Nine phoney assertions about school choice

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

The accountability argument is also used to advance claims that private schools, left to their own devices, will discriminate. Yet, all constructive choice proposals require that schools follow legal accountability requirements and Federal anti-discrimination laws.

Money issues

The choice is expensive argument: There are large hidden costs associated with school choice programs. Transportation, for instance, would be so prohibitive as to offset benefits.

Choice does not imply higher costs, even higher transportation outlays for large districts. "A system of educational choice need not cost more than current educational systems, and might cost less," says Chubb. "If the supply of schools is allowed to respond to demand, the supply is likely to expand, with relatively small numbers of large comprehensive schools being replaced by larger numbers of small, specialized schools. This expansion could easily occur without the construction or acquisition of new facilities if several schools

shared a building."

Chubb's view firmly is grounded in experience. The choice program in East Harlem District 4 was created among 20 pre-existing school buildings. Today, students can select from 52 alternative schools, many of which share a building with other schools. Thus, wider choice does not necessarily mean increased overhead on transportation costs. This schools-within a-school concept Would be very appropriate for rural areas where transportation expenses could mount if students needed to travel farther to their chosen school.

Choice plans actually may reduce transportation costs in many instances because demand might lead to new schools. Overhead administrative costs very likely would far since, as Chubb explains, "There is every reason to believe that the administrative structure of a choice system would be less bureaucratized than today's public school systems, and look more like private educational systems, where competition compels decentralization and administrative savings."

There is ample evidence that a market-driven education system would spur improvements in the way schools operate, and thus improve education for America's children. Despite this, school choice has its critics. Many are motivated by the challenge to their bureaucratic power that is posed by choice; others by misunderstandings and misplaced concerns.

Some critics worry that parents can not or are not equipped with the necessary information to make wise choices about their children's education. This view enormously underestimates the common sense of ordinary Americans. It also conveys the startling suggestion that today's bureaucratic schools are in the best interests of students. To the extent that information is unavailable to parents, this has been the explicit policy of public school districts determined to cover up their failure to educate and to use money well. In New York, for example, few parents know that, of the $6,100 allocated per child, only one-third ever reaches the classroom.

Other worries stem from the belief that some schools, particularly if private ones are included in a choice program, will cream off "profitable" students or discriminate in other ways and may shortchange students. These concerns also are baseless. Not only do schools participating in choice programs abide by non-discrimination policies, but they have a history of providing a more integrated environment and a higher caliber of education than traditional government schools.