that the number of students participating in the MPCP has grown to
28,958 during the 2022–2023 school year from 341 students during the 1998–1999 school year.
In addition, there were seven participating schools in its 1st year, which grew to 125 in the 2022–
2023 school year.
Faulk (2023) noted how enrollment in MPS reached about 100% of its projection in the
2022–2023 school year; however, Faulk also recognized that enrollment projections had
decreased from the previous year and that this change had not been reported widely. Finally,
Faulk pointed to statewide trends compared to Milwaukee and described that while enrollment in
public schools decreased statewide by 0.85%, independent charter schools increased by 4.5%,
and enrollment in Wisconsin’s private choice programs increased by 6.7%.
Bronson and Schien (2022) concluded that MPS experienced a decline in enrollment of
9.6% from the 2018–2019 school year. During that time, private choice school enrollment
increased. This increase may partially be related to the end of the Chapter 220 program,
Wisconsin’s only actual integration program. This program allowed parents residing in
Milwaukee to send their children to suburban schools outside of the MPS district. Additionally,
Covid may have played a role.
Bronson and Schien (2022) found that nearly 50% of Milwaukee’s under-18 population
in 2020–2021 were Black children, followed by 30% Hispanic/Latino children. With 80% of the
under-18 population representing marginalized children, enrollment trends in Milwaukee

14
indicate that private choice schools in Milwaukee are growing in the number of marginalized
families they serve. Comparing data from the 2006–2007 school year, enrollment in MPS
decreased from 69% to 55% of Milwaukee’s under-18 population by 2021–2022, with public
charter school enrollment in Milwaukee increasing from 8% to 14% and private choice
enrollment through the MPCP increasing from 15% to 25% during this same time. Finally,
Mitchell (2022) explained that 46% of Milwaukee students attended a K–12 educational program
that did not exist before 1990.
EdChoice (2023f) described the statewide Wisconsin parental choice programs and
showed that as enrollment in choice programs continues to increase, funding allocations for
participating students remain, on average, 24% less than students enrolled in traditional public
schools. Wisconsin statute dictates that voucher values cannot decrease from year to year and
must align with allocation increases given to MPS students. While alignment exists, it reinforces
the funding gap that has existed for years in the country’s longest-running choice program and
potentially sets the tone for other income-eligible voucher programs.
Notably, on the third Friday of September, the headcount of all Milwaukee students
attending private schools in Milwaukee in the 2022–2023 school year was 41,389 students. Of
those students, 28,958 participated in the MPCP, indicating that 70% of Milwaukee private
school students attended on a choice voucher (Department of Public Instruction [DPI], 2022a).
These statistics demonstrate the number of students further marginalized by Wisconsin’s school
choice funding policies.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of this research were in the participating subjects, especially parents of
students involved with the MPCP and the design, using interview and survey methods to gather

15
data. Many parents who received the survey questions speak English as a second language, and if
the questions are not translated correctly, the results could be inaccurate. In addition, completion
of the surveys by all parent participants could create a limitation. Also, leaders invited to
interview may opt-out as they may not want to participate in a study they perceive to cause harm
to the MPCP, thus marginalizing families further. Finally, my years of experience in
Milwaukee’s charter and choice schools could create a bias that, if not addressed, could also
create inaccurate results.
Delimitations within this research study occur as the research is explicitly aimed at the
leaders and parents in participating MPCP Schools. The study focuses on leader communication
with MPCP participants regarding per-pupil funding received by a child attending MPCP
schools. The study furthers understanding of participating parents’ knowledge of limitations of
their choice when participating in MPCP as the choice pertains to disparities in funding and
accountability metrics between choice and traditional public schools in Milwaukee. The research
excluded leaders and parents from public schools, charter schools, and other Wisconsin Choice
programs.
Definition of Terms
• Critical race theory is a movement challenging the means of conventional legal
strategies to lead to social and economic justice. It seeks new legal strategies
considering race as a nexus of American life (Damske & Stevens, 2009).
• CRT is the acronym for critical race theory.
• DPI is the acronym for the Wisconsin Department of Instruction.

16
• Funding gap refers to the difference in per pupil allocation received by a student
enrolled in traditional public schools, public charter schools and private choice
schools participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
• Interest convergence refers to a theory coined by Derrick Bell which theorizes that
Black people only achieve civil rights victories when their interests align with the
interests of Whites (Shih, 2017).
• Per pupil allocation refers to the amount of spending a district pays to educate a
student during a designated school year.
• Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is described by The Wisconsin Legislative
Fiscal Bureau (2003) as a program established in 1989 under Act 336. This Act
allowed funds to pay for low-income families to attend, free of cost, private schools
within the City of Milwaukee.
• MPCP is the acronym for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
• School choice refers to programs and policies allowing families to use public money
to access schools beyond their local option, including private schools (Durrani, 2023).
• School vouchers are education tax dollars that are diverted from public schools to
help subsidize the tuition of private and religious schools (NSBA, nd, para 1).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation contains five chapters. Chapter 1 provides insight into the history of the
fight for school choice for socioeconomically disadvantaged families in the United States and the
growth of school choice into contemporary programs seen nationwide. The topic is narrowed
down to focus on the MPCP, the oldest choice program in the country. The continued funding

17
obstacles choice programs face in six states, including the MPCP, are crucial issues. Finally,
Chapter 1 introduced the theoretical lens of interest convergence.
Chapter 2 comprises an analysis of empirical research and existing literature on choice
programs in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Maryland, and Wisconsin. Chapter 2
focused on research and articles concerning the MPCP, specifically legislation, funding,
accountability metrics, segregation, and why parents choose to participate.
Chapter 3 described the study’s methodology and mixed method design captured through
interviews and surveys with MPCP leaders and parents. Chapter 4 outlined the findings from
interviews and surveys associated with the research questions, introduced participants in greater
detail, and summarized the findings of the three research questions. Chapter 5 discussed the
findings regarding how parents’ knowledge could increase advocacy and the effect parents’
understanding of inequities plays in their decisions to choose. The chapter included a discussion
of the implications of the findings on the future of the MPCP, as well as choice programs in the
five other states discussed, and the chapter also includes a discussion of previous research and a
proposal for further research.

18
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In seeking to understand income eligible voucher programs and discrepancies that exist
within them, it is important to have insight into the history of school choice and modern school
choice programs, including diving deeper into school choice in the state of Wisconsin with a
granular look at the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
History of School Choice
Understanding school choice includes reviewing its history from its beginnings. At its
conception, school choice was targeted as a stand against the integration of schools following the
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision. Maclean (2021) pointed to examples in Virginia
in 1955 and 1956 when White leaders from Virginia resisted the higher court order to integrate
schools. This unity came in the form of vouchers to allow White families who did not want their
children to be part of an integrated public school to attend private schools, resulting in the
lowest-income White children attending integrated schools. White southerners viewed school
choice as a loophole to avoid integration because the Brown ruling was binding only for public
schools.
According to Burke, Schwalbach, and Rosenwinkel (2020), as the Brown ruling
unfolded, Milton Freidman, a Nobel Prize American economist, advocated in an essay that
education needed to operate as a market system. With this, the education marketplace creates
competition and consumers’ freedom to choose. Friedman (1955) argued that parents, not the
state, should decide where their children attend school, untethering them from failing public
schools within their district boundaries. With this choice, the thought was that failing public
schools would be forced to perform better. Further, Friedman’s essay argued for a voucher
program that would give parents funds equal to those that the public school would have received

19
to educate their child and thus allow the parents to pay private school tuition. Fundamentally,
Friedman did not advocate that education financing should be tied to the delivery of services.
No one narrative captures the story of school choice. The beginnings of school choice
were grounded in segregationists’ attempts to escape integration, and ironically, these intentions
are currently used by opponents as an adverse outcome of school choice. The opposition to
school choice is that these schools have become segregated. Pierce (2021) noted that opponents
of choice speak to how money is drained from underperforming, underfunded public schools and
that choice is grounded in segregationist politics. Pierce failed to recognize that the
segregationist policies were created to promote White flight and that the underperforming,
underfunded public schools were serving predominantly Black and Brown children in urban
areas.
The historical beginnings of the political and social justice battle regarding school choice
reflect the continuing polarization that contemporary school choice movements demonstrate.
Rotherham (2017) considered both sides of this educational battle, noting that education activists
typically view choice as empowering low-income people, while political thinkers continue to
grapple with how to organize schools in current society. Ultimately, the parents’ voices are the
main idea underlying choice education, and, according to Rotherham, parents want what is best
for their children.
Modern School Choice
More recent school choice options have not changed the polarization of opinions.
According to Povich (2013), 32 states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of
voucher programs, and 10 states have implemented or expanded existing voucher programs
following the COVID-19 pandemic. As in the historical views of school choice, opponents feel

20
that these programs, many of which are no longer income-based, deter focus on the need to fund
public schools adequately. According to opponents, school choice essentially defunds public
education. Saving to Invest (2023) analyzed each of these expanded choice programs, noting
how, as modern expanded choice programs reach families of higher income levels, school choice
has become an even greater political battle as special interest groups become more involved.
The most modern approach to school choice lies in universal funding. In 2022, six more
states passed voucher programs that offer universal or near-universal funding. They join Arizona
and West Virginia, which offer almost all students education savings accounts (ESA). These
programs bring the total number of states to eight, where public funding is offered for private
education to most students residing in the state. In current choice programs, universal funding is
gaining traction nationwide. This is a shift from historical context as, in many spaces, choice
education no longer seems to be a social justice issue. Stanford (2023) noted that through
universal funding, mainly through ESAs, families are offered money that can be used in various
ways, regardless of income, a child’s disability, or where they reside. This most modern form of
choice education will come with challenges; according to Stanford, if Arizona is a metric, it
demonstrates that 75% of parents applying for ESAs have children who have never attended a
public school.
Despite the universal funding landscape, modern-day choice is not without the fight for
social justice. Five states, plus the District of Columbia, continue to offer choice vouchers to
families who qualify through income eligibility. Weida (2023) indicated that while these states
offer choice vouchers to income-eligible families, the voucher rarely covers the cost of attending
a private school. With this disparity, it could be inferred that income-eligible students, already

21
marginalized by socioeconomic status, are further marginalized by their parents’ choices. The
following is a glance at four of the states offering income-eligible vouchers:
• In Ohio Education by Numbers, the Thomas Fordham Institute (2023) noted that 55
urban school districts in Ohio are considered very high or high poverty. There are
approximately 166,000 students enrolled in 705 private schools where eligible
students can use a state scholarship to attend. During the 2021–2022 school year,
20,783 students used EdChoice income-based scholarships. EdChoice (2023a) states
that the average voucher amount in Ohio during the same school year was $4,972,
with 38% of families attending private schools eligible for the EdChoice Scholarship.
Further, EdChoice (2023a) noted that the average per-pupil funding for children
attending public schools during the same year was $13,337. This indicates that the
average voucher for a low-income family in Ohio is 36% of the funding a publicschool student receives, creating a disparity in funding for an income-eligible child of
approximately $8,000. In addition, according to Private School Review (2023), the
average cost of private school tuition in Ohio is currently $7,630, indicating that an
average voucher does not cover the total cost of tuition. Finally, the Ohio Department
of Education and Workforce (2024) identifies the maximum scholarship amount for
elementary students in Ohio as $6,165, with qualification for the total amount lying in
a family's adjusted gross income being at, or lower than, 451% of the Federal Poverty
Level.
• Forty-four thousand three hundred seventy-six students participate in Indiana's State
Scholarship Program (EdChoice, 2023b). Seventy-seven percent of families statewide
are income-eligible, with less than 10% of students participating in the program

22
statewide. The average voucher amount is $5,439, equating to 50% of public school
per-pupil spending- a funding disparity of approximately $5,000 for 10% of lowincome families choosing to participate.
• According to EdChoice (2023c), North Carolina’s Opportunity Scholarship has an
average voucher amount of $2,769, approximately 28% of public school per pupil
funding, a disparity in funding of almost $10,000 for students receiving the average
amount. Twenty-four thousand seventy-seven students participated in the fall of 2022.
Two-thirds of North Carolina’s students are eligible to participate, with only 1% of
eligible students participating during the 2021–2022 school year.
• Maryland’s Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today (BOOST)
Program had 3,268 participating students in 2021–2022, with 19% of families with
children statewide qualifying for income eligibility. The average voucher amount is
$3,134, 19% of the per-pupil spending in public schools. BOOST is funded by ten
million appropriated from the general fund. One in five students is eligible in
Maryland, with only 1% participating statewide (EdChoice, 2023d).
Finally, the driving question behind current school choice, as it has been throughout
history, is whether or not, with political lines drawn, bipartisan politics are needed for success.
Greene and Paul (2021) found that of 18 states in 2021 where choice passed legislation, two
were democratic led. In an open blog, Cohen (2016) captured explanations of progressive
education reformers as they apologized for failing to elevate marginalized communities’ voices.
Cohen stated, “The education reform coalition has a problem” (para, 1). In his blog, Cohen
addressed statements made by Pondiscio (Thomas Fordham Institute, 2016), citing anonymous
conservative education reformers dissatisfied with social justice warriors’ dominance of the

23
education reform movement and the marginalization of dissenting views. Cohen stated,
“Pondiscio frames this tension as one of right versus left, or in his words, free market enthusiasts
versus social justice warriors” (para, 3).
Cohen (2016) ended by stating that reimaging schools, particularly ones ignored by the
current educational system, will require years, and perhaps generations, of hard work where there
will be wins and losses, tradeoffs, and politicking. The answer remains blurred: is bipartisan
support needed for school choice to be successful? The modern-day choice would indicate the
answer could be “no”; however, if it has taught us anything, it is that as the political power in a
state may shift from election to election, school choice remains under the control of the voice of
those in power.
Wisconsin School Choice
In the state where school choice began, Wisconsin is no stranger to the changing winds of
politics and their impact on school choice legislation. Legislative changes regarding Wisconsin
school choice programs have continued to the most recent change in 2023. Wins for school
choice have been passed in Wisconsin legislation, such as the most recent funding increase, and
losses, such as the continued funding gap. Wisconsin is an example of years and decades of wins
and losses, tradeoffs, and politicking.
To understand the history of school choice in Wisconsin, one must go back over three
decades to the late 80s when the conversations began to 1990, when the first choice program in
the country, the MPCP, welcomed its first participants, and up to 1995 and 1998 with the
unprecedented court decisions allowing religious schools to participate in school choice.
School choice in Wisconsin began with bipartisan efforts, and with bipartisan efforts
driving the latest funding increase, the state has lived through its share of challenges to school

24
choice. Despite legislative disparities between choice and public schools, choice enrollment in
Wisconsin has continued to increase.
Legislative Changes in Wisconsin School Choice
Wisconsin legislation concerning school choice has comprised three decades of change.
The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau (2003) and School Choice Wisconsin (2024b) walk
through decades of legislative decisions, including the following:
• 1989: Act 336 established the MCPC
• 1995: Act 27 allowed religious schools to participate and increased the participation
limit to 15% of Milwaukee Public School students
• 1998: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that it is legal for religious schools to
participate in the choice program
• 1999: Act 9 changed the definition of membership to exclude students enrolled in a
choice school from being counted in MPS membership
• 1999: Act 9 also changed the incidence of aid reduction, with total aid no longer
coming from MPS, allowing MPS to increase the property tax levy to offset aid
reduction
• 2001: Act 16 saw the general school aid reduction for non-MPS school districts
deleted and general aid to MPS equal 45% of the total cost of the choice program,
meaning the general fund paid for 55% of the choice program and MPS for 45%
• 2002: In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the United States Supreme Court ruled
that choice programs are constitutional
• 2005: Act 125 increased allowable enrollment in the MCPC to 22,500

25
• 2009: it was determined that the WKCE state assessment be administered to all
voucher students
• 2011: Act 32 determined the enrollment limit and raised the income level to 300% of
the Federal Poverty Level
• 2015: Voucher Limits Increased by an amount equal to the increase of public schools
• 2023: SB 330 raises funding for private choice and public charter schools
Many of the legislative decisions listed above were celebrations of expansion, the
addition of religious schools, and increased voucher limits. What is not captured in legislative
changes are challenges arising from enrollment limitations and the cost of funding limitations on
schools participating in choice programs, which impact their ability to be competitive unless
fund development initiatives are done to close the funding gap.
Wisconsin School Choice Funding
In a poll reported by School Choice Wisconsin (2022), Wisconsin families demonstrated
strong support for universal eligibility and funding equity. Although responses from this poll
showed support for funding equity, a disparity in funding existed. In the 2022–2023 school year,
Wisconsin offered four school choice programs and one tax deduction. During that year, the
statewide Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, which excludes Milwaukee and Racine, enrolled
over 17,000 students. Vouchers for the statewide program were 63% of public school per pupil
spending. The same year, the MPCP enrolled approximately 29,000 students with vouchers,
which equaled 76% of public-school spending per pupil. Finally, the Racine Parental Choice
Program enrolled nearly 4,000 students with vouchers, which equaled 63% of public-school
spending per pupil. Most Wisconsin programs are income-eligible at 300% of the Federal
Poverty Level (EdChoice, 2023f).

