Jares 1

Stephanie Jares

Dr. Karey Harwood

MLS 501

10 December 2015

School Choice: Is School Choice a Good Solution or Good In Concept But Not In Practice?

School choice is an issue that has evolved in the United States since the time of the Founding Fathers

until present day. School choice is an emotional issue with supporters wanting what they believe is best

for children and critics who believe further socioeconomic stratification and segregation will result from

school choice. Through an analysis of the history of school choice, the reasons that are given by

supporters and opponents of school choice, a comparison and contrast of the types of schools and a

comparison of evidence of educational outcomes from different types of schools, research will be

presented to determine if school choice is a good solution or if school choice is good in concept but not in

practice.

In an examination of school choice it is important to define what school choice means. The non-profit

agency American School Choice defines school choice as “the ability for parents to choose the best fit for

their children on a case-by-case basis without having the traditional barriers of public school zoning and

private school tuition costs” (American School Choice). It is also important to differentiate between

public school choice and private school choice. American School Choice defines public school choice as:

Any publicly-funded vehicle that allows students to transcend conventional geographic boundaries, especially relating to school zoning/catchment areas. Public school choice includes things like magnet programs and exchange programs for special-case students within the District’s network of schools, Montessori schools that employ non-traditional classroom experiences, and charter schools that operate under completely independent governing boards (i.e. they are not managed by the local District). (American School Choice)

In addition, American School Choice defines private school choice as:

Any publicly-funded vehicle that allows students to transcend conventional financial boundaries, especially relating to private school tuition costs. Private school choice includes things like public vouchers given directly to parents, tax credits for parents able

Jares 2

to pay the private school tuition up-front, and educational savings accounts that parents can pull from whenever they need for whatever they need (much like an HSA). (American School Choice)

The school choice movement in the United States began early in our nation’s history with the

Founding Fathers. For two hundred years, from pre-colonial days in the 1630s to pre-Civil War 1830s,

schools in America were a combination of private schools and local religious schools. A few schools

were supported by taxes but the majority of parents paid for their child to attend the locally controlled

school of the parent’s choice. Parents hired tutors or if they could not afford a tutor they chose to send

their child to a religious school. Thomas Jefferson believed that the education system should be

centralized in the states and that parents should pay for their children to go to school. Jefferson called for

schools to be under local control because he thought that parents would be better administrators of

education than the federal government because parents were invested in their child’s success. Jefferson

stated:

But if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by any general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.… No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. (Segarra)

In Jefferson’s plan scholarships were offered by the government to parents who could not afford the

tuition. Jefferson believed that it was important that there was equal access to schools for children

regardless of their socioeconomic class because schools taught children to as Jefferson stated:

To work out their own greatest happiness, by showing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits. (Segarra)

Thomas Paine followed Jefferson’s plan with a plan of his own based on the idea that although

government would pay for education, the government would not have any control over schools.

Beginning in the 1830s and 1840s the current concept of a public school began to emerge. Schools

changed from tuition based, chosen by parents, to schools that were run by the government and

financially supported at the state level. These schools became known as “common schools” (Parents for

Jares 3

Choice in Education). Horace Mann was the first Massachusetts Secretary of Education and he is

credited for the idea of common schools. Mann’s ideas on education spread from Massachusetts to the

entire country. America in the 1830s and 1840s was a nation of immigrants and Mann believed that

through a common school education that was accessible to all children and was administered at the state

level America could establish a uniform national identity. Immigrants brought ideas that were influenced

by their home countries to America and government officials wanted to instill the goals of American

democracy in children and society. Common schools were seen as a means to teach American democratic

ideals. Private schools were viewed as not an option for everyone due to cost and common schools which

were funded by the taxpayers resulted in schools being an option for more children. Critics of the system

of common schools believed that government both controlling and financing education would lead to

parents losing their autonomy to choose the school that they believed was best for their child.

From the end of the Civil War through the early to mid-1900s school choice became an issue of

economics and race. Common schools also known as public schools were majority white in population.

With the flood of immigrants in the 1900s schools became a mixture of ethnic and religious groups and

private religious schools grew in popularity. When the Great Depression happened in the 1930s the loss

of jobs meant a loss of revenue for public schools and education began to suffer. The private school

system enrollment especially declined during the Great Depression because families could not afford

private school tuition. The end of World War II brought a change in public education because as soldiers

returned home and bought homes in the suburbs new schools began to emerge outside of cities. An

unfortunate result of this movement to the suburbs was the education system in the inner cities saw a loss

of revenue because predominantly white, middle class families left the cities to go to the suburbs. Inner

city schools became predominantly black in population and segregation became more of a national issue

than before World War II when segregation was a larger issue especially in certain regions such as the

South where schools were already segregated.

The issue of school choice emerged again in the 1950s with the Supreme Court Case of Brown v.

Board of Education (1954) which called for desegregation of schools. Martha Minow in her book In

Jares 4

Brown’s Wake Legacies of America's Educational Landmark addressed how she believed that the Brown

v. Board of Education decision resulted in an increase in parents who utilized school choice. Minow

stated: “During this period, “freedom of choice plans in education became a euphemism for resurgent

racial segregation” (Minnow 117). In order to avoid forced desegregation many whites chose to leave

public schools and enroll in private schools. Several states in the South opened private schools for the

sole reason of avoiding desegregation. School choice was allowed to be used for families that did not

want to be in a desegregated school. White students went to white schools and black students went to

black schools. Private schools became known as “segregation academies” because private schools

became a way to ensure that whites and blacks would remain separate rather than equal which gave the

concept of school choice a negative connotation (Carr).

The modern school choice movement is believed to have begun in 1955 and is credited to Dr. Milton

Friedman. Friedman’s article in 1955 “The Role of Government in Education” introduced Friedman’s

theory that government should financially support schools but should not have a role in school

administration. Friedman believed in autonomy of individuals and of families. He thought that this

autonomy should be respected by allowing families to utilize a voucher to pay for a school of their choice

as long as that school met “specified minimum standards” (Friedman, “The Role of Government in

Education”). Friedman believed that by allowing parents to choose schools competition would result that

would result in a “healthy variety of schools” (Friedman, “The Role of Government in Education”).

