Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management College of Education · University of Oregon
	"Search Help" Note that this is a web site search and will not search our databases ("Directory of Organizations", "In-Process Abstracts", the ERIC Database, "Publications").	Trends and Issues: School Choice Abstracts Discussion Links References Resources Conclusions and Policy Implications Previous sections have described numerous programs and formats that characterize the immensely varied school-choice movement: residential schools for able, disaffiliated youth in a few cities career magnets, "last-chance" charters, and small, community-minded alternative schools as anodynes to large, impersonal high schools African-American and Latino immersion schools private-school scholarships for inner-city children plans to revitalize controlled-choice experiments by substituting socioeconomic integration initiatives for less successful racial desegregation efforts in Maryland, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Connecticut inner cities programs such as the Algebra Project in Cambridge that use a subject discipline to expand innercity youth’s educational aspirations and occupational/life choices cyber charter-school and home-school courses for learners who don’t function well in traditional classroom settings early college introduction/entrance programs designed for disadvantaged and/or intellectually curious middle-school and high-school youngsters Clearly, the school-choice movement is giving birth to a wide range of learning opportunities with stunning diversity in academic goals and methods, target populations, and social responsiveness. Three general, overarching conclusions may be drawn from the above research summaries: (1) Pressures for choice in American education are deeply rooted and here to stay; (2) further discussion is needed on the benefits and merits of various choice alternatives; and (3) more research studies are needed to judge results, enlighten discussion, and inform policy. How Best To Achieve the Common Good? Two central questions dominate the debate over school choice: (1) Should markets determine the character of public education? and (2) If markets rule, who will champion the common good? On one side are voices claiming that strong public schools are so essential for the common good that any kind of school choice that might weaken public schools should be discouraged. Peter Cookson, Amy Gutmann, and Jeffrey Henig contend that "in a democracy, representative institutions such as school boards should run the schools in the interest of the whole society, to ensure social equity" (Gresham and others 2000). Historian and educator Larry Cuban echoes those views in an interview (O'Neil 2000), insisting that a consumer-driven, supermarket approach to education nullifies public schools’ purpose—"to develop citizens who care for a community and can contribute to it." Diane Ravitch (2001) worries that choice and multiculturalism will further "undermine our society’s shared culture" and erode schools’ assimilative role for new immigrants who will eventually become Americans. She points out that some public schools today have no American flag, no Pledge of Allegiance, and no patriotic or traditional songs. Is it possible, she asks, to teach the "best" of a common culture while celebrating diversity and allowing school choice based on particular cultural needs? Market advocates dispute the notion that choice is counter to the common good and point to the inherent value of parents’ and students’ freedom to choose the schools they attend. Milton Friedman, John Chubb, and Terry Moe claim "parents should have the preeminent role in determining their children's education, in part since their choices will broaden social goals" (Gresham and others 2000). Joseph Viteritti (2000) and Robert DeBlois (2000) argue that the choice movement's fairness and varied options justify its persistence. As Viteritti observes, "in the end choice constitutes good public policy because it is fair, not because its effects are measurable by academicians" who refuse to share decisions about where to educate their own children. Nathan Glazer (2001) argues that the shifting makeup of society has already undermined the common culture via segregated urban neighborhoods and schools, multicultural perspectives that weren’t present forty years ago, and legal decisions that have eroded public-school educators’ authority "to create and pass on a common [school] culture—its rules, its expectations of behavior, its sanctions." In fact, says Glazer, private schools’ "relative freedom from rules and regulations… has enhanced their relative ability, vis-à-vis the public schools, to transmit the common culture that we all took for granted a few decades ago." Lessons and Policy Directions From their comprehensive study of choice in mostly California schools for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), Bruce Fuller and associates (1999) formulated some major lessons: (1) information for parents to judge school quality is scarce; (2) alternative schools’ actual costs are variable and often accompanied by unfair financing; (3) public accountability mechanisms are loose and uninformed; (4) local schools rarely learn from choice experiments; (5) inequities mark which families become choosers or nonchoosers; (4) and evidence on student achievement is scarce and mixed. Fuller and colleagues (1999) recommend four steps to strengthen equity: (1) build a consensus among advocates (legislatures, education departments, school boards, foundations, and individual donors) about basic principles and pathways; (2) develop simple consumer information; (3) design program "details" to target most economically vulnerable families, select participating children fairly, distribute funding equitably, and hold alternative schools accountable; and (4) initiate longitudinal tracking of student migration. The public has must have access to full information about the programs available and their performance. PACE researchers recommend that government and foundations pilot "simple consumer information" for a set of schools, "including each school’s discrete ability to boost parental involvement, raise children's learning curves, and lower dropout rates over time" (Fuller and others 1999). Experts agree that informing and welcoming parents of diverse backgrounds should be at the heart of any choice endeavor. The PACE report also recommends that programs target those families who possess the fewest school-choice options and select children via a lottery system (to reduce inadvertent sorting into high- and low-quality schools). PACE researchers join many experts in recommending that sponsoring agencies, districts, and states assess actual program costs, allocate funds equitably, and "hold alternative schools strictly accountable." Michael Mintrom (2000) recommends that policymakers consider several options that could increase innovative practices: instituting incentive programs rewarding both charter and traditional public schools for developing promising new practices; creating a well-funded central information exchange to encourage cooperation between alternative and traditional schools; and minimizing the additional administrative responsibilities put on schools. At this point, no one knows which school-choice options have the best chance of survival in the new century. If Larry Cuban is correct, the most consistently popular, practical, and equitable experiments will prevail. If economist Harry Levin is right (Goldberg 2001), freedom of choice, productive efficiency, equity, and social cohesion will become recognized as "best criteria" for judging school-choice alternatives and putting them into practice. The last two determinants (equity and social cohesion) may help decision-makers tackle what Levin calls the greatest problem in education—bringing "youngsters at the low end into the mainstream of American life" regardless of parental background, immigrant status, or disillusionment with "the system." This ambitious goal might remain elusive, if, as Nathan Glazer suggests, the school-choice movement continues to foster "a greater commitment to freedom than equality"(2001). David Plank and Gary Sykes (2000), in their analysis of Michigan school-choice systems, conclude that "the challenge for policy-makers is to design a framework for school choice policy that harnesses the power of markets to improve educational opportunities while protecting against the harm that simply ‘unleashing’ markets can do. This will require careful attention to the alignment between rules, incentives, and the goals of educational policy." Many advocates employ "wise investment" arguments, claiming that spending a dollar on Head Start today will beat the thousands of dollars required to incarcerate the delinquent or criminal of tomorrow (Kozol 2000). Both Jonathan Kozol and Gerald Bracey (1997) would like policymakers and advocates to recast poor kids in a less utilitarian light—not as future entry-level workers, but as children who deserve a rewarding education and a decent childhood. Fortunately, the school-choice movement offers policymakers ample opportunity to exercise their compassion and creativity.