Like Other Quick Fixes, Parental Choice in Schools Needs a Quick Dismissal

Among the latest schemes being promoted to improve education is to give parents the legal right to send their children to any public school in any school district within a state, regardless of where the family resides.

Although at first blush the idea of parental choice seems reasonable, a careful study of the implications of such a policy will reveal that it has serious flaws and, likely, usually would have been filed and forgotten like most of the “quick-fix” fads that are perennially put forward as panaceas for school improvement. However, the concept has been given new life by President Bush, who endorsed and praised the Minnesota “choice” plan as “perhaps the single most promising” idea in American education.

The Minnesota plan, which purports to allow parents to enroll their children in schools in any district in the state, has recently received wide publicity. What seems not to be generally known is that inter- and intra-districts transfers, albeit with certain limitations, have been permitted in California and 46 other states for several years. As a matter of fact, the widely heralded Minnesota plan has its own limitations. For example, parents cannot choose schools that do not have available space. If there is available space, schools must set up “first come, first serve” policies, prohibit skimming off the best athletes or scholars and require parents to pay the costs of transporting children to schools outside their own district. Transfers are not allowed if they would upset racial balances in school districts with court-ordered desegregation plans.

Some advocates equate the freedom of parents to choose schools with supply-side economic theory and honestly believe that if large numbers of parents remove their children from schools considered to be inadequate, competition will force the inadequate schools to improve. And some politicians have been quick to discover that the word “choice,” like “motherhood,” has such a virtuous connotation that they have been anxious to endorse and advocate a sweeping expansion of the idea.

Last year, the Wisconsin Legislature failed to act on Gov. Tommy G. Thompson’s proposal to allow children who live in Milwaukee County to use state money to attend any public, nonsectarian or parochial school in that county. But he is still determined to get a bill enacted in his state and has introduced a modified proposal again this year. Legislation to expand school choice plans is now pending in at least 20 states, including California.

A case can be made for some degree of flexibility in school attendance policies. But it would be extremely unfortunate if, in the name of school reform, parents were misled into believing that it is possible for the state to provide them with unlimited school choices. There is no evidence that such a policy would make schools better.

As a first order of business, school policy-makers should take a hard look at the realities underlying the choice issue. In the first place, classroom space is a limiting factor. Unless provisions are made to accommodate the students where parents choose to send them, the promise of unlimited choice will only lead to confusion, frustration and disappointment. Second, unless the state is prepared to provide transportation, low-income parents would not have the means to exercise their options even if they existed. Third, concepts of marketing that apply to business are totally inappropriate when applied to schools. And the notion that competition will force improvements at the schools from which children transfer is perhaps the greatest fallacy of all. Schools that are being abandoned will get worse since they will lose the support of their most vocal and influential parents. The children that are left behind will undoubtedly be the most disadvantaged and in the greatest need of an effective educational program.

What is more, tenured principals and teachers are not likely to lose their jobs if students are transferred from their schools. They will simply be reassigned.

Finally, a factor that is often overlooked is that affluent parents already have choices. They can, and usually do, move into areas that they consider are served by good schools. They also can afford to send their children to a private school of their choice or, if need be, organize and fund--as some have done--a private school of their own. If all else fails, they can hire a tutor.

Admittedly, there is an imperative need for school improvement. But schools will not be improved by quick-fix, mechanical solutions based on myths and hunches rather than research and experience.

Policy-makers should not be diverted from the goal of making all schools capable of ensuring that each child achieves to the best of his or her ability. To the extent that goal is reached, “choice” will cease to be a major issue.