Friedman’s ideas were similar to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Adam Smith who believed that it

was necessary to separate government funding of education from government. Friedman believed that

parents should be able to choose where their tax dollars were spent for educating their child. School

choice would empower parents to take their money where they felt their child could be successful in a

school that met their child’s individual needs. Friedman’s ideas evolved into the school voucher

movement which was based on his belief that school choice would as he stated: “create effective

competition and improve performance in education, all to the eventual benefit of children, parents,

educators, taxpayers and the society at large” (Parents for Choice in Education). Friedman thought that

Jares 5

by separating government funding of education from government control of education, everyone,

especially the student, would benefit.

Ten years after Friedman’s work Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in

1965. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon

Baines Johnson, who thought the Act provided as Johnson stated: "full educational opportunity" as "our

first national goal" (United States Department of Education). This Act allowed students from lower

income families who chose to attend religious schools to receive federal government aid for academic

assistance. Federal support of religious schools was extremely controversial but the government

responded to that criticism by stating that the Act provided financial support directly to families that

chose to go to religious schools and not directly to the private school itself. Therefore the federal

government would not be seen as favoring the private school choice over public schools.

From the late 1960s through the 1980s the issue of school choice was viewed as a means for federal,

state and local governments, schools and families to enable desegregation especially in the South. The

government used the (ESEA) as a means to withhold federal funding if a school refused to desegregate.

Cities such as Charlotte, North Carolina also were influential in leading the desegregation movement. In

the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education (1971) the United States

Supreme Court decided that the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which ordered desegregation in

public schools, did not require Charlotte schools’ student population to be a composite of the area

surrounding the school. The Supreme Court’s decision also required that if a school was all white or all

black in population that the demographic of the school could not be a result of a policy of school

segregation. Busing was seen as a solution in Charlotte because the Court decision followed a series of

instances where busing had been successful as a method of desegregation. Busing did prove to have a

positive impact in Charlotte and in 1971 Charlotte was used as a national example of the success of

busing. Critics of the program included white parents who said that they would go to jail if forced to send

their child to a predominantly black school. West Charlotte High School, a predominantly black high

school, made national news in 1974 as evidence of how busing would lead to desegregation which would

Jares 6

lead to school improvement. When the school desegregated, conditions at the school immediately

improved. Arthur Griffin, Chairman of the Charlotte School Board from 1985-1997 directly attributed

upgrades to the school including a new parking lot and improvements to the gym and football stadium to

the desegregation at the school (Winerip).

Wake County, North Carolina is also an example of how desegregation in schools was successful in

the 1980s through the use of school choice. From the 1980s-1990s Wake County joined Charlotte-

Mecklenburg and Gilford Counties in a plan to use school choice through offering magnet schools and

specialized public schools in order to desegregate. Magnet schools and specialized public schools had the

goal of enrolling children without the restrictions of residential boundaries in order to promote diversity.

Enrollment numbers in the magnet and public schools were controlled in order to have diversity. There

was outreach into the county to parents to promote magnets and public schools in order to have a mixture

of socioeconomic classes and transportation was provided to families in order to eliminate obstacles. The

result was more diverse schools in Wake County due to school choice (Parcel and Taylor).

President Reagan in the 1980s brought the issue of school choice back into the news. Reagan was not

a supporter of busing in order to have school desegregation. In 1984 Reagan visited Charlotte and

Reagan called Charlotte’s busing plan: a failed “social experiment that nobody wants” (Michelson,

Nelson and Smith 1-2). Critics disagreed with Reagan and his speech was not supported by those in

attendance at the speech or by the Charlotte media. An article in The Charlotte Observer had the

headline: “You Were Wrong Mr. President” (Michelson, Nelson and Smith 2). In the article the authors

called Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s school busing plan to achieve desegregation “the most proudest

achievement of the past 20 years” (Michelson, Nelson and Smith 2). The article continued to commend

the desegregation plan for “overcoming the most difficult challenge American public education has ever

faced” (Michelson, Nelson and Smith 2).

Reagan was strongly influenced by Friedman’s theories of school choice and Friedman became one of

Reagan’s consultants on education. Reagan was more of a supporter of public school choice resulting in

competition and school improvement. Reagan believed that it was more important to have an educational

Jares 7

plan of accountability through standardized testing and government intervention in schools that were not

successful which included allowing parents school choice instead of a desegregation plan based on school

choice. William J. Bennett, Secretary of Education during the Reagan administration called the Reagan’s

“three C’s of education: content, character and choice” (Stallings 6). The cities of Cambridge,

Massachusetts, Montclair, New Jersey and East Harlem, New York enacted public school choice plans in

the 1980s. In 1989 Minnesota became the first state to have a school choice system known as “open

enrollment” (Corson). In Minnesota’s open enrollment system parents were allowed to choose a public

school outside their own district.

The 1990s were a decade of what Diane Ravitch in her book The Death and Life of the Great

American School System called a decade when the “choice movement gained new momentum” (Ravitch

118). In her book Ravitch showed how in the 1990s John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe’s book Politics,

Markets and America’s Schools gave supporters of school choice a new voice in their campaign. Chubb

and Moe believed similar to Friedman that public education could never be changed because as they

stated in their book:

The institution was owned by vested interests including teachers’ unions and myriad associations of principals, school boards, superintendents, administrators and professionals - not to mention education schools, book publishers, testing services and many other beneficiaries of the institutional status quo. (Ravitch 118)

As long as these groups were allowed to control public schools Chubb and Moe believed that failing

schools were “one of the prices Americans pay for choosing to exercise direct democratic control over

their schools” (Ravitch 118). Chubb and Moe thought that the only way to end this control was through

school choice. They agreed with Friedman that school choice would lead to competition and that

competition would lead to positive improvement in schools. Chubb and Moe wanted to eliminate all

higher administration in education. In their plan states would set requirements for schools and every

school would be free to run itself while being held accountable to the state government for certain

standards such as graduation rates and teacher certification. Chubb and Moe stated in their book: “when

it comes to performance, schools are held accountable from below, by parents and students who directly

Jares 8

experience their performance and are free to choose” (Ravitch 119). Critics of Chubb and Moe’s belief in

the importance of holding schools accountable feel that accountability is not always possible because not

all parents are informed and involved in their child’s school due to a variety of reasons including

socioeconomic status or educational background. Children who do not have parents who have the ability

or knowledge to utilize school choice will be left at a disadvantage in Chubb and Moe’s belief in

standards of accountability making school choice a good option for children.