26
During the 2022 gubernatorial election, Tim Michels, a Republican candidate for
governor, campaigned on educational competition as a great motivator (Girard & Kelly, 2022). A
divide existed among republican constituents, with 46% feeling that more money should go to
private schools and 45% polled stating the reverse. Democratic constituents were less divided:
93% felt more money should go to public schools. According to a Marquette Law School poll,
the standout polling outcome was with independent voters, where 71% expressed great concern
about public schools, the highest concern of any issue surveyed.
Universal funding continues to be a talking point; however, in a state where the choice
was founded on social justice, allowing all families access to private schools despite their income
or zip code remains controversial. The outcome of the governor’s election was that Democrat
Tony Evers won his second term as the governor of Wisconsin, and despite democratic support
of public schools over private choice and charter, Evers supported sweeping funding legislation
that placed more money in the state’s choice programs. Passage was a rare bipartisan education
law making the Wisconsin legislation one that could impact nationwide. Though other states
have successfully passed choice legislation, this has been done in unified republican
governments. In Wisconsin’s latest school choice legislation, the state is a rare example of
bipartisan politicking (Spindt, 2023). The funding initiative is a victory for school choice; yet,
with over $1000 added to per-pupil spending for Wisconsin School Choice K–8 students, a
disparity of approximately $3000 remains.
The Thomas Fordham Institute (2006) called for weighted student funding. This call,
made over 20 years ago, proposed that money should be directed to schools serving students who
needed the most help, noting that long-recognized inequities are bad enough if all students cost
the same. The statement noted that to close the educational gap, more resources are needed for

27
low-income students, minority students, and students with special needs who lag far behind
peers. Despite such calls made decades ago, income-eligible choice programs in Wisconsin,
serving socio-economically disadvantaged children, continue to fund school choice students at
lower rates than public school students. In a quote made by Deangelis (2021) around funding
students instead of systems, Deangelis remarked, “Funding students directly, instead of school
systems, would remedy the power imbalance by giving families access to meaningful
alternatives” (introduction, para 4).
In the spring of 2023, historical bipartisan funding legislation in the form of Assembly
Bill 900 was passed, closing the funding gap for private choice high schools, K–8 private choice
schools, and K–8 charter schools across Wisconsin. This funding increased per pupil allocations
by $1100 for K–8 students in the MPCP (Spears, 2024).
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Funding
In 1988, Governor Tommy Thompson introduced two voucher programs to the
Wisconsin legislature, one for MPS and another for the remainder of the state. After a lengthy
debate among legislators, a voucher program was passed, although different from Thompson’s
original proposal as statewide programs were eliminated (Stewart & Moon, 2016). Thompson
vetoed one portion of the program passed by the Wisconsin legislature, the sunset clause, which
would have limited the voucher program to 5 years, ultimately allowing the longest-running
voucher program, the MPCP, to take root.
Throughout the past 30 years, income-eligible criteria for voucher participation have
changed. Initially, it required participants to be at 175% of the Federal Poverty Level, changing
in 2011 to require participating parents to be at 300%. In addition, according to Stewart and
Moon (2016), during the first 25 years, many changes were enacted to funding formulas for the

28
MPCP. During the first 8 years, the MPCP was paid through the general fund, and the same
amount reduced the MPS equalization aid revenue. With this reduction, MPS could count
students participating in MPCP schools in their enrollment, meaning the district broke even.
Stewart and Moon (2016) further suggested that due to the growth of the program, mostly
occurring from the inclusion of religious schools in 1998, the state implemented changes to the
funding formula, first by no longer allowing MPS to count participating MPCP students in their
enrollment count for state aid or revenue. This funding period became known as the funding
flaw, as it reduced the district's equalization aid by 50% of the program cost while no longer
allowing MPCP students in the MPS enrollment count. This flaw led to fiscal benefits going to
state taxpayers while burdening Milwaukee property taxpayers. To help offset the reduction in
aid, a choice levy was put in place, allowing MPS to increase taxes to make up for the lost
equalization aid, placing half of the MPCP's cost on local taxpayers. Most funding changes later
in the MPCP aimed to correct this flaw (Stewart & Moon, 2016, cited by Costrell, 2010).
From 2001 to 2002, the state paid 55% of the cost of the voucher program from the
general fund, leaving MPS with the other 45%, which was paid through the local tax levy. This
55/45 funding split continued up to the 2009–2010 school year. During this school year, the state
reduced equalization aid reduction for MPS to one-third of MPCP cost and lowered it even more
in the 2010 school year to 38.4% of the program cost. In 2007, the Wisconsin legislature
introduced high-poverty aid to districts that reported 50% or more students eligible for free or
reduced lunch. According to Stewart and Moon, this aid was distributed to districts based on perpupil allocations, multiplied by the previous year’s pupil count along with equalization and other
aids, which allowed MPS to reduce the local property tax burden.

29
In 2013, the MPS contribution to the MPCP was further reduced, indicating that the
changed timeline would have MPS contributions equaling zero by the 2025–2026 school year.
According to the Department of Pubic Instruction (2023b), during the 2021–2022 school year,
MPCP was funded 9.6% from a reduction in state general aid to MPS and 90.4% from the state
general purpose revenue, indicating that with the yearly reduction of MPS contribution by 3.2%
each year, contributions by MPS will meet the zero level by the 2025 school year. Of all voucher
programs across the nation, Wisconsin voucher programs are known to have some of the most
robust financial accountability measures as, from as early as 1995, schools participating in
voucher programs were required to meet uniform financial accounting standards, including the
submission of an independent financial audit performed by a certified public accounting firm, per
Wisconsin Act 27, 1995.
Access to Federal Funding Resources
Legislation at the state and local levels concerning school choice in Wisconsin has been
ongoing for the past 30 years. While state and local revenue sources have been debated and
formulas changed, federal funding resources also play a part. Made public on the DPIs website
(Equitable Participation in Title 1 for Private Schools, 2023), the 2015 requirement in the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that districts provide eligible children attending private schools
and teachers and families with Title 1 services or benefits is cited. According to the U.S.
Department of Education (2019), eligible private school students reside in a participating Title 1
public school attendance area and are low achieving.
As MPS serves as the local education agency (LEA) for all MPCP schools, consulting
meetings are held quarterly by MPS. In a published quarterly ESSA meeting on September 12,
2023, the process private schools must go through to identify eligible students, purchase

30
materials, receive professional development, and account for participation is outlined
(Milwaukee Public Schools, 2023a). In addition, Title funding is only available to students who
meet the criteria, meaning that if a student attending a private school is low achieving yet does
not meet the low-income requirement, which is different from the requirement to participate in
the MPCP, the student is not eligible for services. As private schools cannot be their own LEA,
options for vended Title services are provided by MPS as the LEA.
Three approved vendors provide Title services for Milwaukee private schools.
Milwaukee Public Schools (2023b) identifies those vendors as Catapult, Learning Exchange, and
Mainstream Development. MPS shows the final 2023–2024 school year allocations for all
Milwaukee private schools as 34,954,321.43 (Milwaukee Public Schools, 2023c). The U.S.
Department of Education Office on Nonpublic Education (2019) stated that Title I, II, III, and IV
are eligible title programs for nonpublic schools. It further states that the LEA or other entity
receiving title funds under an applicable ESSA program must reserve a proportional share of
those funds for equitable services that address the needs of private school students.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Regulatory Compliance
In the 2023 Wisconsin legislative session, Wisconsin Statute 119.23 regarding the
MPCP was amended and upheld (Wisconsin Statute, 2023). Within this statute is legislation
concerning accreditation, accrediting entities, who can attend, requirements for attending,
guidelines beyond residency, income eligibility, application process, documentation
requirements for application, testing/assessment requirements, audit requirements, financial
expectations, criminal background information, state superintendent ability to close programs,
and reporting deadlines as some of the principal legislative regulations.

31
Catt (2014) discussed concerns about how regulatory environments impact the supply of
participating private schools. Catt indicated that the MPCP was operating under 31 unique
regulatory statutes from the program's start, with 55 additional regulations added by 2012, noting
that more than half were paperwork and reporting requirements. Catt also noted that, at the time
of publication, Milwaukee was the most regulated program in the country.
Friedman (1955, as cited by Catt, 2014) posited that the financing does not require the
administration of schools of education, and it is not justifiable in its own right in a free enterprise
society, continuing to say that a far better alternative to political control is to introduce
competition in education, to allow parents a choice. Friedman stated, “it would do much, also, to
add flexibility into school systems” (p. 8). In his 2014 Brief, Catt concluded that paperwork,
reporting, student eligibility, enrollment, admissions, and tuition all resulted in the most adverse
impacts of a private school participating in a school choice program.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Accountability Metrics
In addition to disparities in funding, schools participating in the MPCP face additional
accountability metrics. These metrics deter many private schools from participation in the
program (Catt, 2014). However, a more comprehensive report was published by School Choice
Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (2017, August). This report reviewed
27 years of regulations and highlighted several regulations and rules concerning violations,
beginning with Act 155 in 2003 which tightened financial audit requirements, required
occupancy permits and mandated financial training. In addition, Act 155 gave the state
Superintendent the power to withhold payments to MCPC schools who were deemed noncompliant. Records indicate that the DPI withheld payments 375 times between the 2005–2015
school years. 284 were due to violations in the Financial Information Report. Other instances

32
related to failure to refund or late refund to the state for overpayment. Act 155 also gave DPI the
authority to bar a school from participation in the MPCP due to items on the following list:
• misrepresentation or failure to provide certificate of occupancy, evidence of financial
viability, or proof of administrator completing fiscal management training
• failure to complete intent to participate form and pay nonrefundable fee
• failure to submit GAAP financial audit (previously the FIR)
• failure to provide evidence of sound fiscal and internal control practices
• failure to refund the state any overpayments
• failure to meet selected standard for the continuing eligibility report
• failure to provide school information and policy handbook to parents of applicants
• retention of a disqualified person
• failure to administer state testing, adopt academic standards, have a written visitor
policy, ensure teacher’s aides have high school diplomas, and annually have two
advertised board meetings
• failure to allow religious opt-outs
• failure to maintain progress records for 5 years
• failure to issue high school diplomas for eligible students Situation of imminent threat
to the health or safety of pupils
Further regulations included:
• Acts 125 and 28: DPI is authorized to deny entrance of a school to the MCPC if they
did not receive accreditation within 3 years, with Act 28 requiring pre-accreditation
and mandating a set number of instructional hours and student academic standards.

33
• 2007–2016: 33 schools were denied entry due to accountability measures established
in Acts 125 and 28. Of those, 21 failed to gain admittance and never opened.
• Act 237: Required schools, beginning in 2013, seeking to participate in the MCPC to
submit an anticipated budget to DPI for sign-off while also creating more robust
measures for start-up schools.
• No school joining MPCP since the passage of Act 237 has been removed from the
program.
• Act 28: Voucher students were required to take the state assessment beginning in
2009 and 2015, including all choice schools with a student information system
allowing DPI to track individual students via their identification number.
• Act 36: streamlined existing accountability metrics in 2017 to remove some burden
on participating schools while increasing accountability on the MCPC—including a
fiscal accountability provision and required background checks on employees. (Pugh,
2015, p. 15)
More recently, School Choice Wisconsin and WILL (2017) published a report on the
impact of fiscal accountability and parental choice specifically for the MPCP. Finally, the DPI
(2022b) released “Important Dates for the Private School Choice Program,” including mandatory
audits, more than required for public schools, and the requirements for student registration, such
as proof of residency, also not required for enrollment in Milwaukee Public Schools.
In the three decades of the MPCP, MPCP has faced added regulations making it more
difficult for schools to join and more straightforward for schools to be removed. During this
time, choice schools in Wisconsin became directly accountable to DPI. Current accountability,
including accountability placed on parents, demonstrates that low-performing schools were

34
removed or barred from participation in the MPCP (School Choice Wisconsin & WILL, 2017).
Garnett (2021) addressed accountability metrics and explained that misuse of accountability law
promulgates debates that are not aimed at holding schools accountable but are essentially
obstructionist efforts to end school choice proposals before they can be enacted, resulting in
accountability metrics that create more of a rescue mission than a broad societal change.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Academic and Attainment Outcomes
Flanders (2017) examined test scores in Milwaukee and across Wisconsin. Using the
2016 Forward results, Flanders found that schools participating in the MPCP significantly
outperformed traditional Milwaukee public schools, finding that MPCP students were
approximately 5% more likely to be proficient in English/Language Arts and about 4% more
likely to be proficient in Math. Flanders also noted that students in the MPCP taking the ACT
scored approximately 2.8 points higher than students in traditional public schools. In a 5-year
longitudinal research study, Witte, et al. (2012) compared demographically similar MPS and
MPCP students in reading and math. Their results also showed that MPCP students outperformed
MPS students in reading and math.
Finally, the 2023 Wisconsin Forward scores demonstrate that students participating in the
MPCP outperformed their MPS peers at every grade level in reading and math in Grades 3–8. In
addition, MPCP students taking the ACT outscored their MPS peers (School Choice Wisconsin,
2024c).

35
Wolf, et al. (2019) examined various voucher programs, and statistics demonstrated that
students across the county participating in a voucher program had greater college attainment,
including graduation rates and years spent in college. Specifics for students who participated in
the MPCP demonstrated greater college attainment for the original 9th-grade sample.
Segregation and Milwaukee Parental Choice
Race has been at the center of school choice in Milwaukee since the inception of these
programs. Activists in Milwaukee sought control of the public schools because they believed that
the public school system was failing Black families. In a rare collusion, former Representative
Williams joined with former Governor Thompson to allow low-income children to attend nonreligious, private schools. Williams viewed desegregation efforts, which had been tried in
Milwaukee, as a lack of choice. According to Jenson (2022), Williams’ use of the term choice
differed from how conservative choice advocates used it. Williams saw school choice as freedom
from a public school system many viewed as having instituted racist and oppressive policies.
Jenson noted that Williams ultimately felt the interests of the White middle class had hijacked
the MPCP.
Hurie (2021) explained the beginning of the MPCP, partly as a response to the ongoing
educational inequalities, stemming back to years such as 1964 when Black activists instituted
school boycotts and chain-ins in response to discriminatory practices by MPS. During this time,
Barbee sued against intentional segregation in public schools. In 1976, judgment was found for
the plaintiff. This ruling led to an intentional integration program commonly known as Chapter
220. The MPCP was created in 1990 due to, as noted, what was viewed as continued inequalities.
This is an ongoing debate, even amongst current Black leaders in Milwaukee. Sanchez
(2017) discussed the views of two prominent Black leaders: Howard Fuller and Wendall J.

