Private School Vouchers
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.
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 (1990), 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" (pp. 66,216).
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" (as quoted in Henig, p. 95). 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.
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 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" (Henig, pp.23-24).
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" (p.21).
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 (Henig, p. 202).
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 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 (Henig, p.108).
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
(Witte).
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 (Henig, p.149; Witte). 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.
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.
To seek to escape public schools, which reflect the conditions of life
in a community abandoned by the marketplace, is a natural human response.
However, it is a personal and not a community solution. Government, in
the interest of the public good, must act in a supportive way rather than
abandon the people and the public institutions in our urban communities.
The solutions are not to be found in private school choice but in vigorous
support for the families and children who struggle daily to realize a
measure of the American dream in Wisconsin's urban communities.
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.
This document was prepared by the WEAC Professional
Development & Training