The school choice movement grew in the 1990s following Chubb, Moe and Friedman’s work when the

first school choice program known as the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

began in 1990. The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is the school voucher program in the United

States that has existed the longest. When the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program started Milwaukee had

a high school dropout rate of 40 percent and those students who were in school had low grades with an

average grade of a D+ (Pitrof). The Governor of Milwaukee, Tommy Thompson, believed that if parents

were given a choice of schools then competition between public and private schools would result in an

improvement in the education system. Thompson stated:

Monopolies just don’t seem to work. A modified choice program is going to give people a choice, especially poor people who are locked into a school district that they have no opportunity to decide if that’s a good school district for their sons and daughters. (Pitrof)

When the program started in 1990, 350 children from low income families were eligible to use the

voucher if they wanted to attend a private non-religious school (Pitrof). Regulations were put in place

that Milwaukee Public Schools would not lose more than 1 percent of their student enrollment. The

voucher program was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1998 because the

Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that state vouchers could be used to pay for private religious schools.

Supporters of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program voucher program believed that it would

encourage families to stay in Milwaukee instead of moving to other cities. In addition, supporters believe

that students in Milwaukee who have utilized the voucher program have higher academic achievement

than students at public schools. Cecilia Elena Rouse of the National Bureau of Economic Research

measured the outcomes of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program in 1990 in her article "Private School

Jares 9

Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program." Rouse

concluded that students who utilized the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program to attend private schools

had higher math scores but there was not a measureable increase in reading scores of private school

students over public school students (Rouse 20-21).

Supporters including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker believe that the Milwaukee Parental Choice

Program has led to desegregation in public schools. Walker stated: "To me, the ultimate goal of Parental

Choice is put parents in charge. We will ensure every child -- regardless of background or birthright -- has

access to a quality education" (WITI Fox 6 Milwaukee, Wisconsin). Walker does believe in school

choice through the use of vouchers but similar to President Reagan Walker does not believe that school

choice should be used as a tool of desegregation. Walker is working to end Milwaukee’s school

desegregation program which is known as the Chapter 220 Program. In the Chapter 220 Program

minority students in the city of Milwaukee can apply to attend suburban historically white schools.

Similar to the desegregation programs in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the Chapter 220 program evolved in the

1970s following Brown v. Board of Education. Walker believes that there is declining interest in the

Chapter 220 program so the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is a more viable alternative.

Critics of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program provide the evidence that since 2005, Wisconsin

has invested almost $140 million dollars into choice schools that ended up being closed or removed from

the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (WITI Fox 6 Milwaukee, Wisconsin). When students attend

voucher schools in Milwaukee, they receive a voucher for $7,200 which adds on to an already deficient

budget of a public school district. Superintendent of Milwaukee Public Instruction Tony Evers stated:

If you look at the overall achievement level within the choice program in Milwaukee, it's been an experiment for almost 20 years and it's no different than it is at MPS, so to say it's a best practice I think is a stretch. I think traditional public schools are the cornerstone of democracy. If traditional public schools don't work well, then our nation doesn't work well. (WITI Fox 6 Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

In 1997, Friedman continued his support of school choice in his article "Public Schools: Make them

Private." Friedman addressed the system of education and his belief that through a voucher system and

the privatization of schools students could be successful. Friedman thought that through privatization a

Jares 10

system of free enterprise would develop where schools would compete for parents’ money and therefore

the school would have no choice but to improve or close. Freeman believed that the system of education

in America was on the decline and was leading to socioeconomic stratification. Friedman called the

American system “backwards” because he believed that education was not adapted to modern day and

needed a complete overhaul which Friedman believed could only happen with the reimplementation of

school choice and school vouchers (Friedman, "Public Schools: Make them Private"). Friedman stated:

I believe that the only way to make a major improvement in our educational system is through privatization to the point at which a substantial fraction of all educational services are rendered to individuals by private enterprises. Nothing else will destroy or even greatly weaken the power of the current educational establishment - a necessary precondition for radical improvement in our educational system. And nothing else will provide the public schools with the competition that will force them to improve in order to hold their clientele. (Friedman, "Public Schools: Make them Private")

Friedman was very adamant in his belief of the power of school choice and how school choice would

positively change the American education system. Friedman stated:

Support for free choice of schools has been growing rapidly and cannot be held back indefinitely by the vested interests of the unions and educational bureaucracy. I sense that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in one state or another, which will then sweep like wildfire through the rest of the country as it demonstrates its effectiveness. (Friedman, "Public Schools: Make them Private")

The federal government became involved in the school choice movement with the passage of the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. The No

Child Left Behind Act requires Title I schools to report to parents about the education that their child is

receiving in a specific school. If a school is falling below state standards for two consecutive years then

the school is required to let the parents know that they can choose to transfer their child to another school

in the same district including a charter school. In the 2006-2007 school year 120,000 children nationwide

transferred to a different school under the No Child Left Behind policies (United States Department of

Education: “No Child Left Behind Choices For Parents: Helping Families By Supporting and Expanding

School Choice”). No Child Left Behind requires that families from the lower socioeconomic classes be

given the first opportunity at choosing a different school for their child. Also parents can choose to send

their child to a different school if their child is attending what the No Child Left Behind Act defines as a

Jares 11

"persistently dangerous school," which varies from state to state in what “persistently dangerous” means

based on the resources and policies of specific schools (United States Department of Education: “Choice

Provisions in No Child Left Behind”). Unfortunately, although No Child Left Behind provides an

alternative for children to go to a different school if their parent utilizes school choice, there is not an

alternative for children of parents who are not informed of their options or involved in their child’s

education. In addition a child that has been harmed in a violent crime at their school is eligible for school

choice. States are required to let parents know that they have the option to send their child to another

school on or before the first day of the school year following the school being identified as needing

improvement. Schools are also required to provide transportation to lower socioeconomic families who

elect to choose another school. As President Bush’s Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings stated in

2008:

Parents know what is best for their children. Expanding educational options for parents is one of the hallmarks of the No Child Left Behind Act and it remains one of the President's highest priorities. (United States Department of Education: “No Child Left Behind Choices For Parents: Helping Families By Supporting and Expanding School Choice”)

The issue of school choice was argued before the United States Supreme Court in 2002 with the case

of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The issue that was brought to the Supreme Court was based on the

Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause prohibits government

laws that establish a government religion that is seen as the official religion of the country, favors one

religion or promotes religion over non-religion. (Legal Information Institute: "Establishment Clause").