36
Harris. Fuller is one of the original architects of the MPCP, and Harris is a member of the
NAACP’s education committee in Wisconsin. Sanchez noted Fuller’s belief that people had
thought that integration would lead to equal education for Black children. However, equity has
not been achieved, and since the inception of MPCP, Milwaukee has had a long history of
working to attain equal education for Black children. Harris countered Fuller’s argument, noting
that Catholic and Christian schools used the MPCP as an avenue to save their schools, using
religion as a draw. Harris explained that many parents will do their best to get their children into
a safe space to pray daily, and education becomes secondary. Critics like Harris have argued that
eventually, conservative politicians will lift income restrictions, and the MPCP will no longer be
aimed at empowering disadvantaged children and families. Sanchez explained that Fuller
disagreed with this argument, stating that the program is to empower parents, not private or
religious schools, noting that Fuller extolled that he did not join the movement to stand by while
people who are not in need receive additional funding for tuition. Regardless of these viewpoints
on the MPCP, the program has continued to grow and served over 29,000 students in Milwaukee
during the 2021–2022 school year; 47.8% of students in the program were Black, and 34.5%
were Hispanic (School Choice Wisconsin, 2024d).
Why School Choice for Parents
Deangelis and Erickson (2018) examined why parental choice leads to success. Two
overarching themes arose, focusing on market competition to increase the number of highquality schools and improving the match between schools and students. Deangelis and Erickson
noted problems with separating the two potential mechanisms and identifying which is
responsible for generating positive outcomes, noting that if the student-school match is
appropriate, student outcomes should also improve. They also recognized that the likelihood of a

37
better student-school match increases if the number of high-quality schools increases. Finally,
Deangelis and Erickson discussed the definition of quality, noting that quality is unique to each
individual; therefore, the student-school match is essentially school selection, which defines the
quality they choose. Determining whether competition or student-school match is more
important to the success of school choice is challenging at best. Deangelis and Erickson
recognized that in failing to trust families in their choice of school for their child, policymakers
lower the number of quality schools.
CRT and Interest Convergence in School Choice
Critical race theorists denounce the concept of colorblindness. According to Fortin
(2021), these scholars, instead, recognize racial disparities that have continued in the United
States despite decades of Civil Rights reforms, leading to questions regarding structural racism
and racial hierarchies that exist despite the good intentions of many people. Fortin reviewed why
and how critical race theory has become more controversial recently. The discussion included a
memo issued to federal agencies by President Trump following the murder of George Floyd,
describing the theory as divisive and suggesting further barring of education or training that
described racism in the United States. A historical perspective is needed to gain understanding of
the issues.
Critical Race Theory
In 1980, Bell considered the godfather of critical race theory, began to question what it
would mean to understand racism as a permanent feature of American life. Bell postulated that
Civil Rights legislation was passed in the United States not for what it did for Black Americans
but instead for how it benefited White Americans. Bell departed from Harvard Law School
faculty in the wake of protests as students felt that Harvard’s faculty lacked diversity. Two of

38
those students were Kimberle Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda. Crenshaw and Matsuda engaged in
rethinking how higher institutions were teaching and engaging students of color and how they
could assist institutions in becoming egalitarian spaces (Fortin, 2021). Crenshaw and Matsuda,
like Professor Bell, recognized the persistence of racial inequality despite legislation and sought
to create tools to understand why. Later, in a workshop organized by Crenshaw, these ideas
became part of an academic theory known as critical race theory.
Throughout the country, Americans on both sides of the critical race theory recognize the
debate it plays out noticeably in schools. Ellis and McKend (2021) addressed the interests of
parents of Black children who view the ban on the theory as harming their children’s education.
Under the ban, Black parents do not experience that their voices are heard at the national level;
one parent stated, “most parents left traditioally Black communities (for majority White schools),
for us to have a better education, we shouldn’t also have to lose our voice and our children’s
cultural education because of it” (para, 9).
Ryan (2021) discussed whether and on what terms parent choice can survive the cancel
culture that targets choice and charter schools with tactics that paint these schools as pushing
political indoctrination arising from critical race theory. These groups attempt to cancel schools
and educators they believe perpetuate indoctrination, even though the result is canceling another
parent’s voice and the decision that parents made for their children.
The emergence of this cancel culture leads to the discussion of interest convergence and
Bell’s original exploration of what it would mean to understand racism as part of American life.
It further explores whether Civil Rights legislation was passed mainly for the gains of White
people versus benefits for marginalized groups. Similar to school choice, interest convergence is
embedded in Brown v. the Board of Education (1954).

39
Interest Convergence
Hurie (2021) addressed interest convergence and school choice using a conceptual
framework built partly on school choice concepts from Milwaukee’s MPCP, including
converging interests in education and how race taming can transcend education sectors and
benefit both voucher and public schools. Nevertheless, he recognized that in a post-colorblind
society, where whiteness is treated as simply another racial group, White liberal critiques of
school choice require scrutiny. Hurie stressed the danger of engaging in racial analysis that
abandons the reality of exclusionary mechanisms, and thus, White liberal analysis advances
insufficient education policy.
Bowley (2021) revisited Brown v. Board of Education (1954) through the lens of interest
convergence, noting that cases such as Brown were positive for Black people only because they
met the interest of White people. Bowley further noted that interest convergence posits that the
interest of a dominant culture will determine the success of a minority group in their struggle for
advancement. When considering income-eligible school choice programs throughout the
country, the question remains whether education policy, in the form of school choice as in
Milwaukee, is only advancing for low-income families, mainly Black and Hispanic, to advance
benefits for predominantly White policymakers.

40
Chapter Three: Methodology
This descriptive study aimed to understand MPCP leaders’ attitudes and beliefs toward
communicating existing funding disparities to families. A second aim was to explore the
relationships between parental awareness of existing funding and accountability differences with
increased advocacy for the MPCP. A mixed method approach was selected as the research
focused on the experiences of leaders and parents that led them to participate in the MPCP and
how those experiences, along with knowledge of disparities, affected attitudes towards
advocating for equity in funding and accountability for their schools and their children.
Furthermore, parents’ sense of belonging and knowledge of funding disparities were examined
relative to these concepts.
Statement of the Problem
At the time of this study, more information about parental knowledge of funding
disparities encountered by schools participating in income-eligible voucher programs was
needed. With 28% of Milwaukee’s children attending private choice schools, funding and
accountability discrepancies primarily affect the education of marginalized students.
Specifically, in Milwaukee’s MPCP, parental lack of knowledge was of concern, as during the
2022 school year, approximately 80% of the under-18 population in Milwaukee was made up of
Black and Hispanic children (Bronson & Schien, 2022).
The inequities derived from differences in funding and accountability metrics placed on
participating schools in the MPCP have created barriers to children’s receiving equitable access
to education. These barriers include allowing the MPCP to be competitive in teacher hiring
practices, acquisition of research-based curriculums and resources, and the ability to update the
most in-need facilities. In addition, barriers further create the need for MPCP schools to adhere

41
to all accountability and compliance metrics and timelines during a school year. Funding
disparities affecting children attending participating MPCP schools could decrease with
increased parental knowledge of how funding is allocated; for example, understanding the
differences in per-pupil funding allocations between MPCP students and traditional publicschool students. In addition, increased parental advocacy regarding school choice, born from
Black and Hispanic voices, can result from increased parental awareness of funding disparities.
This issue was important as every child, despite where they are educated, deserves the same
opportunities in education.
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to delve deeper into parental knowledge of funding disparities in
income eligibility choice programs using the MPCP as the study site. Specifically, the study
concerned parent’s awareness of the allocations their children receive to attend school compared
to those that traditional public-school students receive. Finally, legislative decisions that place
more significant compliance requirements were considered within the MPCP. This study used
the MPCP to determine whether increased parental knowledge of funding and compliance
discrepancies in income-eligible voucher programs lead to increased parental advocacy.
The following research questions were considered:
1. What are leaders doing, if anything, to raise parental awareness around legislative
inequities in the MPCP?
2. If parents participating in MPCP are aware of legislative inequities between the
MPCP and traditional public schools, how, if at all, are they advocating or willing to
advocate for equity?

42
3. For parents participating in MPCP, how does knowledge of legislative funding
inequities influence their sense of belonging and continued participation in the
MPCP?
Further, using the MPCP as the focus, the hypothesis was tested, and it was found that
increased parental awareness of funding disparities between students participating in incomeeligible voucher programs and those attending traditional public schools increased parental
advocacy desire at the legislative level to support closing the funding gap.
This study took a granular approach to critical race theory, known as interest convergence
theory, as a framework. Hurie (2021) reviewed Bell’s explanation of interest convergence. Hurie
cited Bell’s 1980 work, which described interest convergences as occurring when the interest of
Black people achieving racial equality are met when they converge with the interests of White
people. Hurie added that racial justice is sometimes met with interests deemed necessary by
courts and policymakers. Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) is an example of interest
convergence where desegregation raised the prestige of the United States to the world stage
while also creating opportunities for Black children to attend White schools that offered better
opportunities (Shih, 2017).
Bell’s definition was chosen when considering interest convergence related to school
choice. Through school choice, the interests of those marginalized by socioeconomic status,
primarily impacting Black and Hispanic communities, converge with the interests of
policymakers, thus taking on the appearance of racial justice.
Jenson (2022) discussed the original vision of former Representative Williams’ MCPC
between 1980 and 1996, in which she referred to this vision of choice as agency, justice, and
self-determination. Agency is the ability for parents to choose a school in their neighborhood,

43
and justice is related to policies that create equality between Black and White parents. Selfdetermination is the local control over schooling within the Black community. Whereas
William’s vision focused on community and racist policies in that community, conservative
ideas on school choice focused on the individual. Jenson interpreted that for Williams, choice
represented freedom from the racist and oppressive policies of the public school system, while
conservatives view it entirely differently. Ultimately, according to Jenson, Williams felt the
MPCP was hijacked by White middle-class interests, transforming the use of public funds for
private education to include middle-class students (Jenson, 2022).
Although Wisconsin legislation continues to underfund students participating in the
MPCP by allocating approximately 76% of the per pupil funding received by public school
students to participating MPCP students, interests also appear to converge as predominantly
marginalized communities can remove their children from underperforming MPS schools. In
contrast, MPS receives a percentage of the choice students’ total per pupil allocation. Despite not
receiving these students to educate, MPS is also allowed to count students participating in MPCP
as a part of the high poverty aid they receive. As Hurie (2021, as cited by Argwall, 2018) noted,
the MPCP and other forms of school choice can be viewed as twinned character of choice, which
couples private choice with the right to exclude (p. 86). This twinned character of choice is seen
as marginalized communities are given the option to participate in the MPCP while, over time,
choice can also be viewed through the lens of race taming as policymakers have slowly taken
control of the choice program. Their policies moved the program further from the original vision
of choice (Hurie, 2021). Hurie referred to Chapman and Anthrop-Gonzalez’s view on interest
convergence as differing from the typical view on interest convergence where White people give
up something, such as social standing, while marginalized communities gain, known as a loss-

44
gain binary. Instead, they see interest convergence as allowing minorities access to significant
equity while sacrificing something unknown and unforeseen. This attitude was captured in the
MPCP, where Wisconsin’s policy makers’ market-based reforms ignored race and ethnicity and
undermined the early interests of progressive Black leaders and politicians who held a different
view of what the MPCP would become, despite their support of school choice.
Using Chapman and Anthrop-Gonzalez’s description of interest convergence of equity
gained through an unforeseen or unknown sacrifice, an understanding of MPCP is seen through
the appearance of racial justice gained through providing school choice to qualifying families
based on socioeconomic status, while, as this research theorized, unknown and unforeseen
inequities for these same marginalized families existed, such as the funding gap.
While this study focused on the interest convergence theory, and the interests of
policymakers and marginalized communities converge through choice education, interest
divergence was also in play. Despite an appearance of racial justice gained through providing
choice to voucher-qualified lower socioeconomic families, interest divergence occurred as civil
rights issues emerged, discrepancies in educational funding to marginalized communities and
segregation of schools being most prominent.
Selection of the Population
The population chosen for this research included presidents, chief education officers
(CEOs), leaders of Milwaukee private choice schools, and leaders of school reform advocacy
groups in Wisconsin. Leaders were chosen as they participated in the daily running of
Milwaukee private choice schools, were part of advocacy on policy change, and had the
opportunity for extensive lived experiences regarding the barriers created through funding gaps
between private choice and public-school children. Maxwell (2013) stated that purposeful

45
sampling aims to select individuals who are critical to testing the theory. When considering
interest convergence theory, chosen leaders experienced funding disparities and the barriers
created by the funding gap. These leaders also experienced the opportunity created for families
through the choice program, which allowed for a deeper understanding of the effect disparities
have on access to the highest quality education for each child and the attitudes and perceptions of
selected leaders concerning parent knowledge of these inequities.
Survey respondents were parents participating in the MPCP through their child's
enrollment in a MPCP school. Parents’ choice and knowledge beyond that choice were crucial in
determining how to create more parental advocacy for equitable funding. Lochmiller and Lester
(2017) stated that convenience sampling is the most straightforward approach as a researcher
engages individuals most accessible. As an educator in Milwaukee’s choice sector, I found this
sampling most accessible. Assessing parents’ experience of belonging as choice parents led to
understanding their lived experience in the Milwaukee school choice landscape. Providing
parents with knowledge of per pupil allocation for children participating in the MPCP compared
to children attending Milwaukee Public Schools and the impact on access to educational
opportunities created through that funding was crucial in understanding if, following gained
knowledge, a parent was willing to advocate for equity. It further determined whether knowledge
of inequities affected parents’ future choice or their feeling of belonging.
Instrumentation
School leaders and three parents in the Milwaukee Parental Choice sector were
interviewed (Appendices A, B, C, D). The interviews were approximately an hour long and were
conducted in a face-to-face setting, either in person or via Zoom. The research questions
focusing on parental awareness were included in a survey (Appendix E). An introduction to

46
research was provided to school leaders to seek permission to survey parents (Appendix F).
Surveys were sent out via a link provided to the participants through an introductory email from
their children's school. In addition, a letter accompanied the email, which provided background
information to the participants about the existing funding and accountability policies for schools
participating in the MPCP (Appendices G, H, I).
Strategies implemented to improve the instruments were adapted by Lincoln and Guba
(1985), which included utilizing a control group to review and provide feedback on the survey
questions and, in interviewing, working towards rich data. Maxwell (2013) described rich
qualitative data as descriptive notetaking, videotaping, or recording interviews or observations.
Data Collection
I have been a leader in Milwaukee for 20 years and came to this research with biases.
Maxwell (2013) stated that research bias threatens validity and includes the researcher selecting
data that fits their theory or preconception and data that resembles their experiences. I have
preconceptions, and, as Maxwell suggested, I explained these to the research participants and
how I planned to address them in data collection and dissemination.
Data collection during the school leader interview portion of my research began with
inviting school leaders to participate through email invitations, including a link explaining my
research. I recorded face-to-face interviews using an iPhone and the Zoom platform during Zoom
interviews. In addition, I took notes throughout the interview. Following the interview, I
provided the participant with the recording and asked for validation that the information
collected was accurate and could be shared.
Data collection during the parent survey portion of my research included the option for
anonymity through not requiring names, schools, or email address collection. The surveys were

47
conducted for 1 month and were shared weekly with parents via email from their participating
schools. Surveys were conducted through Google Forms, and responses were sent directly to the
researcher; the platform was set only to allow one survey per parent. Surveys were closed after 1
month.
Data Analysis
The study methods were qualitative and specifically addressed the research questions.
After concluding the interviews and the surveys, all answers were transcribed and coded in a
separate report for each participant. I used triangulation and peer review to reduce subjectivity
during data analysis to ensure the study’s integrity, credibility, and trustworthiness. A third
strategy involved conducting member checks with school leaders; as Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
noted, participants could speak to the plausibility of my interpretations and findings following
Lochmiller and Lester’s (2017) procedures. I took memos of the data to capture personal
reflections and thoughts during the interviews and analysis.
Finally, I was reflexive in my analysis. Through reflexivity, I accounted for my
assumptions, biases, identities, and experiences that would impact my analysis. Lochmiller and
Lester (2017) described the importance of practitioner-scholars reflecting on how their beliefs
and perspectives may both limit and expand what they understand through their research. As a
White, middle-class, heterosexual, lifelong urban educator, I was reflective on my positionality
in my research and transparent in my biases. Lester emphasized transparency and inviting others
to evaluate attempts to consider and reduce subjectivities in the research process.
Validity and Reliability
In considering reliability and validity in my research, I was drawn to a reference made by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) when referencing Wolcott (1994), who argued the “absurdity of

48
validity.” Wolcott aimed to find plausible interpretations from critical elements in research that
were not right or wrong but instead developed an understanding. I recognized that I should not
evaluate funding and accountability policy to prove the system invalid but instead to provide
those who participate in systems affected by the policy a deeper understanding of policy
implications.
Survey Design
Robinson and Leonard (2018) explained constructs and indicators in designing surveys
by describing that constructs cannot be observed. Parents’ interest level in advocating cannot be
observed; therefore, I designed indicators that allowed measurement of a desire to advocate. I
also considered the willingness of my participants to respond, paying close attention to the
question type and the nature of the question, as described in Robinson and Leonard. I was
attentive to open-ended questions that should be avoided and questions that were sensitive to the
respondent as I considered color and culture. I ensured consideration was given by asking a small
sample of parents and choice leaders to review the questions and provide feedback before
administering the survey.
Robinson and Leonard (2018) discussed the limitations in testing reliability and
credibility when there is a need for a substantial amount of participation. When designing the
survey, I considered whether a survey was the best choice for data collection due to the potential
for many English as a second language participants to misunderstand and the need for accurate
translation of questions. I also needed to introduce policies in a simplified way; therefore, I had
to consider the potential of respondent fatigue in the introduction of the survey and chose to
provide a visual in the introduction of the background of the funding gap in the MPCP so parent
participants could view in chart versus having to read prior to the survey.

49
Interview Design
I chose to use a semi-structured interview design. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described
semi-structured interviews as including structured and unstructured questions, using flexibility,
asking for specific data, and being guided by questions and issues explored. Through this
process, I could respond to answers with other probing questions and capture, as noted in
Merriam and Tisdell, the respondents’ worldview. I asked questions based on the school leaders’
backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and values in the interviews.
I also focused on my interaction with each respondent, considering our relationship and
knowledge of one another as educators in Milwaukee. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) further
discussed the concern an interviewer must have for their respondents, which I considered
essential. Throughout the interview, this encounter was at the forefront of my actions as I kept
each school leader’s voice and the stories they had to share in mind.
Summary
This study was a qualitative study that sought to analyze the following three questions:
What school leaders were doing to raise parental awareness of legislative inequities in the
MPCP, whether parents participating in MPCP were aware of legislative inequities between the
MPCP and traditional public schools, and how, if at all, they were advocating or willing to
advocate for equity and, finally, for parents participating in MPCP, how knowledge of legislative
funding inequities affected their sense of belonging and influenced their decision to continue to
participate in the MPCP. These findings are presented in Chapter Four, followed by a discussion
of the findings in Chapter Five.

