Rethinking the School Choice Issue
The demand for accountability and quality schools has become linked to the issue of school choice. The idea that parents have the right to send their children to any public school has undeniable appeal.
Certain types of school-choice plans are in place in many states. California already has a large number of open-enrollment plans available, such as interdistrict transfer agreements, magnet schools, educational clinics, specialized secondary school programs and alternative school programs.
Unfortunately, the debate over choice has assumed highly ideological and polarized viewpoints: Proponents see it as the salvation of the public schools; opponents view it as not only a Pandora’s Box for schools but a clever way around state and federal desegregation laws.
I believe that the value of open enrollment is somewhere in the middle: Choice alone will not improve our schools. But it can be a significant complement to other educational reform proposals.
East Harlem has what is considered one of the best public school choice programs in the nation; that school system made dramatic improvements by allowing teachers to create distinctive schools.
The amazing success of East Harlem, however, can’t be attributed solely to open enrollment. The system also includes school-based management that provides each school with autonomy. This independence creates a learning environment that limits class size to 18 pupils and promotes staff development, supplemental funding and alternative schools.
Parental choice in schools does have some advantages: Schools compete for students and thus have an added incentive to improve. Open enrollment allows parents to match a school’s educational programs to the specific needs of their child. A choice plan also may allow a parent to move his or her child from a school with a poor scholastic record to one with a good academic program without the usual time-consuming bureaucratic paperwork. And the option of choosing a school often enhances parental involvement in the education process.
But there are some serious questions regarding choice that are either overlooked or brushed aside by proponents.
Proponents argue that a free society is based upon the ability to make choices and that choice should be extended to the public schools. Yet a true free-market system has control over its resources and can modify inefficiencies. Schools do not have complete control over resources, funding and personnel.
Moreover, while open enrollment will make some schools more competitive, it will make improvement more difficult for schools with low-achieving students. How many schools will be able to improve if the number of students and the amount of funding declines? Will parents or the state assume responsibility for providing low-income children adequate transportation to and from school? And will state funds for instruction be taken away to provide transportation?
If transportation is not adequately worked out, there is an increased risk of re-segregating our public schools. The Los Angeles Unified School District spends more than $1,000 per student each year for transportation within the district. Yet if transportation were not provided, the benefits of open enrollment would fall mainly to those parents who are able to drive their children to school. The hard-fought educational desegregation battles of the 1950s and 1960s could slowly be eroded under the guise of choice.
Neighborhood schools, long the bastion of the American educational network, could lose their focus if they ceased to be a community concern. Parents would not necessarily vote for the school board members representing areas where their children are enrolled, and this could decrease accountability.
Another serious question concerning open enrollment is about the selection process of students. If there are more applicants than space in a school, what process would the school use to make a selection? Would the decision to admit a student be based on who is the most vocal or influential parent or who is the most gifted child?
The success of any open enrollment plan depends on providing parents with complete and accurate information that explains the options available to them. Therefore, parental information programs and in-service training are necessary. Given the many languages spoken in California, this will prove costly.
Finally, a free-market system depends on the ability to advertise its products. In today’s strained fiscal environment, is it wise to dip into the limited pool of education dollars for promotional purposes? Who would control the advertising to ensure accurate program representation?
Open-enrollment options have merit, but they need to be further studied and clarified before they are implemented on a grand scale. If the objective is to improve public school offerings for both parents and students, then elements of choice may be a logical and positive extension of educational reforms. But if the effect is to destroy the chance of a good education for all students in all types of neighborhoods, then open enrollment will become the divisive education issue of the next decade.
