Lies About School Choice

By Jeanne Allen

[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.