50
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of parental knowledge of
funding disparities that exist in income eligibility choice programs across the United States. This
study targeted the MPCP, explicitly seeking to better understand parents’ awareness of the
allocations their children receive to attend school, compared to traditional public-school
students’ allocations. In addition, this study investigated perceptions MPCP leaders held about
funding disparities. Finally, legislative decisions that place more significant compliance
requirements were considered within the MPCP. Using research from the MPCP, this study
determined whether increased parental knowledge of funding disparities in income-eligible
voucher programs leads to increased parental desire to advocate on behalf of school choice,
along with leaders’ beliefs about the impact of parental awareness of funding and compliance
disparities on advocacy.
The results of the survey and interviews are presented and organized by research
questions. The parent survey was presented in English, Spanish, and Chin. There were 55
respondents to the English version, 34 to the Spanish version, and 0 to the Chin version. The
survey was sent out weekly by the eight participating schools from October 23, 2023, until
November 17, 2023. Parent interviews were conducted and recorded in person on October 5,
2023, at the ninth participating MPCP school, where the children of the interviewed parents
attended. Three parents and one Spanish interpreter were present. Leader interviews were
conducted in person or via Zoom from October 4, 2023, through October 12, 2023, and were
recorded. Research results are presented in order of research question, with relevant literature
and themes emerging from participant responses. A summary was provided to conclude the
results for each question. The following are the research questions that guided this study:

51
1. What are leaders doing, if anything, to raise parental awareness around legislative
inequities in the MCPC?
2. If parents participating in MPCP are aware of legislative inequities between the
MPCP and traditional public schools, how, if at all, are they advocating or willing to
advocate for equity?
3. For parents participating in MPCP, how does knowledge of legislative funding
inequities influence their sense of belonging and continued participation in the
MCPC?
Participants
Survey participants in this study were parents from eight schools participating in the
MPCP and met the requirements of being a parent of a participating MPCP student for at least
one full school year. Of the families surveyed, 89 of 1000 responded, equating to a 9% response
rate. 48% of respondents indicated five or more years of participation in the MPCP. Respondents
racially identified in the following way: 71% Hispanic, 16% Black, 7% multi-race, 4% White,
1% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% chose not to identify (Table 1), as compared to enrollment in
the eight schools participating which is 58% Hispanic, 32% Black, 3% multi-race, 1% White,
and 1% Asian/Pacific Islander. In order to participate in the MPCP, participants must be at or
less than 300% of the federal poverty level and reside in the city of Milwaukee. Of parents
surveyed, 67% had incomes less than $50,000 annually. In addition, 70% of families indicated
four or more people living in the household, with 15% having six or more. Finally, of families
surveyed, 78% reside in zip code areas 53204, 53210, and 53215. These zip codes rank as the
fifth, sixth, and seventh lowest-income areas among Milwaukee’s 37 zip codes (ZipAtlas.com.,
2024).

52
Three parent participants meeting the above criteria were also interviewed. The
interviewed parents’ demographic information aligned with that of the surveyed parents: 67%
identified as Hispanic Americans and 33% as Black Americans (Table 2).
Leaders interviewed for this research met the requirements of leading or having led an
MPCP school, district or network or were currently part of a larger advocacy organization. Five
of the 6 leaders interviewed had experience leading networks or organizations of schools
participating in school choice, while 1 of 6 had experience leading a choice school and an
advocacy organization. All leader interview participants currently lead, or have led, choice
schools in the private choice religious sector. Table 3 identifies the leaders’ years of experience
in education and leading in the MPCP; they are identified with pseudonyms.
Results Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: What are leaders doing, if anything, to raise
parental awareness of legislative inequities in the MPCP? WisBusiness (2023) discussed the
recent mobilization of Milwaukee parents and Milwaukee education advocates. This
mobilization of over 200 families occurred to raise awareness of the funding disparity that 47%
of Milwaukee school-aged children face by attending a Milwaukee charter school or
participating in the MPCP. This mobilization is an instance where parents and leaders in
Milwaukee demonstrated the need to raise awareness and advocate for closing the funding gap
between traditional public-school children and children participating in charter programs and
choice programs in Milwaukee and the overall state of Wisconsin.
Parents and Leaders Feel That Leaders Are Doing Little, if Anything, to Raise Parental
Awareness of Legislative Inequities in the MCPC

53
While recent local Milwaukee sources speak to the mobilization of over 200 families,
educators, and advocates, the survey and interview data show that parents and leaders feel that
leaders and schools are doing little to inform parents of funding disparities between traditional
public-school students and students participating in the MPCP. When 89 surveyed parents were
asked the following: Were you aware there was a difference in the amount of funding (money)
your child receives to attend a Milwaukee Parental Choice school versus the amount a traditional
public-school student receives? 75% of surveyed parents responded “no,” 23% responded “yes”
and 2% opted not to answer the question. When three interviewed parents were asked the
following question: What is your current knowledge of funding disparities, if any, that exist
between private choice and traditional public schools in Milwaukee? 100% answered they had
knowledge due to being active in the recent mobilization. Finally, six interviewed leaders were
asked the following: What, if anything, have you done as a leader to create parental awareness of
any legislative discrepancies which exist between traditional public schools and your school(s)?
50% indicated they had taken no action to inform parents, 33% indicated they had taken some
action and 17% were not asked the question. F”
The following question was asked to parents and leaders: What has your school done to
inform you (parents) of the difference in funding? (Table 4). Responses were similar to previous
results. This question allowed surveyed parents to choose between multiple options, and parents
and leaders who were interviewed discussed those same options.
Leaders, As Indicated by Doing Little or Nothing to Inform Parents, Demonstrate a Belief
That Parental Knowledge Is Not the Biggest Lever to Change
As 50% of the leaders interviewed indicated doing nothing to raise parental awareness of
legislative inequities and 33% reported taking some steps to raise awareness, leaders

54
overwhelmingly found little benefit in creating change in legislation through parents having
awareness. Leaders were asked the following question: What are your thoughts about informing
parents about the different legislation, including funding, which exists between traditional public
and choice schools? 67% responded that they do not see a strong benefit to informing parents
regarding creating change in legislation.
The data above support parent and leader perceptions that leaders and schools are doing
little, if anything, to inform parents of discrepancies that exist between traditional public schools
and schools participating in the MPCP. The interviewed parents are outliers as they attend a
school that participated in mobilizing parents in front of the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee
(Kinzer, 2023); therefore, they had greater knowledge of how funding differed between school
sectors. Surveyed parents and interviewed leaders demonstrated that knowledge gained and or
provided predominantly stemmed from information provided by School Choice Wisconsin. The
two leaders who indicated that some action had been taken to inform parents at their schools
participated with City Forward Collective in the parent mobilization and indicated that CFC
drove information to parents. In addition, one leader indicated that he relied more on lobbyists in
Madison than on informing parents as he did not feel that parent knowledge would be the most
significant change agent.
While there is no way to determine the influence of the parents, educators, and advocates
on the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee (Kinzer, 2023) as well as their participation in a
letter-writing campaign, or of the lobbyists in Madison working on behalf of school choice,
outcomes following the parent mobilization resulted in Wisconsin policymakers approving
bipartisan legislation which increased funding to choice schools throughout Wisconsin, raising
the MPCP voucher amount from $8399 to $9499 and decreasing the funding gap by

55
approximately 9%, from 67% of traditional public school per pupil spending to 76% of
traditional public school per pupil spending (EdChoice, 2023e).
Parents, With a Gained Understanding, and Leaders Agree That the Funding Gap Has a
Direct Impact on Teacher Quality, Access to Resources, and Facility Upkeep
Following questions regarding parents’ knowledge of funding disparities and leaders’
actions to inform parents of these disparities, a question was asked about the potential impact of
the disparity. Surveyed parents were allowed to check as many responses as applied, while
interviewed parents and leaders were allowed to speak about their experiences with the impact of
the funding gap.
When surveyed, parents were asked: Which of the following do you believe are impacted
because of the lower funding for MCPC students? When interviewed, parents and leaders were
asked: What do you believe are the impacts of the funding gap on your school? The responses to
these two similar questions are aggregated in Table 5. Student academic growth was the answer
most cited by parents while having the ability to attract staff was most cited by leaders.
The responses of parents and leaders are supported by City Forward Collective, where it
was noted in The 74 (Kizner, 2023) that decreasing the funding disparity addresses the pay gap
for Milwaukee educators while also ensuring that schools can recruit and retain highly qualified
staff. Parents, however, demonstrate a more significant concern for their child’s academic
growth. Moreover, MPCP students outscored their traditional public-school peers on the 2023
Forward Exam at every grade level in all content areas (Kinzer, 2023). Finally, with greater
parent awareness of disparities in funding, 2023 included some level of legislative response.

56
Discussion Research Question 1
Although parents and leaders indicated that parental awareness of legislative differences
between traditional public schools and MPCP schools was critical, parents and leaders reported
that, from a school level, little is currently being done to raise parental awareness of disparities or
current legislation which could impact MPCP children differently than children who attend
traditional public schools.
Parents indicated that with gained knowledge of funding disparities, they saw academic
success as the most impactful, while leaders saw attracting and retaining highly qualified staff as
the most significant impact of this disparity. It can be argued that both are related. If schools
have the funding to attract and retain highly qualified staff, academic performance and success
are directly impacted. Therefore, parents’ awareness of why schools participating in the MPCP
have difficulty attracting highly qualified talent could increase their willingness to advocate and
have the potential to impact change positively. As seen recently in Milwaukee, parental
awareness led to increased advocacy and may have played a role in new legislation that
increased choice funding in Wisconsin.
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following question: If parents participating in MPCP are
aware of legislative inequities between the MPCP and traditional public schools, how are they
advocating or willing to advocate for equity? In the earliest days of the fight for equal access to
educational opportunities for Black children in Milwaukee, parents tired of the status quo voiced
their frustrations; their advocacy sparked Howard Fuller and former Representative Williams’
initial quest to start an all-Black district, ultimately resulting in bipartisan legislation that was the
beginning of the MPCP (Hale, 2021). This early fight for equity by parents for their children may

57
not seem as urgent as the MPCP, which is now over 30 years in existence and growing. In
addition, parents’ voice regarding where they send their children is significant, as almost 27% of
Milwaukee families utilize the MPCP (City Forward Collective, 2023a). Therefore, are parents
willing to be advocates for equity if they are aware of existing disparities between traditional
public schools and the MCPC that may accompany their choice?
Parents Strongly Indicate Willingness to Advocate With Knowledge of Legislative
Disparities
When surveyed, parents were asked to address the following: Knowing that my child
receives less funding to attend school because they participate in the MCPC, increases my desire
to advocate for equal funding for MCPC students.81% of surveyed parents strongly agreed or
agreed.
Interviewed parents were not asked to respond to the same statement, as they had voiced
a strong interest in advocating for closing the funding gap through participation in a letterwriting campaign and attending the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee on behalf of their
schools; therefore, to collect novel data, they were questioned differently from surveyed parents.
When asked to describe the benefit of parents knowing the funding allocations for children in
Milwaukee, Parent 1 directly addressed this impact through their recent participaton in
advocating and how this knowledge influenced their upcoming vote. Parent 3, during the
October 5 interview, succinctly stated, “If we didn’t know, how would we take action?”.
Leaders Viewed the Work of Lobbyists and How Wisconsin Votes As Stronger Paths to
Change Legislative Disparities
Leaders were asked what advocacy would look like in their schools through the following
question: What might it look like for your school or organization to promote, or continue

58
promoting, parental advocacy for the MPCP? 67% of leaders (Leaders 1, 2, 4, and 6) mentioned
the importance of voting. In an October 6, 2023, interview, Leader 2 stated, “People should be
voting. They should be aware of issues, not propagandized, but voting.” Leader 4, in an
interview that followed on October 11, 2023, discussed that in the most recent legislative cycle,
parents were rallied to be advocates with relatively little result, stating that it is hard to imagine
enough grassroots mobilization where the impact would be more significant than the efforts of
paid lobbyists to advocate for change.
Discussion Research Question 2
While parent and leader beliefs differed, the role of parents in change was agreed upon,
whether through grassroots campaigns like letter writing, mobilizing to legislative sessions,
educating voters to inform them, and showing up at the ballot box. In Wisconsin, counting on the
ballot box poses a challenge because 95% of voters who identify as Republican also identify as
White Americans, while 1% are Black voters, 1% are Hispanic American voters, and 1% of
voters are other/mixed races and ethnicities. In contrast, 81% of voters identifying as Democrats
are White Americans, 7% are Black Americans, 5% are Hispanic American voters, 3% are Asian
American, and 4% are other/mixed voters (Pew Research Center, 2024). The challenge lies in
Wisconsin’s partisan approach to school choice, which has Republicans supportive and
Democrats leaning against legislation involving expanded school choice initiatives. Using the
demographics of schools surveyed, 87% of participants were Black or Hispanic Americans, and
making predictions using the data on party affiliation by race and ethnicity, when parents vote
their party line on issues beyond school choice, which impact their lives, they typically vote
against school choice support. This voting pattern appears through the interest convergence lens
to continue marginalization in education by limiting school choice.

59
Results Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following of parents participating in the MPCP: How does
knowledge of legislative funding inequities influence their sense of belonging and continued
participation in the MPCP? In the many decades of the MPCP, what is known is that it was born
out of inequity, a desire for every child, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, to
have access to a quality education (Hale, 2021). Also, in its earliest years, MPCP was challenged
three times and survived (Mitchell, 2022). Finally, regardless of the political viewpoint of
citizens, political divisiveness creates conditions that diminish traditional public schools but
could create competition while giving voice to low socioeconomic families; additionally,
divisiveness exists in the program’s origins. From the Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
perspective, interest convergence includes White policymakers meeting some interests of
marginalized communities while allowing some marginalization as long as White legislators and
citizens’ interests are served. Moreover, the concept is that the legislation might not exist without
compromising marginalized communities to preserve the dominant culture’s interests (Bowley,
2021). Does the MPCP fall into this theory of interest convergence?
Parents Agree That Their Choice to Participate in the MPCP Is Valued by Wisconsin
Lawmakers
Surveyed parents were asked to respond to the follwing statement: I feel my choice to
participate in the MPCP is valued by Wisconsin lawmakers. Results found that 34% of surveyed
parents strongly agreed or agreed, while 20% disagreed or strongly disagreed, with 46% of
parents remaining neutral or opting out of this question.

60
While parents demonstrated some belief that their choice to participate in the MPCP is
valued by policymakers, this belief did not translate to the belief that their voice was valued over
the politics surrounding parental choice.
Parents Agree That Politics Around the MPCP Are Placed Above Their Voice and Their
Child’s Education
Surveyed parents were asked to respond to the following: I feel Wisconsin legislation
around the MPCP places politics over my voice and my child’s education, 58% of parents
strongly agreed or agreed, 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 31% of parents remained
neutral or opted out of answering this question.
Parents’ responses to the two statements which were posed support the interest
convergence theory. Parents strongly feel that Wisconsin lawmakers value their choice while
also strongly feeling that the same lawmakers place politics over their voice and their child’s
education. Therefore, their interest is being met through the freedom to choose where their child
is educated while, at the same time, parents do not feel fully valued or heard. When asking
leaders legislative questions, the results were similar.
Leaders Indicate the Need to Fund Development in Order to Meet the Minimum per Pupil
Funding Needed to Educate a Child in Milwaukee
Leaders were asked the following question: How much fund development, if any, does
your school or organization of schools need to do each year to educate each child due to the
funding gap? Seeking further clarification, they were also asked: Can you further explain the
amount of funding you are raising by elaborating on where that fund development is bucketed?
67% of leaders answered, all indicating that fund development is necessary to keep their choice
schools operating (Table 6).