The case involved the school voucher program of the state of Ohio which was known as the Ohio's Pilot

Project Scholarship Program. Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program gave vouchers to families who

chose to send their child to a public or private school of their choice. The voucher was given directly to

the parents and the parents could choose where they spent the voucher. 82 percent of the schools that

participated in the Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program during the 1999-2000 were private, religious

schools and 96 percent of the children utilized the vouchers to attend private religious schools. 60 percent

of the families that used the voucher were at or below the poverty line (Oyez IIT Chicago-Kent College

Jares 12

of Law at Illinois Tech: “Zellman V. Simmons Harris”). The Supreme Court decided that Ohio's Pilot

Project Scholarship Program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Supreme Court

Chief Justice Rehnquist stated:

The Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. (Oyez IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech: “Zellman V. Simmons Harris”).

In 2003 the issue of school choice was addressed in the United States Congress when Congress passed

the DC School Choice Incentive Act of 2003. The DC School Choice Incentive Act was reauthorized in

2011 by Congress and was named the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act or the SOAR Act.

The Act read: “Congress finds the following: Parents are best equipped to make decisions for their

children, including the educational setting that will best serve the interests and educational needs of their

child” (United States Department of Education: “District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship

Program”). The ESEA signed by President Johnson in 1965 was seen by Congress in 2003 as not

providing enough options for school choice for parents in Washington DC. Congress felt the solution was

to provide scholarships to families who wanted their child to attend a private or public school of their

choice. The Act reads that it was intended:

to provide low-income parents residing in the District of Columbia, particularly parents of students who attend elementary schools or secondary schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316), with expanded opportunities for enrolling their children in other schools in the District of Columbia, at least until the public schools in the District of Columbia have adequately addressed shortfalls in health, safety, and security, and the students in the District of Columbia public schools are testing in mathematics and reading at or above the national average. (United States Department of Education: “District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program”)

Today, in 2015 President Obama and the Obama Administration are advocates of school choice

through the option of charter schools. Obama however, is not a supporter of school vouchers because

Obama believes that vouchers have proven to have little or no benefit to a child’s education. In 2014 the

U.S Government Accountability Office released a report about the DC School Choice Incentive Act of

Jares 13

2003. The report concluded that the federal government did not have “financial systems, controls,

policies, and procedures” to ensure that the voucher system was being correctly administered and there

was a question that the funds were being disbursed as mandated under law (United States Government

Accountability Office: "District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, Actions Needed to

Address Weaknesses in Administration and Oversight" 5). In 2014 Obama stated:

When you end up taking a look at it, it (vouchers) didn’t actually make that much of a difference. So what we have been supportive of is something called charters. Which, within the public school system gives the opportunity for creative experiments by teachers, by principals to start schools that have a different approach. As a general proposition, vouchers have not significantly improved the performance of kids that are in these poorest communities. (Fox Nation: “Unedited: Bill O'Reilly's Exclusive Interview with President Obama”).

When discussing school choice and vouchers it is also important to have a clear understanding of the

differences between traditional public, charter, magnet and private schools. The United States

Department of Education defined public schools as:

Primary and secondary public schools are governed by local school districts and their boards. Policies and regulations tend to be uniform across all schools within a district, but can vary among districts. Individual schools are administered within the confines of these general requirements, so autonomy is limited. States vary as to the curricular freedom they give local schools, but most impose a basic statewide curricular framework which local schools may embellish to a limited degree, and also issue a statewide list of approved textbooks for each grade. (International Affairs Office, U.S. Department of Education: “Organization of U.S. Education: The School Level.")

Private schools are defined by The United States Department of Education as:

Private primary and secondary schools are governed by their own self-appointed boards of trustees and raise their own operating incomes without state or local government support. They may be operated by independent boards or they may be affiliated with a religious organization such as a diocese, religious order, local church, or state or national religious organization. Private schools make their own hiring and admissions policies and determine their own curricula and other academic policies. Private schools do, however, pay close attention to local and state school curricula and graduation policies in order to facilitate the transfer of students to and from public schools and to ensure that students who graduate from secondary programs have met or exceeded the expectations for state graduation requirements and – when appropriate - for admission to postsecondary institutions. (International Affairs Office, U.S. Department of Education: “Organization of U.S. Education: The School Level.")

Jares 14

Two other types of schools that are a large part of the school choice movement are charter schools and

magnet schools. Charter schools are defined by The United States Department of Education as:

Public schools that operate with freedom from many of the local and state regulations that apply to traditional public schools. Charter schools allow parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs and others the flexibility to innovate and provide students with increased educational options within the public school system. Charter schools are sponsored by local, state, or other organizations that monitor their quality while holding them accountable for academic results and responsible fiscal practices. (International Affairs Office, U.S. Department of Education: “Organization of U.S. Education: The School Level.")

Magnet schools are defined by The United States Department of Education as:

Designed to attract students from diverse social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. They focus on a specific subject, such as science or the arts; follow specific themes, such as business/technology or communications/humanities/law; or operate according to certain models, such as career academies or a school-within-a-school. Some magnet schools require students to take an exam or demonstrate knowledge or skill in the specialty to qualify to go to the school, while others are open to students who express an interest in that area. (International Affairs Office, U.S. Department of Education: “Organization of U.S. Education: The School Level.")

There is a definite difference in enrollment and graduation rates between public and private schools.

According to the United States Department of Education in 2013 one in ten students attended a private

school. Total enrollment in private schools has decreased from 11.7 percent in 1995 to 10 percent in

2013 to a projected enrollment number from the United States Department of Education of 9.1 percent by

2021. The decrease in enrollment is attributed to Catholic school enrollments on the decline and also the

emergence of public charter schools. A comparison of the graduation rates for the 2011-2012 academic

year according to the National Center for Education Statistics were 89 percent in public schools, 91

percent for public charter schools and 92 percent for private schools (Institute of Education Sciences

National Center for Education Statistics: "Projections of Education Statistics to 2021 Fortieth Edition").

