Private School Vouchers Essay, Research Paper

Proposals to use private school vouchers,

a marketplace strategy, as a mechanism by which to improve the general

quality of public education have produced a lively debate. Frequently,

that debate has degenerated into a disagreement about whether public schools

are as good as private schools or whether a given private school is better

than a certain neighborhood public school.

Other issues raised in these discussions

include the appropriate use of public funds, the role of competition in

improving public education, and the right of parents to choose a school

for their children. Although these issues are of interest, they are not

the fundamental questions which must be raised about the future of public

schools in a democracy.

Two Core Issues

In their rush to the marketplace, the

proponents of private school choice supported by public funds have chosen

to ignore two core issues. First, the advocates of private school choice

studiously avoid any discussion of the relationship between public schools

and the common or public good in a democracy. As an example, the Governor

of Wisconsin asserts that “any school that serves the public is a public

school” and should therefore receive public funds through a voucher system.

There is no recognition in this proposal of the distinct and unique purpose

of public education in serving the public good. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand

does not mean that a private school of choice becomes a public school in

purpose simply by so defining it. The claim is merely a device to divert

public funds for private purposes.

The failure to recognize that public schools

have a central responsibility in a democratic society is further evidenced

by the work of John Chubb and Terry Moe, who argue that improving the efficiency

and quality of public education will require the replacement of democratic

governance by market mechanisms.

The authors state, “The most basic cause

of ineffective performance among the nation’s public schools is their subordination

to public authority. … The school’s most fundamental problems are rooted

in the institutions of democratic control by which they are governed”.

Chubb and Moe deny the historic purposes

of public schools when they reject the idea that educational policy should

be directed by a common vision or purpose. They assert, “It should be apparent

that schools have no immutable or transcendent purpose. … What they are

supposed to be doing depends on who controls them and what these controllers

want them to do”. The Thompson proposal for Wisconsin’s schools embraces

this belief system it is a denial of the fundamental role of public education

in affirming the public good.

A second issue which remains unexamined

in the rush to the marketplace concerns the claims offered in defense of

private school choice. Choice is offered as a “lesson learned” rather than

a proposition to be examined. Advocates of private school choice have ignored

its history. Despite the claims made for a market-based school restructuring

strategy, the history of choice does not support the claims of its proponents.

A Declaration of Crisis

Willingness to abandon strong support

for public schools and to turn to marketplace solutions is driven by a

crisis rhetoric. This rhetoric, which suggests that public education is

failing, is not only misleading, it is dangerous because it may erode public

confidence in the very institutions on which our capacity for a democratic

response depends.

Criticism of public education has continued

unabated since the publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983. Stimulated

in large part by new international economic realities, by a domestic economy

based on traditional production models, and by changing domestic demographics,

the critics have sought solutions to these challenging problems by turning

to schools and educators. The data cited by critics of public schools were

accepted at face value until the late 1980’s. However, since then, a variety

of research reports have revealed that much of the criticism has been simplistic

and has distorted and misrepresented the conditions of public education.

The credibility of the crisis-in-education

claim, in fact, rests not on immutable evidence of school failure but,

rather, on a linkage which has been established by critics between education

and other social problems such as violent crime, drug use, family instability,

and economic uncertainty. Although schools are not charged directly with

creating these problems, the public is turning to public education for

solutions to broad and complex social conditions. This occurred in the

1950’s in response to the Russian scientific and military challenge, in

the 1960’s in response to the challenge of racial segregation, and again

in the 1980’s in response to the challenges of international economic competition

and changing social circumstances.

Economic interests have emerged during

the last decade as vocal and persistent advocates of school change. These

critics have framed the issue in terms of economic competitiveness, job

creation, profit, and preparation for the work place. The purpose of public

education has been redefined by economic interests so as to put schools

in the service of capitalism rather than democracy. They are not the same.

This dramatic reframing of educational purpose has gone relatively unchallenged

in the dialogue about school improvement.

