Lies About School Choice
[Reprinted from Issues & Views Spring 1996]
Most education special interests, like the National Education Association
(NEA), do not have the interests of children first and foremost in mind.
Their leaders scorn any plan to expand the choices of parents beyond the
school to which their children are assigned. Despite enormous growth and
power in the 1980s among anti-choice education leaders and lawmakers, those
groups that continue to oppose this popular tide of school reform, are
finding it more and more difficult to win. With growing support for and
participation in choice programs, it is hardly surprising that the opponents
of reform have accelerated their attacks on educational choice. The
criticisms against choice constitute nine broad categories. Here are
rebuttals to three major ones.
Lie #1: Choice will leave the poor behind in the worst schools.
The argument goes, choice plans are unfair because they separate the "haves"
from the "have-nots." While the "creaming" theorists are concerned about
inequality under a choice plan, they seem to ignore that today's education
system is extremely unequal. The "haves" already have choice because they
have the money to choose a private school for their children. The
"have-nots," meanwhile, are trapped in major urban school systems in which
the quality of education is appalling despite heavy spending by the school
districts. Often in public schools, minorities are still relegated to "the
back of the bus." In the San Francisco public schools, 20% of the student
body is black, but 50% of students assigned to special education programs are
black. Says Federal Judge Carter, "classes for the gifted usually mean
classes for the white, and special education classes usually mean classes for
black males."
Such is not the case, however, at Love Academy, a private school whose
student body happens to be over 90% black. The preschoolers are in the top
one percent nationally on math and reading scores and the eighth graders are
already tackling organic chemistry. These students haven't been "creamed"
from the system; they are merely held to a higher standard. Choice is
actually a tool to reduce inequality. The evidence shows that choice
improves all schools, not just a few, and that poor parents are quite able to
find the best schools.
Lie #2: Parents will not be capable of choosing the right school for their
child.
The ability to choose leads to one of two outcomes. In very many instances,
as supporters of empowerment contend, it leads to parents gaining the
self-confidence to exercise control over their lives. But even if this does
not happen, and parents do not bother to choose a school for their children,
they are still assigned a school under choice plans. The assigned school is
not likely to be worse than the one now attended by the child. Indeed, it is
likely to be better because of the improvements forced by increased pressure
from other parents.
Deeply troubled or dysfunctional children, meanwhile, are likely to do
better under a choice system because it will make available a wider range of
schools, especially if private schools are included in the choice program.
Well-crafted choice plans would require parent information centers and
parent liaisons to help parents who need assistance in making choices.
Rather than attribute poor judgment to poor and disadvantaged parents,
critics could turn this around by ensuring that they have the information
necessary to make distinctions between good and bad schools. When they have
the opportunity and are given full information about the choices open to
them, all parents are capable of making good choices.
Lie #3: Private schools are exclusive and there will be insufficient help for
students with special needs.
Opponents of choice make a living out of characterizing all private schools
as elite academies that charge exorbitant fees and cater only to
high-achieving, low-maintenance kids. The fact is that the average tuition
among private elementary schools is $1,700, and for private secondary schools
it is $3,650.
Most religiously-affiliated schools do not set admissions standards that
would keep poor or disadvantaged children out. While some private schools
set high admission requirements, and should have that right, the fact is that
parochial schools --the private schools serving most children in cities with
or considering choice plans-- actually are less selective than public
schools. Explains Reverend Vincent Breen, superintendent of education for
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Queens, the claim that selection
is normal at Catholic schools is "a completely false statement that's
repeated over and over again. Catholic schools are just as open to the needs
of the urban child."
Hundreds of private schools are sent disruptive or learning disabled
children that the public schools can no longer handle. In Wisconsin,
Arizona, Minnesota and other states, school districts actually contract with
private education organizations to provide remedial schooling or to educate
at-risk students--teen parents and pregnant girls, chemically dependent
students, those with behavioral problems, and those otherwise in danger of
dropping out of the system--often at a fraction of the cost. Catholic
schools, along with other non-public institutions, also offer training for
the deaf, the blind, and the physically and mentally disabled--all at a
fraction of the cost that public schools charge for the same service.
Research by Brookings scholars John E. Chubb and Terry Moe further shows
that private schools in general excel because of their organization, not
because they weed out less-able students through set admissions criteria. To
encourage all schools to accommodate handicapped children or those with
pronounced learning disabilities, many choice plans, such as that currently
proposed for Jersey City, NJ, offer more valuable scholarship certificates
for such children to encourage schools to create programs suited to their
needs.
Jeanne Allen is president of
the Center for Education Reform, 1000
Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036; (202) 822-9000.
Copyright 1996 © Issues & Views
|