An analysis of the graduation rates shows that the graduation rates of public, charter and private schools

are all very similar therefore there is no advantage to a student who attends a private school in order to

ensure high school graduation. In the same study the number of high school graduates who attended a

four year college was 40 percent for public schools, 37 percent for public charter schools and 64 percent

Jares 15

for private schools (Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Statistics: "Projections

of Education Statistics to 2021 Fortieth Edition"). These statistics especially the number of high school

graduates who attend a four year college are both reflections of the quality of the school and also the

student who attends the school. Specifically the higher number of students attending college who attend

private schools can be directly attributed to the majority of students from private schools being from

higher socioeconomic classes than the majority of students who attend public schools. Therefore the

socioeconomic advantage of the typical private school student enables them with the financial resources

necessary to attend college.

When looking more closely at the structure of public schools in comparison to private schools it is

important to do a side by side comparison to show what the differences and similarities are that parents

consider when choosing a school for their child. In the article "Comparison of Private and Public Schools

A Look at the Differences and Similarities" Robert Kennedy examined the similarities and differences

between public and private schools. Kennedy had eight criteria that he analyzed. First he asked what is

being taught? Public schools’ curriculums must follow state standards and are not allowed to discuss

religion. Several court cases have involved what was seen as a violation of the First Amendment of the

Constitution due to the separation of church and state. Also the Establishment Clause of the Constitution

is often evoked because it prohibits any government established organizations such as schools to favor

any religion in public school (Legal Information Institute: "Establishment Clause"). In contrast, a private

school is allowed to establish its own curriculum because parents choose that school when they agree

with the curriculum the private school offers. Kennedy saw a similarity between public and private

school curriculums because both public and private require a specific number of credits in order to

graduate. Next, Kennedy analyzed admissions standards of public schools compared to private schools.

Public schools are required to accept everyone who lives within that specific school’s boundaries. A

private school differs because a private school can choose who they accept due to their established

standards and they are not required to provide evidence of why they refused admission for a student.

Jares 16

Kennedy showed the similarity in admission between public and private because both public and private

schools conduct tests and review a student’s prior performance when placing them in a grade.

The next comparison that Kennedy used is accountability which he shows is very similar in public and

private schools. Public schools are required to follow federal, local and state laws such as the No Child

Left Behind Act and Title I. Private schools are required to also follow federal, local and state laws and

report such things as attendance and curriculum. In his next comparison Kennedy discussed

accreditation. Public schools are required to maintain accreditation. Private schools do not have to be

accredited but the majority of private schools are accredited. Then, Kennedy compared graduation rates

which tend to be higher in private schools. Kennedy believed that the higher graduation rate in private

schools is due to the high dropout rate in public schools and the ability of private schools to choose who

they accept. Also private schools can expel a student from school without the policies and procedures

that regulate expelling students in public schools.

Kennedy then analyzed cost. Public schools are not allowed to charge any tuition to attend their

schools and schools are funded through tax dollars. In contrast private schools charge tuition. According

to the National Center for Education Statistics the average cost for private elementary school in 2014 was

$7,770 and the average cost of private high school was $13,030 (Institute of Education Sciences

National Center for Education Statistics: "Projections of Education Statistics to 2021 Fortieth Edition").

Discipline is another way that Kennedy showed public and private schools differ. In public schools

student discipline is enforced using laws and Constitutional rights. In private schools when parents

choose to send their child to a private school the parent agrees to the specific rules of discipline of that

private school. Safety is also an issue when comparing public and private schools. Public schools have

to accept all students from all socioeconomic backgrounds. That regulation of acceptance of everyone

often results in violence. Public school districts are faced with limited options due to tight budgets and

legal constraints of where they can send students who are prone to violent behavior since school is

compulsory. In contrast private schools have a smaller student population from a similar socioeconomic

background. Private schools have very controlled environments due to the contract that the parent enters

Jares 17

when they choose to send their child to the private school. Finally Kennedy compared teacher

certification in public and private schools. In public schools teachers are required to be state certified in

teaching. The majority of private schools do not require state teacher certification, but instead a

Bachelors degree in the subject that the teacher is teaching is typically the requirement to teach in a

private school.

There are also several forms of school choice. James Ryan in his book Five Miles Away: A World

Apart: One City, Two Schools, and the Story of Educational Opportunity in Modern America defined four

types of school choice. The first form, intradistrict choice gives the student the option of attending a non-

neighborhood school within a single district. The student applies to the school and race is not a factor in

the admissions process. In intradistrict choice parents list schools in order of preference and school

officials assign the students to schools (Ryan 185). Ryan then defined the second form of school choice,

interdistrict choice which allows statewide open enrollment. Ryan provided evidence that interdistrict

choice has been unsuccessful because less than 1 percent of students utilize interdistrict choice

nationwide. Ryan attributed the failure of interdistrict choice to limited funding, limited transportation

and that most districts see transfer students as having a limited benefit because funds do not transfer with

the student. Also most of the students who transfer are white and from higher socioeconomic classes.

Ryan saw interdistrict choice as leading to a feeling of inequality and uses the example of Governor’s

School in Richmond which was housed in the same building as Thomas Jefferson High School.

Governor’s School is 75 percent white and had many more resources than Thomas Jefferson whose

population was mostly black students (Ryan 191).

Ryan introduced Patrick Henry Charter School in Richmond as an example of the third form of school

choice which is charter schools. Patrick Henry opened in 2008 under controversy because it was seen as

catering to affluent white parents. Ryan agrees with the option of charter schools because he thinks they

are a good alternative to public schools. Charter schools use public funds, they are tuition free and have

fewer restrictions than public schools (Ryan 198). The final form of school choice that Ryan explored is

vouchers. Ryan examined the theories of Chubb and Moe who believe that the market should control

Jares 18

public schools through choice and competition. Also the theories of Coons and Sugarman are presented

as a discussion of how vouchers equalize opportunities. Ryan believed that school choice can be used as

a way to improve urban schools and educational equality (Ryan 202).