What does it mean to put schools in the

service of an economic philosophy rather than in the service of democracy,

a political and social philosophy? To define students as merely economic

beings is to deny them their basic and essential humanity and is to render

our political freedom subservient to the interests of those whose purpose

is profit. What, then, is the role of the school in a political democracy

where, for the moment, the dominant economic interests remain consolidated

in large corporate structures? The answer is to be found in an examination

of what it means to educate for the public good.

The Public Good

The growing public sentiment that government

has failed and is doomed to fail when it attempts to develop collective

solutions to broad social problems is a measure of the success of economic

interests over the past fifteen years in redefining the public good. Public

good is increasingly defined and measured by the extent to which private

interests are allowed to extend the reach of the marketplace. Although

choice, as a general principle, is worth protecting, “its effectiveness

in addressing social problems depends on its being used in the context

of confident and legitimate government authority, not as an alternative

to such authority”.

Lost in the crisis quality of the debate

about private school choice is an understanding that public schools are

not merely service providers. Public schools are not merely places where

the individual’s or the society’s economic needs are met. Public schools

have a special status as producers of values, perspectives, knowledge,

and skills which are fundamental to community.

Historically, this public function was

widely celebrated. More recently, with the emergence of marketplace and

consumer analogies, individual customer satisfaction, rather than the public

good, has become a primary consideration.

Individualism, the promise of individual

freedom and personal happiness, has been a central tenet of the American

dream and is fundamental in American society. The danger we face is that

individualism, as exemplified by private school choice, may further isolate

Americans from each other and undermine the conditions of freedom. Kelly

summarizes this sentiment:

“Hopes for short-term gains have largely

eclipsed any sense of long-range national goals or principles. It is thus

small wonder no one can agree on how to ‘fix’ systems of public education

- which by their very nature are future oriented”.

The question, ‘Education for what?’ crystallizes

the issue of public good. A fundamental tension exists between two polarities.

On the one hand, education for democracy views education as fundamental,

with the responsibility of transmitting values and skills which sustain

democracy. In a democracy citizens play two roles: as informed, intelligent

arbiters of issues and as protectors of values. While a democracy may be

viewed as an open forum of values, not all values are equal. A few are

central: respect for minority opinions, freedom of expression, and allegiance

to reason over unreason.

On the other hand, education for economic

interest views education as a dependent variable. In this view, education’s

success is judged by whether it satisfies marketplace needs thus, the marketplace

determines the nature of schooling. Economic interests are narrowly personalized

with little commitment to the collective or broad public good. The question,

Does education work? is answered only in terms of personal, family or corporate

economic success.

This tension, between an America where

individuals are perceived as creating the good economic life for themselves

and an America where citizens possess the right and duty of self governance,

not as individuals, but as a community, is at the heart of the debate about

private school choice. At its core, the debate is about the extent to which

knowledge or access to knowledge is privileged. The effects of privilege

are most apparent in the disparities of resources available to wealthy

and poor school districts which Jonathan Kozol has documented in striking

fashion in his book, “Savage Inequalities.”

The issue is quite simple: Who in a democracy

has the right to know what? The policy question which follows is, Will

public resources be diverted from schools whose purpose is perpetuating

the public good? The answer to this question has implications for the parents

and children involved and for the nature of our collective future.

The concept of the public good suggests

that public education is neither exclusively public nor exclusively private.

Democracy is not just an instrument for accomplishing some other policy

objective. It is a way of living together in a pluralistic and difficult

world.

Private School Choice: The Marketplace

Metaphor

Private school choice has been offered

as a marketplace solution to the perceived crisis in education. Advocates

of a marketplace solution point to efficiency and quality as a consequence

of a competitive market structure. The simple analogy between choosing

a school and shopping at the mall for a pair of tennis shoes has great

appeal to some. Yet, in purely economic terms, the market and the exercise

of choice within that market, is fraught with uncertainty. Consequently,

a laissez faire setting does not assure quality, but, rather, demands consumer

vigilance.

The alternative, consumer protection through

the imposition of standards by some regulatory agency, has been a consequence

of consumers facing unacceptable levels of risk. Advocates of private school

choice are eager to escape minimal educational standards however, by embracing

a marketplace of educational providers they also give up the assurance

of quality.