61
The need for leaders of schools to spend a portion of their time in fund development or
create a position fully designated to fund development pulls the leader from other priorities, as
one leader noted that 50% of their time is spent in fund development. This gap in funding and the
amount of development that occurs in MPCP schools potentially demonstrates a lack of
understanding by policymakers about the impact the funding gap creates for children attending
choice schools and may indicate a lack of recognition regarding the success of some MPCP
schools being reliant on this fund development and the support of outside stakeholders on the
mission of the school. In this, interest convergence can again be referenced as policymakers are
passing legislation that funds choice schools with public dollars to provide parents a choice
while, at the same time, not providing the same per-pupil funds for schools to successfully
operate and educate children without additional fund development to operate effectively.
Leaders Indicate That, Beyond the Need for Fund Development, Other Accountability
Metrics Create Additional Barriers for Parents That Do Not Exist in Traditional Public
Schools
In looking at additional metrics that could be viewed as a disparity impacting parents
participating in the MPCP, leaders were asked the following: What accountability metrics are
choice schools held to that you believe add additional pressure to schools and organizations?
33% spoke about enrollment barriers, 33% spoke about operating and audit requirements, 17%
spoke about testing requirements and reporting, and 17% were not asked.
Of the above identified metrics, enrollment accountability metrics impact a parent’s
ability to attend an MPCP school. According to the Wisconsin DPI parental education options
(2024), a child must reside in Milwaukee to attend a MPCP school, family income must be at or
less than 300% of the federal poverty level, a child must be between the ages of 4 and 20, must

62
be entering in K4, K5, 1st or 9th grades or have attended a public school the previous year, be
from another state, not have been previously enrolled in school, participated in a choice program
or are on a choice program waiting list. If a family meets these criteria, they have proof of
residency requirements per Wisconsin statutes 118.60 and 119.23. Proof of residency is a barrier
for many families as they may be transient, immigrating, homeless, unemployed, or face other
socioeconomic hardships, making providing the proof of residency approved documentation a
problem. In addition, open enrollment times are rolling times that occur between the 1
st and the
20th of each month, beginning in February through December. Families who begin the process
and encounter struggles with documentation, not completing the application within the
designated time, must resubmit or wait until the following month. There is no proof of residency
requirement for enrollment in Milwaukee Public Schools unless requested by the superintendent
(Administrative Policy 8.10, Milwaukee Public Schools).
Most Leaders Indicated That Wisconsin Legislators Do Not Recognize the Impact
Disparities Have on Already Marginalized Communities
Similar to the question asked to parents regarding whether Wisconsin legislation places
politics over their voice or their child’s education, resulting in the majority of parents feeling that
politics are placed first, leaders were asked a similar question.
Leaders were asked: How, if at all, do you feel legislators recognize marginalization
through school choice in already marginalized communities? 75% percent of leaders asked felt
that Wisconsin legislators do not realize the impact legislation has on continuing to marginalize
the children participating in the MCPC. For this question, the leader’s direct quotes are captured.
On October 6, 2023, Leader 2 stated,

63
I don’t know the answer to this, but it’s absolutely in my view, a true statement that the
children who are eligible are the poorest of the poor. I’ve said it before, they’re not just
economically poor, they are often disadvantaged in terms of family structure, in terms of
their environment, they are just handicapped when it comes to any formula for success
and so, in a way, they should be super compensated to make up for what they already
don’t have. It’s not equal. They start off deeper in the hole and are given a fraction of
what other students receive, which is a step forward, but it’s not an equalization effort.
In an October 12, 2023, interview, Leader 3 reflected,
I don’t think they do. I can’t fully speak for all of them, but the nuance of understanding
secondary consequences, whether intentional or not, there are some. Unless you’re in this
work and you understand the stuff that happens in all types of school, you know that
sometimes students need a school other than the one they are going to. That is a reality. I
don’t think politicians are good at secondary consequences of their decisions and I think
it’s worth looking at.”
To end, during an October 11, 2023, interview, Leader 4 commented,
I think that the MPCP has absolutely not realized the vision with which it was created
and, tragically, now, the major concern of the conservatives seems to be universal,
educational freedom far more than educational opportunity for low-income households.
This is incredibly unwelcome news for those of us who advocate for poor kids in places
like Milwaukee.
Leaders Had Mixed Feelings About Recent Legislative Changes Which Increased Funding
for Milwaukee Students Participating in the MPCP

64
The final question for leaders centered on the most recent legislative decision that
increased the voucher amount for children participating in choice programs throughout
Wisconsin. The legislation pressed participant leaders on their views about whether Wisconsin
legislators understand the need for choice schools. For children participating in the K–8 MPCP,
this equated to approximately $1100 and closed the funding gap by 9% (School Choice
Wisconsin, 2023b). The concern from K–8 choice school leaders was that negotiations for
increased funding gave the least amount to K–8 choice schools, while K–8 charter schools and
choice high schools received more significant increases (City Forward Collective, 2023b).
Leaders were asked the following question: Do you have any final thoughts around the
current legislation that was passed which increased Wisconsin choice funding and do you feel it
was a victory? 66% of leaders viewed it as a step but not a victory, while 33% felt it did what
marginalized and non-marginalized groups needed. These perspectives from choice leaders were
on different ends of this spectrum. Leader 1 noted that various groups advocated for what they
needed and that, currently, no issue exists regarding the increased funding level (Interview, Oct.
4, 2023). On the other end of the spectrum, Leader 4 viewed the increase as sparing draconian
cuts to K–8 choice schools; a lack of increase could have created immense problems for these
schools. This leader noted that while it was not a dramatic victory for choice schools, decreasing
the funding gap was “astonishing” mainly because it aimed to close gaps and instead increased
them in other areas. Leader 4 referred to this legislation as a defeat and a failure while,
simultaneously, a victory. The differences in leader opinions appear in the frame of reference of
their stakeholders’ needs and identities.
Finally, to understand Research Question 3 more deeply regarding parents’ interests to
continue participation in the MPCP despite knowledge of legislative inequities. Parents were

65
asked the following: Why do you participate in the MPCP? 78% of parents chose faith as the
driving decision for their participation in the MPCP (Table 7).
With the inclusion of religious schools in 1998, many parents began participating in the
MPCP. Between the 1997 and 1998 school years, following the inclusion of religious schools by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court, an increase of almost 5000 children participating in school choice
occurred (School Choice Wisconsin, 2003b). This increase indicates that much of parents’ desire
to participate in the MPCP lies in more than location or academic programming. While safety
and academic success were close second and third parent indicators, faith was the strongest
predictor of parents’ interest in participating in the MPCP. In this study, 84% of Hispanic parents
and 43% of Black parents chose faith as their first predictor for participation in the MPCP. All
three of the top indicators chosen signify that funding disparities would likely not change a
parents choice to participate.
Discussion Research Question 3
Results for Research Question 3 demonstrated that some links exist between interest
convergence theory and the outcomes from MPCP. As 27% of Milwaukee school-aged children
attend an MPCP School, and of those, 88% are Black or Hispanic students and meet incomeeligible requirements, a conclusion is that parents in Milwaukee are taking advantage of the
MPCP and their right to choose. The findings of this study are consistent with these statistics and
the notion that interest convergence is likely. In juxtaposition, a disparity in funding and other
accountability metrics for students in Milwaukee is problematic, even when children live in the
same neighborhoods. Following new legislation, this disparity between choice and traditional
public schools is approximately $3000 per student (City Forward Collective, 2023b).

66
Leaders and parents alike feel that while Wisconsin has been instrumental in creating a
path for parental choice that continues to receive support through choice legislation, this path
continues to marginalize some families as disparities continue. Parents feel that despite being
given the right to choose, the state does not value their child’s education as public education.
They point to the continued disparities in funding through legislation, and the participant leaders
concluded that Wisconsin legislators have veered from the original vision of school choice,
which was creating equal access to educational opportunities for low-income children in
Milwaukee. Parents and the majority of leaders agreed that the Wisconsin legislation regarding
choice continues to place politics over the human perspectives on education.
Summary
Research Questions 1 and 2 focused on parent advocacy. Question 1 concerned what
schools or organizations currently do or have done to raise parental awareness of legislative
disparities between the MPCP and traditional public schools, while Question 2 regarded whether
increased awareness of legislative disparities might spur parents’ advocacy activities. The
findings indicated that little is being done at schools or school organizations to increase parental
awareness of legislated funding disparities between the MPCP and traditional public schools.
Further, this research concluded that parents and leaders viewed increasing parental awareness
differently, with parents indicating a solid willingness to advocate after acquiring knowledge and
leaders suggesting that, while knowledge is beneficial, parent advocacy alone is not enough to
create change in the MPCP due to the politically partisan nature of the issue. The themes arising
from research questions focused on how parental awareness could be beneficial concerted action
through the ballot box.

67
Research Question 3 focused on understanding whether knowledge of legislative
disparities influenced parents’ sense of belonging and desire to continue participating in the
MPCP. The findings indicated that parents perceived that Wisconsin policymakers valued their
right to choose; however, they also believed that beyond the right to choose, these policymakers
did not value their child’s education, as demonstrated by the existing disparities, such as the
funding gap. An emerging theme linked to interest convergence arose as Wisconsin
policymakers created legislation that met their interests, as well as the interests of parents.
Meanwhile, said legislation continues to marginalize children who have been historically
marginalized due to the continuing legislated disparities between the MPCP and traditional
public schools. Interest convergence was recognized in parent and leader responses; thus, the
findings suggested that parents would most likely not change their participation, as most parents
choose based on desires to attain elements in a school not found in traditional public-school
settings, such as faith.

68
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter 5 summarized the study findings and linked them to implications of practice
within the educational community. The results addressed the research questions and were
discussed to inform current and future educational leaders and organizations involved in or
desire more information about leading or advocating on behalf of income-eligible voucher
programs. In addition, recommendations for future research are made based on the context of the
study.
This study focused on disparities in funding within the MPCP and how knowledge of
funding disparities and other disparities identified throughout the study impact parents’ desire to
advocate for school choice. Recently, legislation in Wisconsin provided additional funding for
choice schools, leaving a disparity of approximately $3000 (City Forward Collective, 2023b).
This disparity directly impacts schools participating in the MPCP in their ability to attract and
retain highly qualified staff, implement quality research-based academic programming, and
repair and upkeep facilities (Kinser, 2023). The purpose of this study was to determine if
parental awareness of disparities between the MPCP and traditional public schools leads to an
increased desire to advocate on behalf of school choice, as well as determine whether parents’
knowledge of disparities impacts their sense of belonging and their desire to continue in the
program. The following questions guided this research:
1. What are leaders doing, if anything, to raise parental awareness around legislative
disparities in the MCPC?
2. If parents participating in MPCP are aware of legislative disparities between the
MPCP and traditional public schools, how, if at all, are they advocating or willing to
advocate for equity?

69
3. For parents participating in MPCP, how does knowledge of legislative funding
disparities influence their sense of belonging and continued participation in the
MCPC?
Findings
Study findings indicated that parents have little or no knowledge of existing funding
disparities between MPCP schools and traditional public schools. In addition, the study found
that leaders and schools are doing little to inform parents of existing legislative disparities.
Parents demonstrated a desire for further knowledge and a willingness to advocate for equal
access to educational opportunities for their children created from existing disparities. Finally,
the findings led to a conclusion that parents appreciate their opportunity to choose schools they
feel are best for their children even while feeling that, based on the funding disparity, Wisconsin
policymakers do not value their child’s education. Despite disparities, parents showed a strong
inclination to remain with the MPCP.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked leaders and parents the following question: What are leaders
doing, if anything, to raise parental awareness around legislative disparities in the MPCP?
Qualitative data from questions asked that were linked to Research Question 1 led to two
findings. The first finding included that most parents surveyed stated that they had little or no
knowledge of existing funding disparities for MPCP students despite one year or more of
significant participation in the program. The second finding was that leaders acknowledged few
instances of informing parents about disparities.
Boegel (2019) stated that although education is similar to an alphabet soup of acronyms
used to identify education programming and the bureaucratic red tape linked to educational

70
benefits, learning is a singular experience and the smallest step that can profoundly impact
children’s lives. All parents surveyed, if provided the opportunity for advocacy on behalf of
school choice, might have the impact Boegel discussed. Of the 89 parents surveyed, 75%
indicated that they were unaware of any funding disparities for their children attending an MPCP
school versus children attending traditional public schools.
Benner and Quick (2020) found that when parents and guardians are engaged with their
child’s school, they significantly benefit the academic, behavioral, and social outcomes. They
showed that with the rise of school choice, more research has focused on communication
between schools and prospective and current parents. Benner and Quick found room for
improvement in communication. Their findings demonstrated that parents’ level of
communication and awareness enhances their participation and engagement with the school and
community and may play a role in why parents choose. In the current study, parental awareness
of choice legislation impacting their child’s education and school is high on parents’ lists to
become more knowledgeable about.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: If parents participating in MPCP are aware of
legislative disparities between the MPCP and traditional public schools, how, if at all, are they
advocating or willing to advocate for equity? The results to this question found that 81% of
parents strongly agree or agree that they would be willing to advocate if they had appropriate
information, while 31% also indicated their school had done nothing to inform them, but 30%
noted that they had read legislative updates in a newsletter. When asked what they had done to
inform parents of legislative funding inequities intentionally, they reported that 50% had done
nothing while 33% had done little. One finding was identified with these results. This finding

71
concluded that school organizations receiving voucher money often exclude parents from
gaining awareness of legislative policies that impact their children, thus continuing social
barriers that perpetuate marginalization.
Fennimore (2017) discussed legislative and policy initiatives that focus on parent
involvement to create better academic achievement for their children, noting that policy rhetoric
most often ignores the inequality in income and the disparities in funding and lack of resources
that place a more significant burden on low-income families. Through ignoring inequality,
Fennimore suggested a commonsense approach to parent involvement evolves which shifts a
critical lens away from poverty and social injustice, making it easier to ascribe unequal school
outcomes to uninvolved parents. While leaders in this survey demonstrated dedication to social
justice and a recognition of the shift of MPCP from a social justice lens, they also acknowledged
that the highest levels in education are not promoting strategies to inform parents of policy and
legislation impacting their children.
According to Fennimore (2017, as cited by Jasis, 2013), parent activism is “efforts of
caregivers to promote, advocate, mobilize, or direct social, political, or institutional change. In
schools ... an expression of public engagement at the grassroots level” (p. 114). Instances of
parent activism can be found in the Harlem School Boycott in 1958, Brown v. the Board of
Education (1954), a class action suit filed by 13 marginalized parents in Kansas, and the MPCP,
created out of the voices of marginalized parents and leaders in Milwaukee (Fennimore, 2017, as
cited by Jasis, 2013). With changes at legislative levels to create equity for all students, activism
for equity in education is not as prevalent today as it was historically. Fennimore discussed that
within today’s societal norms, we are in the era of good intentions (Fennimore, 2017, as cited by
Dryness, 2011). This era of good intentions includes how the unequal treatment of marginalized

72
groups is less evident than in the Jim Crow era, as racial injustice is now embedded in our social
and political structures, continuing to note that privileged groups have a sense of comfort in their
intentions, which are paths to benevolence or passivity. Concerning the funding gap between the
MPCP and traditional public schools and interest convergence, the MPCP is part of the era of
good intentions as privileged groups have found comfort in the educational opportunities offered
to marginalized students while remaining passive or benevolent about the legislative disparity
masked as good intentions. The results of this study supported the idea that schools should invest
intentionally in ways to inform parents of legislative policies that impact their children and
provide ways to assist parents in understanding how to advocate for their children.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 aimed to collect data from parents concerning how knowledge of
legislative funding disparities influences their sense of belonging and continued participation in
the MPCP. When asked if legislators value school choice, 34% of parents surveyed strongly
agreed or agreed that it was valued. When asked whether they feel that politics, versus their
voice, is the reason legislators value school choice, parents overwhelmingly agreed or agreed,
with 58% indicating that choice results from political motivation versus motivation about their
social wellbeing. There are two findings from this research question. The first related to parents’
willingness to continue in the MPCP. They tend to choose participation for reasons other than a
school’s academic achievement and value their freedom to choose. The second finding is that
parents do not have a strong sense of belonging linked to being valued by Wisconsin
policymakers.
When examining their responses more deeply to determine if knowledge of disparities
and not feeling valued contribute to a desire to leave the MPCP, 78% of parents indicated that

73
their choice was concerned faith first, with safety and academic performance close second and
third indicators. These percentages identify that parents are choosing for reasons beyond feeling
valued by the legislators supporting this freedom of educational choice. In a National Center for
Education Statistics ([NCES], 2020) survey, factors were revealed that parents consider when
choosing a school; their findings were somewhat consistent with those in the current study. The
NCES found that parents choosing private religious schools did so, first, based on academic
performance and second, faith (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Factor When Choosing a School
Note. Figure 1 represents four sectors of education and the factors around why parents in each
sector choose to send their child to a particular school, represented in percentages (National
Center for Statistics, 2020).