A main issue in the discussion of school choice is vouchers. Public schools are supported by tax

dollars and the main question that critics of school choice have is about whether or not tax dollars should

also be directed towards vouchers for parents who choose to send their children to private school. The

majority of vouchers are created and distributed by states. Supporters of the voucher system believe that

it gives families, especially families from lower income areas the chance to leave a school where their

child is not being successful and that the voucher system promotes competition between schools. As

discussed earlier, the voucher system was started in 1991 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with the goal of

giving lower socioeconomic families more options when they were choosing a school for their children.

In the first year although 350 families were eligible for the vouchers, 50 vouchers went unused and only

300 families utilized the school voucher program in Milwaukee (Pitrof). Today 13 states and the District

of Columbia utilize the voucher system. Those states are: Arizona, Colorado, Washington D.C., Florida,

Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin

(Freedom from Religion Foundation: "Dispelling the Myth of “School Choice”).

Another argument supporters of vouchers utilize is that since parents pay taxes they should not have to

pay for private school since their money is already being utilized in the public school system. School

vouchers are set up by the state and normally the state reimburses the parent the amount of money that

their tax dollars would have been used for public school if they choose to send their child to public

school. Parents can choose to use the voucher to pay some or all of their child’s tuition at a private

school. The amount ranges from $2,000 to $5,000 based on the school voucher plan of the state (National

Conference of State Legislatures: “School Voucher Laws: State By State Comparison”). A few state

voucher programs have agreements with private schools that the amount of the voucher will cover the

entire tuition. Payments are made for vouchers by the state directly to the parents’ school of choice. The

American Foundation for Children reports that school vouchers were issued in the amount of $800

Jares 19

million during the 2011-2012 school year (“Parental Choice in Education.” The Heritage Foundation).

Some states have implemented tax credits for parents instead of vouchers. These states have attempted

these tax credits in an effort to avoid the critics of school vouchers who believe that the vouchers violate

the First Amendment. Very few tax credits have been issued and the tax credits rarely cover the full cost

of tuition at private schools.

James Tooley addressed the issue of school vouchers in his article "The Role of Government In

Education Revisited: The Theory and Practice of Vouchers, With Pointers to Another Solution for

American Education.” Tooley believed that the problem with vouchers is that many people view

vouchers as an end to solve the problems in education and others view vouchers as a means to the

option of a private school education. Tooley, like his predecessor Friedman, felt that the system of

vouchers had to be reformed but the problem with reforms is that the government would need to be

involved in education and education would not be successful with government control. Tooley

theorized that the issue with vouchers is that very few parents utilize vouchers and therefore vouchers

are not a true means of school reform. Tooley stated:

Sixty years of School Choice (with capital letters, referring to that brought about through government reform) has delivered fewer than 5% of American children. However, school choice (in lower case, denoting the free acts of individual parents and children, outside of government reform) has delivered three times more, 14%. Indeed, the number of children in the school choice movement is 70 times more than the number of children in School Choice voucher programs (Tooley "The Role of Government In Education Revisited)

The state of North Carolina serves as a recent example of a state where there has been debate between

supporters and opponents of school choice and vouchers. In July of 2015 the North Carolina Supreme

Court ruled that $10.8 million dollars of state tax dollars can be utilized to assist families who choose to

send their child to a private or religious school (The News and Observer: “NC Supreme Court upholds

school voucher program” ). The Court ruling was based on a study from the North Carolina Department

of Public Instruction that showed that children from lower socioeconomic families were not at grade level

when they completed the annual state assessment test. Supporters of the ruling believed that the Court’s

decision empowered parents, especially parents from lower socioeconomic classes to choose the

Jares 20

education they felt was best for their child without the government deciding for them. Senate Leader Phil

Berger stated:

This ruling makes clear that parents – not education bureaucrats or politicians – ought to be able to choose the educational pathway best suited to their children’s needs, and it empowers thousands of low-income families across the state to make that important choice. (The News and Observer: “NC Supreme Court upholds school voucher program”)

In contrast, opponents of the North Carolina Supreme Court decision believe that private schools are

not subject to the same admissions and standards that public schools have so therefore state money is

going to a private school that is not being monitored by the government for the value of the tax dollars.

After the North Carolina Supreme Court decision Burton Craige, a Raleigh attorney representing voucher

challengers, stated: “We have entered a dangerous new era when public funds can be sent to

unaccredited, standardless private schools that are free to discriminate based on disability and religion.”

Critics of school choice also believe that public schools serve society and teach children for the benefit of

society and that positive societal contributions are lost when vouchers are issued. North Carolina

Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson who disagreed with the July 2015 decision stated:

The main constitutional flaw in this program is that it provides no framework at all for evaluating any of the participating schools’ contribution to public purposes; such a huge omission is a constitutional black hole into which the entire program should disappear. (The News and Observer: “NC Supreme Court upholds school voucher program” )

Similar to the case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, controversy surrounded the North Carolina Supreme

Court decision because of the question of if vouchers used for religious schools violated the State

Constitution.

Supporters of school choice believe that parents not the school district should have the right to decide

what is best for the child. In her article “School Choice Is the Most Critical Civil Rights Issue of Our

Time” Michelle D. Bernard, a supporter of school choice, addressed this question when she compared the

issue of school choice to the issue of desegregation from the Supreme Court Case of Brown v. Board of

Education. Bernard presented evidence in favor of school choice because she believed that school choice

accomplishes three goals. First school choice allows parents to choose what is in the best interests of

their child by having the parent decide which school they feel would serve the best interests of their child.

Jares 21

Second, school choice promotes the American dream because if a child is in a school where they can do

their best then they have the best chance of an opportunity of a strong, prosperous future. Third, Bernard

believed that school choice promotes “inclusion, integration and tolerance” (Bernard “School Choice Is

the Most Critical Civil Rights Issue of Our Time”). Schools are often used as a means to divide rich and

poor neighborhoods and Bernard saw school choice as a method of ending that division because with

parents being able to choose a school for their kids then children could go to schools outside of their

neighborhood.

