Nine phoney assertions about school choice

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 1993 by Jeanne Allen

The creaming argument: Choice will leave behind the poor and most difficult to educate, while good students will be "creamed" into the best schools.

Adherents of this view presume that most minority or lower-income parents do not know the difference between good and bad schools and that their children thus will end up in the latter. Hence, the argument goes, choice plans are unfair because they separate the "haves" from the "have-nots."

While the creaming theorists are concerned about inequality under a choice plan, they seem to ignore that today's education system is extremely unequal. The "haves" already have choice because they possess the money to choose a private school for their children. The "have-nots," meanwhile, are trapped in major urban school systems where the quality of education is appalling despite heavy spending by the school districts.

Choice is a tool to reduce this inequality. The evidence shows that choice improves all schools, not just a few, and that poor parents are quite able to find the best schools. This is very clear in the case of magnet schools, which are specialized, offer unique programs, and are designed to attract children of all races. They constitute a limited form of parental choice, in that parents opt to send their children there in place of the school to which they were assigned. They post significantly better results than other public schools. Large magnet school systems have been functioning for more than a decade in over 100 cities nationwide.

Adherents of the creaming argument contend that magnet schools nationwide can boast success simply because they attract smart children of smart and very involved parents. Yet, the evidence on many long-established magnet schools suggests this is not the reason. They credit their success to the child's excitement at being in the school and its ability to tailor lessons to the needs of individual students. Magnets, in fact, do not enroll children selectively. Indeed, since demand is high, they generally operate by lottery to ensure that all parents have an equal opportunity at a limited number of spaces. Moreover, refuting the assertions of choice critics, parents of these children are not necessarily the most involved and best educated.

Evidence suggests, meanwhile, that poor and disadvantaged parents are just as capable as better-educated or higher-income parents of distinguishing between good and bad schools. The problem today is that poor parents rarely are given the opportunity to do so. When they have the opportunity and are given full information about the choices open to them, they choose well.

Consider the case of New York's East Harlem School District 4. In 1974, its children scored the lowest of any of the city's school districts in state assessments. Central office officials blamed their students' failure on the bad influence and lack of involvement of parents. Then, a bold district administration instituted a plan that gives teachers authority to design and run their own schools and parents the right to choose among them. Teachers joined administrators in launching a comprehensive outreach program to inform parents about the diversity of options then available. By 1986, students from District 4 ranked 16th out of 32 in reading and math scores. When asked to choose among a variety of schools for their children, the poorest and most desolate of East Harlem parents made good choices. These decisions usually were based on academic criteria.