74
Although research has shown that parents choose schools for their children to attend
based on reasons other than feeling valued by policymakers, their lack of feeling valued should
be significant to school organizations, school leaders, and advocacy organizations. The
percentage of parents participating in school choice in Milwaukee currently includes almost
29,000 students. If only a small percentage of the families of 29,000 students advocate, a
possibility exists for significant impacts, including closing funding gaps, creating equitable
accountability metrics, such as enrollment processes, and equitable financial reporting metrics.
According to the current study, awareness of disparities will not harm the MPCP and, instead,
could create a greater sense of belonging for a parent by allowing them to advocate on behalf of
school choice.
Limitations
Limitations of this research were presented in both the participation of subjects,
especially parents of students participating in the MPCP, and the design, using interviews and
survey methods to gather data. Many parents who received the survey questions were English as
a second language speakers and, due to lack of in-person explanations, could have
misunderstood questions despite translation. In addition, one school has a large Chin population,
and no parents responded to the translated survey, meaning data could be culturally biased.
Further, completing surveys by all parents created a limitation, with 9% of surveyed parents
participating. Another limitation was that the leaders interviewed were 6 of 10 invited. However,
one declined, and three did not respond to the invitation. Some leaders who participated in the
interview, while leading organizations receiving Milwaukee Parental Choice funding, were
unaware of how the discrepancy impacted schools as schools had autonomy on budgeting.
Finally, interviewed parents had previously participated in an advocacy campaign led by an

75
organization which leaned towards promoting the idea of an existing funding gap and the need
for funding equity for choice schools which could have swayed the parents’ perceptions.
Further limitations arose because no Wisconsin legislators were interviewed or surveyed
for potential counter-narratives, and no leaders from traditional public schools were surveyed or
interviewed, again leaving out potential counter-narratives. All leaders were involved in school
choice, and their bias could influence their responses. Finally, as an educator, I had years of
experience in Milwaukee’s charter and choice schools that could create bias in interpretations of
responses that, if not addressed or identified appropriately during surveying and interviewing,
could also create inaccurate data.
Implications for Practice
This study examined whether parents’ awareness of legislative disparities between MPCP
and traditional public schools would lead to significant parental advocacy for school choice. It
further examined whether parents’ sense of belonging due to existing disparities was challenged
and, if challenged, if it created a desire to no longer participate in the MPCP.
The first implication of practice for parental advocacy demonstrates that parents are
unaware of disparities between MPCP schools and traditional public schools. Research findings
from surveyed parents, interviewed parents, and interviewed leaders found that parents had little
knowledge of disparities, and leaders were doing little to inform parents of disparities, creating
an inability for parents to choose to advocate for legislative change if desired. Without
awareness, advocacy will not fully evolve, nor will leaders be able to understand the impact that
advocacy could have on change. This knowledge would benefit leaders and schools in the MPCP
by establishing some level of informing parents of current and past legislation focused on school
choice that impacts their children, both positively and negatively. Current DPI compliance states

76
that schools participating in the MPCP must hold two parent information sessions per year.
These sessions are an opportunity for leaders and board members to inform parents of
legislation, both existing and proposed, which has implications for the MPCP. With the regular
practice of creating awareness for parents, leaders and organizations can better determine
parental awareness’s impact on advocacy on behalf of school choice.
The second implication of practice for parental advocacy evolves from leaders’ beliefs
that parental advocacy is not the avenue that could lead to the most significant change. This
implication is essential because changing or impacting people’s belief systems can be a barrier
and a challenge; therefore, an implication is keeping a regular and frequent practice of informing
parents. Current leaders who were interviewed viewed school choice as a political issue and
perceived the path to change occurring through lobbyists working on behalf of school choice at
the State capitol. Some leaders viewed parents’ advocacy as most impactful when carried out as
voting. An implication is that leaders might benefit by acknowledging the value of purposeful
and regular informative communications on the status of school choice, legislative initiatives,
and challenges emerging for school choice in Wisconsin. Although parents will choose the path
best for their child and, most often, have some knowledge of what school choice is, regular
information about the MPCP is something schools should accept as their responsibility to
parents.
A third implication of practice occurs when parents feel Wisconsin policymakers value
their choice despite believing their child’s education is undervalued; this perception makes
parents less urgent toward advocacy. Through interest convergence, parents participating in the
MPCP have an interest met and, overall, are not choosing schools based on academic success but
on other factors that are important to them personally. In addition, the MPCP continues to grow,

77
and recent bipartisan legislation continues to show support from Wisconsin policymakers. In
some instances, these policymakers’ interests are met by creating free market competition in
education. While a legislator’s interest may not be significant to parents as long as they are
supporting school choice, awareness of a legislator’s voting on school choice initiatives may
inform parents of how they can advocate specific legislators supporting school choice, as well as
gain knowledge regarding legislators who do not support school choice and who, in some
instances, parents are voting for because these legislator’s platforms meet the parent’s needs in
many other facets of life. The benefits of informing parents of ongoing legislative disparities can
be incurred, as parents have indicated their interests will not change their participation in the
MPCP. The benefit of informing parents is the potential to create more urgent action by parents
and potentially impact how parents vote.
Future Research
The research conducted in this study identified the need for further research on the
organizational and instructional impact of legislative disparities on the performance and
sustainability of MPCP schools. In addition, further study should be conducted about the barriers
created for marginalized parents regarding enrollment and accountability practices placed on
parents wanting to participate in the MPCP who are already challenged through obstacles created
by socioeconomic status or residency status.
The first recommendation for future research is to focus on the time and financial
analysis of participating MPCP schools. The time analysis should examine the time leaders
spend in meetings relating to fund development to close the funding gap and maintain
programming, staffing, and organizational needs, as well as time spent by leaders with MPS as
the LEA for MPCP schools regarding title funding. The analysis of time spent should include

78
title paperwork, Special Needs Scholarship (SNSP) meetings and paperwork, time spent with
third-party vendors identified by MPS as acceptable for MPCP schools, and other issues such as
audits required for MPCP schools and factors identified as restraints on the ability for MPCP
school leaders to utilize time effectively and efficiently. In addition, longitudinal research could
be conducted on specific financial restrictions that arise from the funding gap. One of them is the
ability to offer competitive leader and teacher salaries. It could further examine the impact the
funding gap creates on access to research-based instructional materials which demonstrate
success with the schools’ demographics, the upkeep of facilities and the ability to create
opportunities for teacher coaching, extracurricular activities and the opportunity to implement
arts programming and how these restraints impact children.
The second area where further research is needed is how enrollment barriers impact
participation in the MPCP. Research should look at the number of applications that have started
and are not finished and the reasons behind applications not being completed. The research
should further look at the obstacles parents face due to socioeconomic challenges, such as
socioeconomic status, which creates the opportunity for parents to apply and should not be the
barrier to participation. Further, studies should analyze yearly re-enrollment requirements by
current MPCP parents and how those requirements create additional barriers to continuing in the
program as parents’ socioeconomic status changes or parents face even further life challenges.
Conclusion
Through this study, parents indicated that they value having a choice and that, with
knowledge, they are willing to advocate for their children when disparities exist between what
their children are provided for education compared to children of similar socioeconomic status
and demographics in traditional public schools. This study focused on the current disparity in

79
per-pupil funding between the MPCP and traditional public schools. Findings showed that
schools and leaders do little to inform parents and that parental awareness of the current funding
gap is minimal.
Reflecting on where this study began, it is essential to recall the history of the MPCP,
born out of the fight by parents and activists for social justice in education (Hale, 2021). While
this social justice movement ultimately gained support from a more conservative lens regarding
free market education, the voices of parents and activists led to the creation an income-eligible
voucher program that would have national impacts and create opportunities for marginalized
children. Over 30 years of choice has existed in Milwaukee, going from seven schools with 341
students to its current participation of more than 125 schools in Milwaukee serving over 28,000
students (School Choice Wisconsin, 2023b). This growth demonstrates the desire of families to
have a choice, to participate in choosing their child’s school, regardless of sector, and to create
opportunities for their children through education. This program began with voices rising out of
inequities and disparities for marginalized children in Milwaukee, and this study shows that it is
crucial that, as parents’ choice is valued by the MPCP schools they attend, their awareness of
continued legislation concerning their choice, both legislation that works on behalf of their
children and legislation that creates further disparity, is communicated. When done with purpose
and fidelity, communication could lead to parents advocating for their child’s education.

80
References
Anderson, L. (2022). Leaders of high-performing Milwaukee schools say funding is biggest
impediment to adding seats. BizTimes. https://biztimes.com/leaders-of-high-performingmilwaukee-schools-say-funding-is-biggest-impediment-to-addingseats/#:~:text=Funding%20is%20the%20single%20biggest,oversees%20the%20network’
s%20Milwaukee%20schools.
Aggarwal, U. (2018). After rights: choice and the structure of citizenship. In L. Fernandes (Ed.),
Feminists rethink the neoliberal state: inequality, exclusion, and change (pp. 71–105).
New York University Press.
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma. Harvard
Law Review, 93(3), pp. 518–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546. Accessed 29 Mar.
2024.
Benner, M., & Quick, A. (2020, February 20). One size does not fit all. Cap20.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/one-size-not-fit/
Boegel, E. (2019, October 10). What parents (and everyone else) should know about education
laws. America the Jesuit Review. https://www.americamagazine.org/politicssociety/2019/10/10/what-parents-and-everyone-else-should-know-about-education-laws
Bowley, S. (2021). Learning from history: Predicting the development of class-based interest
divergence. Boston University Law Review, 101, 125.
https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/2021/11/20/learning-from-history-predicting-thedevelopment-of-class-based-interest-convergence/

81
Bronson, S., Debruin, I., Morgan, C., Shien, S., & Smucker, J. (2021). The state of Milwaukee
education in 2022: an overview. City Forward Collective Publication.
https://www.cityforwardcollective.org/s/220801-SME-summary.pdf
Bronson, S., & Schien, S. (2022). 2022-23 State of Milwaukee Education: Student Enrollment.
City Forward Collective Publications. https://www.cityforwardcollective.org/s/StudentEnrollment-2022-2023
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep347483/
Burke, L., Schwalbach, J. & Rosenwinkel, J. (2020, February 3). Free to succeed: A brief history
of school choice. The Heritage Foundation.
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-succeed-brief-history-school-choice
Cato Institute. (2023). School choice timeline. https://www.cato.org/school-choice-timeline
Catt, A. D. (2014, May). Public rules on private schools: measuring the regulatory impact of
state statutes and school choice programs. The Friedman Foundation for Educational
Choice. https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Public-Rules-on-PrivateSchools-Measuring-the-Regulatory-Impact-of-State-Statutes-and-School-ChoicePrograms.pdf
Chen, G. (2020, February 10). The ongoing debate over school choice. Public School Review.
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/the-ongoing-debate-over-school-choice
City Forward Collective. (2023a). State of Milwaukee education at a glance 2022.
https://www.cityforwardcollective.org/s/220722SMEAAG2022.pdf
City Forward Collective Report. (2023b). School resources and funding.
https://www.cityforwardcollective.org/s/SME-School-Resources-and-Funding.pdf

82
Cohen, J. (2016, March 26). An Open Letter. https://www.justinccohen.com/blog/2016/5/26/anopen-letter
Collins, A. (Author and Reporter). (2023, January 31). First Coast News [TV news]. Parents,
educators weigh in on controversial ‘universal choice’ bill in Florida. ABC.
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/controversy-over-floridas-universalschool-choice/77-13374769-c3ec-487a-a4b6-0e6722cccb9d
Costrell, R. M. (2010). The fiscal impact of the Milwaukee parental choice program: 2010-2011
update and policy options (Report #22). School Choice Demonstration Project.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518596.pdf
Damske, C. & Stevens, R. (2024, March 21). Critical race theory. Free Speech Center.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/critical-race-theory/
Deangelis, C. (2021, July 8). Funding students instead of institutions. Georgia Public Policy
Foundation. https://www.georgiapolicy.org/publications/funding-students-instead-ofinstitutions/#:~:text=Pre%2DK%20Program.-
,Funding%20students%20directly%2C%20instead%20of%20school%20systems%2C%2
0would%20remedy%20this,for%2Dprofit%20childcare%20learning%20centers.
Deangelis, C. & Erickson, H. H. (2018). What leads to successful school choice programs? A
review of the theories and evidence. Cato Journal, 38(1). https://www.cato.org/catojournal/winter-2018/what-leads-successful-school-choice-programs-review-theoriesevidence

83
Department of Public Instruction. (2022b). Important dates for the private school choice
programs. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/parental-educationoptions/Choice/information_for_schools/IMPORTANT_DATES_2022-23_Final.pdf
Department of Public Instruction (2022a). Milwaukee parental choice program (MPCP) 2022-23
school year student headcount and FTE.
https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/parental-educationoptions/Choice/Data_and_Reports/2023-24/2022-
23_mpcp_hc_fte_by_school_and_grade_with_all_pupils.pdf
Department of Public Instruction. Equitable participation in Title 1 for private school students.
Retrieved March 5, 2024. https://dpi.wi.gov/title-i/equitable-participation-private-schoolstudents
Dryness, A. (2011). Cultural exclusion and critique in the era of good intentions. Using
participatory research to transform parent roles in urban school reform. Social Justice,
36(4), pp 36-53.
Durrani, A. (2023, April 14). What school choice is and how it works. U.S. News and World
Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/articles/what-school-choice-is-and-howit-works
EdChoice. (2023d, December 18). Broadening options and opportunities for students today
(BOOST) program. https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/marylandbroadening-options-opportunities-students-today-boost-program/
EdChoice. (2023b, December 18). Indiana Choice Scholarship Program.
https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/indiana-choice-scholarship-

84
program/#:~:text=To%20receive%20a%20Choice%20Scholarship,four%20in%202023%
E2%80%9324).
EdChoice. (2023e, December 14). Milwaukee parental choice program.
https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/wisconsin-milwaukee-parentalchoice-program/#:~:text=School%20Year%20Ending-
,Student%20Funding,aid%20and%20local%20property%20taxes.
EdChoice. (2023c, December 18). North Carolina opportunity scholarships. .
https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/north-carolina-opportunityscholarships/
EdChoice. (2023a, December 18). Ohio income-based scholarship program.
https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/ohio-income-based-scholarshipprogram/
EdChoice. (2023f, December 14). Wisconsin parental choice programs (statewide).
https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/wisconsin-parental-choice-programstatewide/#:~:text=Eligibility%20for%20the%20scholarships%20is,eligible%20to%20re
ceive%20a%20scholarship.
Ellis, N. T., and McKend, E. (2021, December 2). Black parents say movement to ban critical
race theory is ruining their child’s education. CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/us/black-parents-and-critical-racetheory/index.html#:~:text=Video-
,Black%20parents%20say%20movement%20to%20ban%20critical,is%20ruining%20thei
r%20children's%20education&text=%22Our%20children%20are%20not%20having,mot
her%20of%20six%20from%20Michigan.

85
Faulk, T. (2023). K-12 Education: Milwaukee charter school enrollment declines. Urban
Milwaukee. https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2023/01/09/k-12-education-milwaukee-charterschool-enrollment-declines/
Fennimore, B. S. (2017). Permission Not Required: The Power of Parents to Disrupt Educational
Hypocrisy. Review of Research in Education, 41, 159–181.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16687974
Finn, C. E. & Manno, B. V. (2021, June 3). Finn & Manno: charter schools at 30- looking back,
looking ahead. The74. https://www.the74million.org/article/finn-manno-charter-schoolsat-30-looking-back-looking-ahead/
Fitzpatrick, C. (2020, January 28). You’re debating someone else’s child: 30 years later,
Milwaukee’s school voucher program divides a city whose public schools struggle. The
74. https://www.the74million.org/article/youre-debating-someone-elses-child-30-yearslater-milwaukees-school-voucher-program-divides-a-city-whose-public-schools-struggle/
Flanders, W. (2017, March). Apples to apples: the definitive look at test scores in Milwaukee and
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. https://will-law.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/07/apples-to-apples-2017.pdf
Florida Department of Education (2021, October). Fact Sheet: Florida Tax Scholarship
Program. https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC-Oct-2021-line.pdf
Fortin, J. (2021, November 8). Critical race theory: a brief history. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html
Freidman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. Hoover Institute Library and
Archives.
http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEFriedmanRoleOfGovttable.pdf

86
Fuller, H. (2015, April 28). The origins of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Education
Next. https://www.educationnext.org/origins-milwaukee-parental-choice-program-nostruggle-no-progress-fuller/
Garnett, N. S. (2021, October). Accountability and Private School Choice. Manhattan Institute.
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/MI-GarnettAccountabilityPrivateS. school choice-v3.pdf
Girard, S., & Kelly, J. (2022). Explainer: How would universal school choice work in
Wisconsin? The Cap Times. https://captimes.com/news/education/explainer-how-woulduniversal-school-choice-work-in-wisconsin/article_694b341e-6150-59f4-9697-
393ea79b40fc.html
Greene, J. P., & Paul, J. D. (2021, September 22). Does school choice need bipartisan support?
An empirical review of the longitudinal study. American Enterprise Institute.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Does-School-Choice-Need-BipartisanSupport.pdf?x91208
Hale, J. (2021, September 27). How civil rights activist Howard Fuller became a devout
champion of school choice. Theconversationist.com. https://theconversation.com/howcivil-rights-activist-howard-fuller-became-a-devout-champion-of-school-choice-165581
Hurie, A. (2021). School choice, exclusion and race taming in Milwaukee: A meta-ethnography.
National Library of Medicine, 53(5), E-pub. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33782627/
Jasis, P. (2013). Latino families challenging exclusion in a middle school: a story from the
trenches. School Community Journal 23(1).
https://www.adi.org/journal/2013ss/JasisSpring2013.pdf