Bernard’s comparison of the school choice movement to the Civil Rights Movement is a comparison

that has been utilized by many advocates of the issue of school choice. The main goal of the Civil Rights

movement was equality. School choice proponents see school choice as a way to ensure equality. Public

schools in the United States continue to see declining graduation rates. The United States Department of

Education reported in 2008 that 1700 high schools, what Bernard calls “dropout factories” where less

than 60 percent of students graduate existed in the United States (Bernard “School Choice Is the Most

Critical Civil Rights Issue of Our Time”). The majority of the “dropout factories” are schools with a

racial minority population of African-Americans and Latinos (Bernard “School Choice Is the Most

Critical Civil Rights Issue of Our Time”). If these students have no other option than the “dropout

factory” then how can there be a chance at the equality that was the main reason for the Civil Rights

movement? How can students who have no choice but to go to school in a “dropout factory” have an

equal opportunity at a prosperous future? A 40 percent chance does not equate to equality. Children in

these “dropout factories” deserve the chance at a quality education. This chance can come through school

choice when a child has an informed, involved parent which the majority of parents in a school with a 40

percent dropout rate. For those children whose parents are not involved in their education “dropout

factories” need to be chosen to be fixed as a choice to benefit those children who are a victim of that

statistic.

Another benefit supporters of school choice believe is a direct benefit and result of school choice is

socioeconomic integration. Richard D. Kahlenberg in his article “From All Walks of Life: New Hope for

Jares 22

School Integration” showed how children could excel academically if a school environment was

socioeconomically mixed. Kahlenberg provided evidence of the benefit of school choice especially for

children from lower socioeconomic families. Kahlenberg studied several school systems including

schools that provided incentives to families in order to have their school chosen. These schools included

specialized magnet schools such as magnet schools in Wake County that were deliberately opened in low-

income areas in order to attract middle class families. In addition Kahlenberg studied schools in the

suburbs who received financial benefits for accepting lower income students. These schools included

schools in Cambridge, Massachusetts where all schools are now magnet schools where parents can

choose which of the magnets best meets their child’s needs. Kahlenberg also wrote about a Montessori

school in Hartford, Massachusetts which is located in a very poor neighborhood but has a long waiting

list of middle class families waiting to attend because of the quality of education. This Montessori school

serves as an example of how socioeconomic integration would be the end through the justified means of

school choice.

Kahlenberg also provided further evidence of the benefits of socioeconomic integration through school

choice when he wrote about the Coleman Report from 1966. The Coleman Report studied 600,000

students in 4,000 schools and the results proved that academic performance was directly related to the

socioeconomic status of the student population. Therefore socioeconomic integration that resulted from

parents being allowed to choose the school that their child attended could lead to better opportunity for

that child because of better academic performance (Kahlenberg 2).

Kahlenberg believed that it is necessary for the view of the benefits of the neighborhood school to

change in order to accomplish socioeconomic integration. Kahlenberg stated in his article:

In addition the neighborhood school does not have the same resonance it had three decades ago. Although Americans are divided on private school vouchers, they overwhelmingly support giving greater choice and options to students within the public school system. (Kahlenberg 10).

Kahlenberg also utilized the statement of Horace Mann who in 1837 said that public education should be

“the great equalizer” (Kahlenberg 2). Mann believed that public schools had to be schools where “the

Jares 23

children of all classes, rich and poor, should partake as equally as possible in the privileges of the

enterprise” (Kahlenberg 2).

Opponents of the school choice movement disagree with school choice for several reasons. First they

believe that school choice does not allow for equal opportunity. One opponent to school choice, Martha

Minnow presented her opposition to the rhetoric of school choice in her article “Confronting the

Seduction of Choice: Law, Education, and American Pluralism.” Minnow believed that supporters of

school choice appealed to the emotions of society instead of working towards solving the problems of

education. Minnow was also similar to Mann who believed that American society needed an identity and

that education was essential to that identity. Minnow stated:

The captivating appeal of the rhetoric of choice obscures the dangers and masks the influence of choice policies on the character of schools, social identity and polity. No single umbrella can contain our conflicting values, certainly not one as apparently innocuous as choice. Yet choice offers a tempting avenue for channeling- or papering over-deep conflicts over religion, race, immigration, national identity and even the meaning and content of school choices. (Minnow 816).

Minow also believed that it was important that society benefit from the education system and that

school choice would lead to children not being prepared to be members of society. Minnow saw

education as essential the common good and that school choice could be used as a tool that could promote

the existing inequalities of society. Minow stated:

In light of existing preferences and inequalities the options of private schooling and public subsidies for school vouchers, magnet schools and charter schools can easily undermine integration along lines of race, class, gender and disability-unless the school choice arrangement includes deliberate integration dimensions. The polity needs to prepare the next generation not only for jobs but also for democracy and citizenship, making schooling a crucial collective good not necessarily best guided by individual family decisions. (Minnow 817).

Another reason that opponents of school choice give for not agreeing with school choice is that

allowing school choice has not produced any tangible results. Diane Ravitch originally was a supporter

of school choice but now is an opponent of school choice. Ravitch is now an opponent because she

believed that school choice has evolved into a movement of charter schools but the charter schools have

not proven that they are a beneficial alternative for families. Ravitch in her book The Death and Life of

Jares 24

the Great American School System explained how she was originally an advocate of the school choice

movement. Ravitch stated:

There was an undeniable appeal to the values associated with choice: freedom, personal empowerment, deregulation, the ability to chart one’s own course. All of those values appealed to me and many others. The anti-choice side was saddled with defending regulation, bureaucracy and poor academic results. How much easier it was to promise (and hope for) the accomplishments, successes and rewards that had not been achieved and could not yet be demonstrated, but were surely out there on the other side of the mountain (Ravitch 128).

Ravitch also agrees with Minow that school choice can also lead to segregation due to the different

admissions systems of public, private and charter schools. Public schools are required to admit all

students while private schools can selectively choose who they admit. Ravitch used the example of the

KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) which is a charter school. KIPP offers admission to the school

through a lottery. The families that apply for the lottery are often from lower socioeconomic

neighborhoods and also are involved in their child’s education. Ravitch believed that the lottery would be

detrimental to the public schools in the lower socioeconomic areas because those schools would lose the

involved parents through the lottery system. Also Ravitch provided evidence that charter schools have a

very small student population where English is their second language (ESL) or students with special

needs. Segregation can be the result from charter schools lack of enrollment of ESL students or special

needs because the lottery system is not as inclusive of those groups. (Ravitch 135-136).