Private school choice carries no inherent

focus, value, purpose, or quality it is merely a policy tool which can

be used to address some perceived educational problem. The historical record

of school choice reveals its instrumental nature and that history suggests

that choice produces results acceptable in a democratic society only when

sustained by authoritative government action and careful supervision.

How has choice been used in the past? Following

the elimination of a dual education system by the Supreme Court in 1954,

a number of states created alternative private school systems subsidized

by public funds, as mechanisms to avoid racial integration. In some states,

tuition vouchers were used to help defray the costs of nonsectarian private

schools. The federal courts ultimately ruled that no freedom-of-choice

plan would relieve local school authorities of the responsibility to desegregate

public schools.

During the 1970s, magnet schools, as manifestations

of choice, were used to facilitate integration. Through the intervention

of the federal courts, magnet schools within the public school system became

a way to minimize forced busing and yet integrate the public schools. By

1981-82, there were over a thousand magnet schools in the United States.

In some communities, where segregated schools

continued, magnet schools were used to improve the quality of education

available to minority children. New York’s District No. 4 had created 23

choice programs by 1985. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a controlled choice

program ended the drift toward segregation and narrowed the achievement

gap between minority and white students. In Milwaukee, private school choice

appeared not to improve the student achievement gap, although it did produce

higher levels of parental satisfaction.

The case for market-based school choice

rests on two claims: that there is evidence that choice works and that

there is an explanation for why it works. Evidence for the argument that

choice works is more mixed and uncertain than advocates have claimed. Although

the debate continues, the issue of whether choice works may not be as important

as why it appears to work in some instances in some communities. The marketplace

perspective holds that private school choice (including magnet schools)

“works” because it represents an alternative to government intervention,

control, and authority. Successful examples of choice are more appropriately

understood as having been the product of strong and authoritative government

leadership such as in Cambridge and East Harlem where public school choice

has been defined, controlled, and supported by the public. These successes

demonstrate that government controls are required to produce the promised

results. The marketplace cannot and will not secure the public good.

Conclusions

Since 1983, with the publication of A

Nation at Risk, it has been argued that the condition of public education

has put this nation at economic risk. While there is plenty of evidence

to support the claim of economic distress – declining profits, high levels

of urban unemployment, declining levels of wages and fringe benefits, a

growing international trade imbalance, a level standard of living – there

is no evidence that public schools are responsible for the conditions of

the American economy. Nevertheless, the solutions which have subsequently

emerged have been oriented to the marketplace – youth apprenticeships,

school-to-work, education for employment, tech prep, and private and public

school choice.

What has not emerged is a broad consensus

among citizens that private school choice is an appropriate and acceptable

alternative to public education. Although citizens support the concept

of public school choice, they do not support the use of public funds to

support private sectarian or nonsectarian school choice. Parents of public

school students continue to be supportive of the teachers and schools their

children attend (Elam, Rose and Gallup, 1994). This generalization erodes

in urban communities facing growing economic stress.

The concerns of parents in urban areas

are driven by the flight of large corporations from the city. The erosion

of an economic base which is fundamental to the maintenance of healthy

family and community structures has left the public schools as the most

visible remaining community institutions in urban settings. Communities,

families, and the schools that serve them simply cannot endure and thrive

in a climate of economic abandonment. Private school choice is a diversion

sponsored by those whose collective economic decisions have made life in

our urban community a daily struggle for survival.

References

Chubb, John E. and Moe, Terry M. Politics,

Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution,

1990.

Elam, Stanley, M., Rose, Lowell C., and

Gallup, Alec M. “The 26th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s

Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan (September 1994):

41-56.

Henig, Jeffrey R. Rethinking School Choice:

The Limits of the Market Metaphor. Princeton:Princeton University Press,

1994.

Kelly, Elizabeth A. Education, Democracy,

and Public Knowledge. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities. New

York: Crown Press, 1991.

Plank, David N. and Boyd, William Lowe.

“Antipolitics, Education, and Institutional Choice: The Flight From Democracy.”

American Educational Research Journal (Summer 1994): 263-281.

Witte, John. Third Year Report: Milwaukee

Parental Choice Program. Madison, WI: Robert La Follette Institute of Public

Affairs, 1993.