87
Jenson, K. (2022, March 28). The creator of the first school voucher program sought to address
racial disparities in public education. National Communication Association.
https://www.natcom.org/communication-currents/creator-first-school-voucher-programsought-address-racial-disparities-public
Kava, R. (2003). Milwaukee parental choice program, informational paper 29. Wisconsin
Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/informational_papers/january_2003/0029_milw
aukee_parental_choice_program_informational_paper_29.pdf
Kinzer, B. (2023, July 17). How parent power won increased funding for Wisconsin schools. The
74. https://www.the74million.org/article/how-parent-power-won-increased-funding-forwisconsin-schools/
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications
Litz, Steve (Reporter). (2023, Sept. 3). Florida’s expanded voucher system explained: What’s
changed and who’s eligible. [TV News Broadcast]. NBC6.
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/floridas-expanded-school-voucher-systemexplained-whats-changed-and-whos-eligible/3104356/
Lochmiller, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lueken, M. F. (2021). Fiscal effects of school choice: analyzing the costs and savings of private
school choice in America. EdChoice. https://www.edchoice.org/researchlibrary/?report=fiscal-effects-of-school-choice#report

88
Maclean, N. (2021, September 27). Don’t forget that school choice originated in massive
resistance to desegregation. History News Network.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181382
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milwaukee Public Schools. (2023c). FY24 Final Title 1 Allocations.
https://mps.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/MPS-English/CFO/Documents/Title-I/NonPublic/Allocations/FY24TitleIFinalAllocations1-10-24.pdf
Milwaukee Public Schools. (2023a). Quarterly ESEA title program consultation meeting.
https://mps.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/MPS-English/CFO/Documents/Title-I/NonPublic/Consultation/September122023ConsutlationMeetingHandouts.pdf
Milwaukee Public Schools. (2023b). MPS: Service Provider (Vendors).
https://mps.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/en/District/About-MPS/Departments/Office-ofFinance/Title-I/Non-Public/Service-Provider-Vendors.htm
Mitchell, S. (2022). Milwaukee school choice program: It inspired a national movement.
Wisconsinrightnow.com. https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/milwaukee-school-choiceprogram/
National School Board Association. School Vouchers. Retrieved March 29, 2024.
https://www.nsba.org/advocacy/federal-legislative-priorities/school-vouchers
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020, July 30). Why do parents choose schools for
their children? NCES Blog. https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/why-do-parents-chooseschools-for-their-children

89
Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. (2024). EdChoice expansion.
https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Expansion
Pew Research Center. (2024). Party affiliation among adults in Wisconsin.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/wisconsin/partyaffiliation/
Pierce, R. (2021, May 6). The racist history of school choice. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/raymondpierce/2021/05/06/the-racist-history-of-schoolchoice/?sh=133f057f6795
Pondiscio, R. (2016, May 25). The left’s drive to push conservatives out of education reform.
Thomas Fordham Institute. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/lefts-drivepush-conservatives-out-education-reform
Povich, E. (2013). Tax dollars for private school tuition gain in states. Stateline.
https://stateline.org/2013/08/06/tax-dollars-for-private-school-tuition-gain-in-states/
Private School Review. (2023). Ohio private schools by tuition cost.
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/ohio
Pugh, C. (2015). Private school choice program, Informational Paper 25. Wisconsin Legislative
Fiscal Bureau.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/informational_papers/january_2015/0025_priva
te_school_choice_programs_informational_paper_25.pd
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/informational_papers/january_2015/0025_priva
te_school_choice_programs_informational_paper_25.pdf
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.

90
Rotherham, A. (2017, July 25). The complex history of school choice. U.S. News and World
Report. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2017-07-25/thehistory-of-school-choice-is-complicated
Ryan, C. (2021). Cancel culture versus parent choice. Thomas Fordham Institute Advancing
Educational Excellence. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/cancel-cultureversus-parent-choice
Sanchez, C. (2017, May 16). Lessons on race and vouchers from Milwaukee. NPR Ed.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/05/16/523612949/lessons-on-race-and-vouchersfrom-milwaukee
Saving to Invest. (2023, Feb. 8). 2022-2023 private school state voucher programs- maximum
payment amounts and eligibility. Saving to Invest. https://savingtoinvest.com/privateschool-state-voucher-programs-maximum-payment-amounts-and-eligibility/
School Choice Wisconsin (2022). Broad cross-section of Wisconsin voters want school choice
universal. https://schoolchoicewi.org/broad-cross-section-of-wisconsin-voters-wantschool-choice-universal/
School Choice Wisconsin. (2023a). History: Thirty years and counting.
https://schoolchoicewi.org/about/history/
School Choice Wisconsin (2023b). Milwaukee parental choice program.
https://schoolchoicewi.org/programs/milwaukee-parental-choice-program/
School Choice Wisconsin (2023c). New DPI data shows choice students outperform peers on
standardized tests. https://schoolchoicewi.org/new-dpi-data-shows-choice-studentsoutscore-public-school-peers-on-standardized-tests/

91
School Choice Wisconsin (2023d). The diverse faces of school choice.
https://schoolchoicewi.org/the-diverse-faces-of-schoolchoice/#:~:text=The%20Diverse%20Faces%20of%20School%20Choice%201%20Milwa
ukee,programs.%20...%202%20Racine%20...%203%20Statewide%20
School Choice Wisconsin and The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. (2017, August). The
impact of fiscal accountability and parental choice on the Milwaukee Parental Choice
Program. https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Accountability-Report-7-28-
Edt-131.pdf
Shih, D. (2017, April 19). Code Switch! A theory to better understand diversity and who really
benefits. NPR Opinion.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/04/19/523563345/a-theory-to-betterunderstand-diversity-and-who-really-benefits
Spears, B. (2024, February 15). Assembly education committee votes to change private school
funding, advances truancy bills. Wisconsin Examiner.
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/02/15/assembly-education-committee-votes-tochange-private-school-funding-advances-truancy-bills/
Spindt, M. (2023, July 16). In Wisconsin, a divided government didn’t stop school choice.
DCJournal. https://dcjournal.com/in-wisconsin-a-divided-government-didnt-stop-schoolchoice/
Stanford, L. (2023). 6 more states will soon let almost all students attend private school with
public money. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policy/6-more-states-will-soonlet-almost-all-students-attend-private-school-with-public-money/2023/06

92
Stewart, M. S., & Moon, J. (2016, October). Understanding how school vouchers are funded:
summary of funding for Wisconsin’s three parental choice programs. Center for
Evaluation and Education Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574825.pdf
Churchill, A. (2022, Jan. 27). 2023 Ohio education by the numbers. Thomas Fordham Institute.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/research/ohio-education-numbers-2022-edition
Thomas Fordham Institute (2006, June). Fund the child: Tracking inequity and antiquity in
school finance.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/fundthechild0627067.pdf
Thompson, B. (2020, February 12). A report card for Milwaukee schools. Urban Milwaukee.
https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2020/02/12/data-wonk-a-report-card-for-milwaukee-schools
U.S. Department of Education. (2019, August). Frequently asked questions- general issues
related to nonpublic schools. Office of Nonpublic Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/non-public-education/files/onpe-faqs-aug2019.pdf
City Forward Collective mobilizes more than 200 families in support of equal funding for all
Milwaukee students’ education. (2023). WisBusiness.
https://www.wisbusiness.com/2023/city-forward-collective-mobilizes-more-than-200-
families-in-support-of-equal-funding-for-all-milwaukee-students-education/
Wis. Stat. § 119.23, (2023, March 15). Milwaukee parental choice program.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/119/i/23
Weida, K. (2023, March 30). 15 states with voucher programs to help parents pay for private
school. The Penny Hoarder. https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/save-money/schoolvouchers/

93
Witte, J., Carlson, P., Cowen, J., Fleming, D., & Wolf, P. (2012, February). MPCP longitudinal
education growth study: Fifth-year report. School Choice Demonstration Project,
Milwaukee Evaluation (Report #29).
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=scdp
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (2018, November 13). Milwaukee choice and charter
schools outperform MPS on new state report cards. https://will-law.org/milwaukeechoice-charter-schools-outperform-mps-new-state-report-cards/
Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau (2003, January). MCPC information paper 29.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/informational_papers/january_2003/0029_milw
aukee_parental_choice_program_informational_paper_29.pdf
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis, and interpretation.
Sage Publications.
Wolf, P. J., Witte, J. F. & Kisida, B. (2019). Do voucher students attain higher levels of
education? Extended evidence from Milwaukee parental choice program.
EdWorkingPaper No. 19-115. https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-
115.pdf
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/639/
ZipAtlas.com. (2024). Zip Codes with the highest poverty level in Wisconsin.
https://zipatlas.com/us/wi/milwaukee/zip-code-comparison/highest-poverty.htm

94
Tables
Table 1
Racial Identification of Surveyed Parents
Racial identification n %
White 4 4
Black 14 16
Hispanic 63 71
Asian/Pacific Islander 1 1
Multi-race 6 7
I prefer not to identify 1 1
Note. n = number of responses in each category.

95
Table 2
Demographics of Interviewed Parents
Participants Gender Race/ethnicity Zip code Years in MPCP
Parent 1 Male Hispanic 53207 12
Parent 2 Male Black 53207 6
Parent 3 Female Hispanic 53215 12
Note. MPCP refers to the years each parent has had a child Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.

96
Table 3
Interviewed Leader Education Information
Leader participants Years in education Years involved in MPCP
Leader 1 12 5
Leader 2 54 12
Leader 3 23 8
Leader 4 25 22
Leader 5 25 11
Leader 6 13 13
Note. MPCP refers to the number of years leaders lead, or have led, a participating Milwaukee
Parental Choice Program school or organization with participating schools.

97
Table 4
Practices in Informing Parents of Choice Legislation
Participants Questions Responses
Held
meeting
Sent
newsletters
Sent WSC
update
No info
sent
Opt-out
Surveyed
parents
How has your school
informed you of
funding disparities?
10% 30% 22% 31% 15%
Interviewed
parents
How has your school
informed you of
funding disparities?
100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Interviewed
leaders
How have you
informed parents of
funding disparities?
0% 17% 50% 0% 0%
Note. n = 89 surveyed parents, n = 3 interviewed parents, n = 6 interviewed leader
WSC refers to Wisconsin School Choice.

98
Table 5
Impacts of Funding Disparity
What is impacted Surveyed
parents
Interviewed
parents
Interviewed
leaders
Staffing 57% 100% 100%
Quality of teachers 47% 100% 83%
Teacher’s social/emotional well-being 32% 0% 0%
Student academic growth 61% 100% 50%
Student social/emotional well-being 42% 100% 0%
Arts programs in the schools 48% 0% 17%
Upkeep of facilities 54% 0% 33%
Other 14% 67% 0%
Prefer not to answer 14% 0% 0%
Note. n = 89 for surveyed parents, n = 3 for interviewed parents, n = 6 for interviewed leaders

99
Table 6
Amount of Fund Development Needed to Offset Funding Gap
Participants Amount of annual fund
development
Focus of fund development
Leader 1 1.5 to 2 million Operating costs, attracting and retaining
top talent, Catholic Identity and Mission,
academic excellence, family engagement
Leader 2 No answer No answer
Leader 3 900 per child Programming, annual funds
Leader 4 2500 per child or 3.1 million Teacher coaches, deans, extracurriculars
Leader 5 No answer No answer
Leader 6 30% of academic funding Salaries, academic programs, operations
Note. n = 6. Data were collected from leader interviews.

100
Table 7
Parent Reasons for Participation in the MPCP
Participants I want my child to attend a faith-based school. Safety Academic success
Surveyed and
interviewed
parents
78% 73% 72%
Note. N = 89 surveyed parents and n = 3 interviewed parents.

101
Appendix A: Parent Interview Recruitment Letter
Dear MPCP Parent,
I am a Doctor of Education Student at the University of Southern California (USC) and
also currently hold the role of Chief Schools Officer for Seton Catholic Schools in Milwaukee. I
am doing research around the following:
If a parent is informed of, or knows, the difference in funding Wisconsin provides to
educate students in the MCPC compared to students who attend Milwaukee Public
Schools, would they be willing to share their story with Wisconsin policymakers on why
equal funding for their child is important and why having the option to choose a school
for their child is meaningful to their family.
To understand this difference Tabel A1 shows the amount of funding children enrolled in
the MPCP receive for their education compared to charter schools and Milwaukee Public
Schools:
Table A1
Per Pupil Funding in Milwaukee per Educational Sector
Type of school Per pupil money (as determined by Wisconsin
MPCP student $9,499 per student
Milwaukee charter schools $10,911 per student
Milwaukee public schools $14,900 per student

102
Your time and involvement in participating in this interview are greatly appreciated. The
only requirement for taking part in the interview is that you have participated in the MCPC for at
least one full school year. You will be asked to answer a few interview questions, which should
take no longer than one hour. By participating in this interview, you give consent for your
answers to be used. You will remain anonymous. No emails, names, phone numbers, addresses,
or current schools will be collected in the interview process. I will only ask for your zip code.
You may skip any question you do not want to answer. This interview is voluntary.
I appreciate the time and attention you take to participate in this research.
Sincerely,
Kristen Foster
fosterk@usc.edu

103
Appendix B: Parent Interview Protocol
Thank you for participating in my research study and being willing to answer questions
regarding your experience in advocating for private choice schools or organizations that
participate in the MCPC. The interview will take approximately 45 minutes to an hour to
complete. During that time, please let me know if you need to take a break. I appreciate your
time as I know it is very valuable.
As we get started, I want to revisit the purpose of my study (read the invite) and allow
you to ask any clarifying questions you may have from the overview of my research which was
provided to you. As a Milwaukee educator who has led in choice or charter schools for the past
20 years, I have been interested in the differences between funding of traditional public schools,
such as MPS, and schools participating in the MCPC and, more specifically, parental awareness
of these differences and how schools work to inform parents, if at all. I would like to remind you
that I am a researcher in this process and that is the role I will stay in as we interview. In
addition, I want to reiterate that this process is anonymous, using numerical identifiers such as
‘Parent 1’ to quote parts of your responses unless you have given permission to use your name
when quoting in my final research paper.
Finally, I will record this interview to ensure that I respond to any clarifications you may
need and to fully capture your responses. I am the only person who will have access to the
recording, and the recording along with my memos of your interview, will remain in a password
secured document. Would you like a moment to revisit the synopsis of my study that I provided
for you earlier? Let me know when you are ready to begin.

104
I’d like to begin with some questions that seek to capture your experience and
background.
1. Were you born and raised in Milwaukee, or did you move here later in life?
2. When thinking of your child’s education, what experiences have meant the most to
you?
3. What led you to participate in the MPCP?
Thank you for taking time to discuss your experience and your advocacy. You’ve been
instrumental in advocating for school choice. I’d like to dive into the topic of the interview at this
time and ask you some questions specific to being a parent advocate for school choice in
Milwaukee, specifically advocacy for the MPCP. Let’s dive in!
1. What, if any, is your awareness of legislative funding disparities that exist between
Milwaukee’s traditional public schools, MPS, and schools participating in the MPCP?
2. How, if at all, do you believe funding differences could impact your child’s
educational experience?
3. How long has your child participated in the MPCP?
Thank you for answering the questions regarding your personal experience leading a
school or organization of schools participating in the MPCP. The following questions will be
around parental awareness within your organization around Wisconsin choice legislation. Would
you like to take a quick break? Ok, let’s get started.
1. What, if anything, has your school done, to create parental awareness of historical and
current funding disparities between Milwaukee traditional public schools, MPS, and
schools participating in the MPCP?

105
2. What, if anything, do you feel is the benefit of parental awareness around the funding
disparities between Milwaukee traditional public schools and schools participating in
the MPCP?
3. With new legislation which increased the funding for K–8 choice schools, do you feel
like it’s enough and, if not, when is it enough?
4. Why did you choose to advocate?
5. How has attending (insert school name) through the MPCP impacted your child’s
life?
Thank you, once more, for taking the time to meet with me and answer questions around
the MPCP and your insight, your awareness and your thoughts around how parental awareness
could impact advocacy. I appreciate your openness in answering the questions and your
willingness to participate.
Do you have any final thoughts around the impact parental advocacy can have on
creating change in our schools and in creating equitable access? has in Milwaukee’s traditional
public schools and schools participating in the MPCP that you feel would be beneficial to my
research?