Opponents of school choice also believe that charter and private schools are not always better

academic choices for families over a public school. Ravitch discussed the 2003 National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment from the United States Department of Education. The

assessment was a measurement of math scores of students in public, private and charter schools. Math

was believed to be a better indication of a school because the NAEP believed that a child’s math skills

were not as much of an indication of their home life in contrast to reading skills because reading skills are

more strongly influenced at home. The factors of demographics were removed from the assessment. The

final results of the NAEP assessment showed that the math scores from the public school students were

higher than charter and private schools. Since the 2003 NAEP study various other studies have shown

Jares 25

that there is little or often no measurable academic superiority in a private or charter school over a public

school. The choice of a charter school is often questioned by critics like Ravitch who stated:

Charters were supposed to be research and development laboratories for discovering better ways of educating hard-to-educate children. They were not intended to siphon away the most motivated students and families in the poorest communities, but to address some of the public schools’ most urgent problems. (Ravitch 146).

The “siphoning away” that Ravitch referred to is a main argument against school choice.

Critics of school choice believe that it only benefits families from upper socioeconomic classes and that

children from lower socioeconomic will continue to suffer and be stuck in low preforming public schools

while other parents will actively get their child out of the school through choice. School choice is seen as

a further way to stratify socioeconomic classes.

Dr. Karey Harwood, an ethics professor at NC State University and public school advocate who was

interviewed for the AlterNet article "The ugly truth about school choice” stated:

When they talk about choice, whose choices are they referring to? Are the children of people who are savvy enough to get out of the public schools the only children who are worth educating in our society? What happens to the children who don’t get out? It seems the [people behind School Choice Week] knowingly embrace the idea of creating a second tier of schools for those American citizens who don’t or can’t ‘choose’ – and they are perfectly okay with a divided society of winners and losers. (Rawls “The ugly truth about school choice.”)

The “divided society” that Harwood referred to is a recurrent theme of the anti-school choice

movement. Christine Manuel Kushner, Chair of the Wake County School Board in Raleigh, North

Carolina addressed the ramifications of school choice on society in her speech “The real crisis in public

education, and how to fix it." Kushner’s belief that public school education is essential to the collective

good of society is similar to Mann, Minow, Ravitch and Harwood. A public school education is seen as a

tool to educate the members of American society in the democratic values and civic responsibilities of the

collective community of America. Kushner believed that school choice would be detrimental to

American society due to the loss of students who chose a private over a public education. Kushner

stated: “I deeply believe that public schools are the single most important American institution to fulfill

the great promise of our nation’s ideals” (Kuchner: “The real crisis in public education, and how to fix

Jares 26

it"). Public schools according to Kushner developed a strong community and an emphasis of the

importance of equality of opportunity and school choice is damaging to the community ideals. Kushner

believed that school choice damaged the balance of the community because vouchers, charter schools and

private schools benefit the individual while the community suffers. Kushner stated: “Unfortunately, we

have lost sight of the core values of public schools because community is being overshadowed by

exclusivity and individual choice.” (Kuchner: “The real crisis in public education, and how to fix it").

This “exclusivity” that Kushner refers to comes from parents who leave the community and according to

Kushner fail as citizens to support the community because they are only concerned about what is in the

best interests of their child and not the community.

The No Child Left Behind Act which was a foundation of the School Choice Movement has been

debated in Congress since it was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. On December 9,

2015 The No Child Left Behind Act was made “obsolete” because Congress voted to approve a new Act

known as the Every Student Succeeds Act which is expected to be signed by President Obama (Wong

“The Bloated Rhetoric of No Child Left Behind’s Demise”). Aliya Wong in her article “The Bloated

Rhetoric of No Child Left Behind’s Demise” wrote about how the Every Student Succeeds Act will return

schools to local control instead of federal control. Wong stated:

Schools will still be held accountable for student performance, but states can determine the nuances of how that will take place. They’ll have to use “college-and-career ready” standards and intervene when those expectations aren’t met, but states will get to design their own standards and intervention protocol. They’ll still be required to administer annual testing in certain grades, ensure at least 95 percent of students participate, and disaggregate data based on students’ race, income, and disability status, but they can use other factors on top of testing to assess student performance, and the details of how the testing happens and how the scores are interpreted are up to states. (Wong “The Bloated Rhetoric of No Child Left Behind’s Demise”)

As the Every Student Succeeds Act is implemented at the state level it will be interesting to see how the

influence of the school choice movement will affect the new emphasis of state control of education due to

the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act.

The underlying issue in the school choice movement is there is a critical need for education reform in

America. School choice is a way out of a school that is not performing but school choice is an escape

Jares 27

from the commitment to improve the American institution of public education. American history has

shown that in order for any reform to be successful there needs to be unity and not division and

demonstrable results that benefit the majority of society and not the minority. America is a relatively new

country with a young sense of identity comprised of multiple ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds of

its people. A strong sense of a unifying identity is essential for the success of America and public schools

can be used to teach American identity. If children are taught an education that varies both in character

and content then the upcoming members of society will not benefit the collective good.

School choice is an option but not the best option for all. Several studies have shown that students

who utilize school choice do not do better academically than their public school counterparts. Public

school budgets are directly impacted when taxpayer dollars are removed and utilized at private schools

that are unregulated and not held to the same standards of public schools. School choice leads to children

being left behind whose parents have a limited education or limited economic resources. Private schools

are not subject to the same academic testing standards, accreditation and regulations that public schools

are. Supporters of school choice believe that parents should have the freedom to decide what is best for

their child. Although parental choice is important not all parents are the best judges of what truly is in the

best interest of their child’s education and for the benefit of the collective good education needs to benefit

all children.

Also school choice can lead to segregation because when children are sent to a private school they are

sent to a school with peers of a similar background. This limits the perspective of children because they

are not interacting with a true measure of American society which is more prevalent in public schools.

Public schools are a mixture of races, religions, ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds which

truly benefits children through an unlimited exposure to all types of people and ideas that are not always

found in private schools.

The question of who truly benefits from school choice remains to be answered. What is most

important in this education debate is which side will benefit children and education. Although the debate

Jares 28

over school choice will more than likely continue there is no debate that is more important than the future

of education in America because without educating children America will not have a future.