106
Appendix C: Leader Recruitment Letter
Dear School Leader,
I am a Doctor of Education Student at the University of Southern California and I
currently hold the role of Chief Schools Officer for Seton Catholic Schools in Milwaukee. I am
researching the effect of parent knowledge on increased advocacy when informed of the funding
differences between income eligible private choice schools per pupil spending and traditional
public schools per pupil spending.
The research will be shared with national and local educational organizations where
income eligible vouchers are available, allowing them to gain a deeper sense of whether
differences in funding allocations have an impact on the willingness of parents to advocate for
equal and/or equitable funding in educational sectors, as well as the impact it has on a parents
choice to participate in income eligible voucher programs.
Your time and involvement is profoundly appreciated. The entire interview, whether in
person or via Zoom, will take approximately 45 minutes. To maintain the essence of the
participant's words for the research, I will record the information. At any time, participants may
request to see or hear the information I collect. In working with you and what is best for your
organization, I would like to conduct the interview sometime between October 2, 2023, to
October 13, 2023, at a convenient time for you. Let me know of a date and time that works for
you and I will calendar an in-person time or send the zoom invite.
I appreciate the time and attention you will dedicate to this study. Please do not hesitate
to reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kristen Foster, fosterk@usc.edu

107
Appendix D: Leader Interview Protocol
Thank you for participating in my research study and being willing to answer questions
regarding your leadership experience in leading a private choice school or organization that
participates in the MPCP. The interview will take approximately forty-five minutes to an hour to
complete. During that time, please let me know if you need to take a break. I appreciate your
time as I know it is very valuable.
As we get started, I want to revisit the purpose of my study and allow you to ask any
clarifying questions you may have from the overview of my research which was provided to you.
As a Milwaukee educator who has led in choice schools for the past 20 years, I have been
interested in the differences between funding of traditional public schools and schools
participating in the Milwaukee Choice Program and, more specifically, parental awareness of
these differences and how schools work to inform parents, if at all. I would like to remind you
that I am a researcher in this process and that is the role I will stay in as we interview. In
addition, I want to reiterate that this process is anonymous, using numeral identifiers such as
‘Leader 1’ to quote parts of your responses unless you have given permission to use your name
when quoting in my final research paper.
Finally, I will record this interview to ensure that I respond to any clarifications you may
need and to fully capture your responses. I am the only person who will have access to the
recording, and the recording along with my written capturing of your interview, will remain in a
password secured document. Would you like a moment to revisit the synopsis of my study that I
provided for you earlier? Let me know when you are ready to begin.
I’d like to begin with some questions that seek to capture your experience and
background in education.

108
1. How long have you been in education?
2. How long, if at all, were you a teacher before you became a leader?
3. What experience, if any, do you have leading a school?
4. How long, if at all, have you led at the network level of schools and what role have
you held and do you currently hold?
5. What drew you to education?
6. What, if any, participation have you done for choice school advocacy, or for parental
choice programs?
7. What sectors of education have you led or been part of? (public, public charter
schools, private, private choice schools)
Thank you for taking time to discuss your experience. You’ve been instrumental in
leading students, teachers and families in Milwaukee. Thank you for your leadership. I’d like to
dive into the topic of the interview at this time and ask you some questions specific to leading a
choice school in Milwaukee, specifically a school or organization participating in the Milwaukee
Parental Choice Program. Let’s dive in!
1. What, if any, is your awareness of legislative disparities between Milwaukee’s
traditional public schools and schools participating in the MPCP?
2. How, if at all, do these disparities affect how you manage and run your school or
network of schools or how you perform your role?
3. How much fund development, if any, does your school or organization of schools
need to do each year to close the funding gap between Milwaukee traditional public
schools and your schools?

109
4. Can you further explain the amount of funding you are raising by explaining what
you feel it takes to educate a child in Milwaukee?
5. What are the three main buckets the funding you have to raise goes towards and how
are those buckets critical to educating students?
6. What accountability metrics placed on schools participating in the MPCP by the
Department of Public Instruction, if any, seem inequitable when compared to
compliance metrics placed on Milwaukee’s traditional public schools?
7. How, if at all, have you advocated for equitable legislation around school funding and
other legislative issues, such as accountability metrics, affecting Milwaukee school
choice?
Thank you for answering the questions regarding your personal experience leading a
school or organization of schools participating in the MPCP. The following questions wil be
around parental awareness within your organization around Wisconsin choice legislation. Would
you like to take a quick break? Ok, let’s get started.
1. What, if anything, have you done as a leader, or has your organization done, to create
parental awareness of historical and current legislative disparities between Milwaukee
traditional public schools and schools participating in the MPCP?
2. If there has been nothing done for parental awareness, why do you think this is the
case?
3. What, if anything, do you feel is the benefit of parental awareness around legislative
disparities between Milwaukee traditional public schools and schools participating in
the MPCP?

110
4. Could you describe what intentionally promoting parental awareness around
Milwaukee Parental Choice legislative differences between traditional public schools
and schools participating in the MPCP would look like, if anything, in promoting
parental advocacy and creating a greater parent voice for legislative change?
5. Do you believe the latest legislation which gave an $1100 increase to K–8 private
choice school students was a victory?
Thank you, once more, for taking the time to meet with me and answer questions around
the MPCP and your insight into your awareness and your thoughts around the importance, if any,
of parental awareness. I appreciate your openness in answering the questions and your
willingness to participate.
Do you have any final thoughts or additions around legislative differences in
Milwaukee’s traditional public schools and schools participating in the MPCP that you feel
would be beneficial to my research?

111
Appendix E: Parent Survey Questions
Background statement: As a MPCP student, your child receives $9,400 dollars to attend a
private school of your choice in Milwaukee. Students attending Milwaukee Public Schools
receive $14,500 to attend school. The following questions address this funding difference.
1. Were you aware there was a difference in the amount of funding your child receives
to attend a Milwaukee Parental Choice school versus the amount a traditional publicschool student receives? (yes, somewhat, no)
2. What has your school done to inform you of the difference in funding for your child
compared to the funding for a public-school student? (communicated in newsletters,
held a parent meeting, provided informational material from School Choice
Wisconsin, my school has not informed parents)
3. Which of the following do you believe are impacted because of the lower funding for
MPCP students? Check all that apply: teacher hiring, teacher quality, teacher socialemotional wellbeing, student academic growth, student social-emotional wellbeing,
arts programs in the schools, upkeep of facilities, any other not on the list please write
in.
Please respond to the following statements using strongly agree, disagree, neutral, agree
or strongly agree:
1. I feel like my choice to participate in the MPCP is valued by Wisconsin lawmakers.
2. Knowing that my child receives less funding to attend school because they participate
in the MPCP increases my desire to advocate for equal funding for MPCP students.
3. Knowing my child receives less funding to attend school because they participate in
the MPCP makes me want to put my child in a public school.

112
4. Knowing my child receives less funding to attend school because they participate in
the MPCP makes me want to put my child in a public school.
5. I feel that Wisconsin policies around the MPCP value making money over my child’s
education.
Please provide demographic information, you may opt out of responding to any question.
1. How do you racially identify? (add descriptors)
2. What is your zip code?
3. What is your income range? (use poverty level guidelines)
4. How long have you participated in the MPCP? (0–12 then 13+)
5. How many of your children currently attend a school participating in the MPCP?
Optional open ended question: What does having the right to choose your child’s school
mean to you?
Final thoughts (optional): Please provide any additional information you would like me
to know about your experience in the MPCP.

113
Appendix F: School Leader Research Introduction
Dear School Leader,
It has been wonderful being a Milwaukee school leader in an organization of schools
where over 85% of our students participate in the MPCP. As shared in my letter recruiting your
participation in my research, I am dedicated to finding ways to increase parental awareness of
funding differences between private choice and traditional public schools and continuing the
trajectory of parent voices being raised on behalf of Milwaukee schools who participate in the
MPCP.
I am seeking parent participation in this study, specifically looking for parents of 1-8th
grade scholars who have participated in the MPCP for at least one year. Parents will be sent a
brief electronic survey assessing their knowledge of funding differences and determining if
having a deeper understanding of funding differences would increase their desire to advocate for
MPCP funding equity. Parents will remain anonymous. No emails, names, or school locations
will be collected. The research will collect zip codes.
Participation in this study by all parents in your school is voluntary. Participants do not
have to answer any questions they do not want to answer. If at any time they do not want to
continue with the survey, they can exit and not submit. Survey results will be shared with you, as
well as the overall findings at the conclusion of the research. If you choose to participate in the
survey, please send the introduction and purpose of the study letter along with the survey link via
email.
Thank you for the consideration of your school's participation in this study and for your
continued dedication to the students and families of Milwaukee. Please respond to this email
with your intent to allow your families to participate in the research.

114
Thank you,
Kristen Foster
USC EdD Student
fosterk@usc.edu

115
Appendix G: Parent Survey Recruitment Letter—English Version
Dear MCPC Parent,
I am a Doctor of Education Student at the University of Southern California (USC) and
also currently hold the role of Chief Schools Officer for Seton Catholic Schools in Milwaukee. I
am doing research around the following:
If a parent is informed of, or knows, the difference in funding Wisconsin provides to
educate students in the MPCP compared to students who attend Milwaukee Public
Schools, would they be willing to share their story with Wisconsin policymakers on why
equal funding for their child is important and why having the option to choose a school
for their child is meaningful to their family?
To understand this difference, Table A1 shows the amount of funding children enrolled in
the MPCP receive for their education compared to charter schools and Milwaukee.
Your time and involvement in participating in this survey are greatly appreciated. The
only requirement for taking part in the survey is that you have participated in the MCPC for at
least one full school year. You will be asked to answer a few survey questions, which should
take no longer than 30 minutes. By completing the survey, you give consent for your answers to
be used. You will remain anonymous. No emails, names, phone numbers, addresses, or current
schools will be collected in the survey process. I will only ask for your zip code. You may skip
any question you do not want to answer. This survey is voluntary.
I appreciate the time and attention you take to participate in this research.
Sincerely,
Kristen Foster, fosterk@usc.edu

116
Appendix H: Parent Survey Recruitment Letter—Spanish Version
Estimado padre del Programa Parental Choice de Milwaukee:
Soy estudiante de Doctorado en Educación en la Universidad del Sur de California (USC)
y actualmente también ocupó el cargo de Director Escolar de las Escuelas Católicas de Seton en
Milwaukee. Estoy investigando lo siguiente:
Si un padre está informado o conoce la diferencia en el dinero que Wisconsin da para
educar a los estudiantes en el Programa de Elección de los Padres de Milwaukee,
¿estaría dispuesto a contar su historia a otros sobre por qué tener una opción es
importante para su familia?
Para comprender esta diferencia, el cuadro a continuación muestra el dinero que reciben
los niños inscritos en el Programa de Elección de los Padres de Milwaukee por su educación en
comparación con las escuelas autónomas y las Escuelas Públicas de Milwaukee.
Table H1
Per Pupil Funding in Milwaukee per Educational Sector—Spanish Version
Tipo de escuela Dinero por alumno (según lo determinado por
Wisconsin)
Estudiante del programa de elección de los
padres de Milwaukee
$9,499 por cada estudiante
Escuelas autónomas de Milwaukee $10,911 por cada estudiante
Escuelas públicas de Milwaukee $14,900 por cada estudiante

117
Agradecemos mucho su tiempo y participación en esta encuesta. El único requisito para
participar en la encuesta es haber participado en el Programa de Elección de los Padres de
Milwaukee durante al menos un año escolar completo. Se le pedirá que responda una breve
encuesta, que no debería tardar más de 20 minutos en completarse. Al completar esta encuesta,
usted da su consentimiento para que se utilicen sus respuestas. Permanecerán en el anonimato.
En las encuestas no se recopilarán correos electrónicos, nombres, números de teléfono,
direcciones o escuelas actuales. Sólo le pediré su código postal. Puede omitir cualquier pregunta
que no desee responder. Esta encuesta es voluntaria.
Agradezco el tiempo y atención que usted toma para participar en esta investigación.
Kristen Foster
fosterk@usc.edu

118
Appendix I: Parent Survey Recruitment Letter—Chin Version
Dawtmi MCPC i Nu Le Pa hna,
Kei mah cu University of Southern California (USC) ah fimcawnnak lei in Doctor of
Education a cawng lio mi sianghngakchia ka si pin ah, Seton Catholic Schools in Milwaukee ah
Chief Schools Officer rian ka tlaih lio a si. A tanglei kong hi hlathlainak ka tuah cuah mah lio mi
a si:
Wisconsin nih cacawnnak caah MPCP i a um mi sianghngakchia hna le, Milwaukee
Public Schools i a kai mi sianghngakchia hna an cacawnnak caah phaisa an pek ning a
dang ti mi hi, nulepa hna cu theih ter ,a si lo ah ,nu le pa hna nih an theih ko ah cun,zei
ruang ah dah an fa le cacawnnak ding caah an hmuh mi phaisa hi a zat tein hmuh a herh
timi le, an fa le caah an duh mi sianginn thim piak khawh nak nawl an ngeih mi hi,zeitluk
in dah sullam a ngeih timi hi Wisconsin nawl a ser tu hna sin ah an hmuh ning chim le
theihter an duh hnga ma?
Cu cu a dannak kan fian khawh nak ding caah, a tang lei i ka rak tar mi ah hin MPCP i a
kai mi sianghngakchia hna nih cacawnnak ding caah an hmuh mi le Milwaukee Public Sianginn i
a kai mi hna nih an hmuh mi a dannak a langh ter.
Table I1
Per Pupil Funding in Milwaukee per Educational Sector—Chin Version
Type of school /Siang inn phun Sianghngakchia pakhat hmuhmi
phaisa( Wisconsin nih a tuak dan ah)
MCPC i sianghngakchia: Sianghngakchia pakhat ah $9,499
Milwaukee charter sianginn hna: Sianghngakchia pakhat ah $10,911
Milwaukee public sianginn hna: Sianghngakchia pakhat ah $ 14,900

119
Hi hlathlatnak ah na teltumnak le na caan na ka pek mi cung ah ka lawm tuk. A mah
belte, mah hlathlainak le biahal nak ah na tel khawh nak ding caah cun, MPCP ah a tlawm bik
sianginn kai kum, kumkhat tal na rak i tel a hau. Hlathlai nak caah biahal nak leh ding in hal na
si lai i, cu cu minute 30 leng a rau lai lo. Hi biahal nak na ka leh nak thawng in hin, na bialeh mi
pawl hi hman nak nawl na ka pek ti nak a si chih. Na min tu cu langh ter lo a si lai. Hi biahal nak
hna ah hin emails,min, phone number,umnak, a si lo ah a tu lio nan sianginn tibantuk cu ka
khomh/hal lai lo. Nan zip code lawng lawng ka rak in hal hna lai. Bia hal nak leh na duh lo mi
poh cu na lenhtak khawh ko hna. Hi hlathlainak leh le leh lo cu nan mah duh thimnak nawl a si.
Hi hlathlai nak caah na caan le na ruahnak na ka pek caah kalawm.
Kristen Foster
fosterk@usc.ed

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study sought to explore the lived experience of parents concerning school voucher programs and determine whether parental knowledge of funding discrepancies between income-eligible voucher programs and traditional public schools drives parents’ advocacy for vouchers. This research is rooted in the interest convergence theory to explore and examine whether parents in lower socioeconomic groups participating in school choice felt valued by policymakers. Using the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) as a basis for this study, the researcher interviewed current MPCP leaders about their activities to raise parental awareness concerning funding discrepancies. The study surveyed participating MPCP parents regarding their experiences and awareness of discrepancies and determined whether knowledge of discrepancies influenced parents’ perceptions of value-added by policymakers. Finally, the study identified whether knowledge of discrepancies leads to parents' interest in advocating for income-eligible school choice programs. Interview results were analyzed using qualitative methods and supported by steps to ensure trustworthiness. Survey results showed that parents are unaware of discrepancies in funding and compliance and that leaders are doing little to inform parents. Parents felt that legislation valued their choice while reporting not feeling directly valued by policymakers. Despite discrepancies, parents reported they would continue in the MPCP. Implications of the study lie in revealing the interests of parents to have higher quality information even though leaders have not embraced the practice of informing. This separation could result in slower pathways to legislative change, further marginalizing families. The study concluded that parents desire to feel valued and informed and provided opportunities to advocate for their choices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Novice Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) school administrators' professional development and adult learning

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Atole con el dedo: learning from low-income parents' lived experiences with educational choice policies

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The perspectives of Black teachers and administrators on identity and career opportunities

PDF

Ethnic studies as critical consciousness and humanization

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K-12 school district

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a southern California K-12 school district

PDF

An examination into leadership strategies that stop perpetuating the equity gap of historically marginalized students in high schools

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

Personal agency and educational decision-making: insights from middle- and emerging-middle-income school parents in Costa Rica

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K-12 school district

Asset Metadata

Creator Foster, Kristen D. (author)

Core Title Income eligible school choice: the effect of parent knowledge on advocacy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/17/2024

Defense Date 03/20/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag funding gap,income eligible,MPCP,OAI-PMH Harvest,school choice,voucher

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cole, Kristi (committee member), Franklin, Gregory (committee member), Kishimoto, Christina (committee member)

Creator Email fosterk@usc.edu,mizzourahfan95@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113880053

Unique identifier UC113880053

Identifier etd-FosterKris-12825.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FosterKris-12825

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Foster, Kristen D.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240417-usctheses-batch-1141 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu