School Choice Is A Right, No Bashing Necessary
Few institutions are as sensitive to criticism, however soundly based, as the media and the public schools. Criticize the former and they cite the First Amendment's protection of a free press, as if that protects them from analysis, while public school defenders complain about "bashing" at any suggestion that things are less than perfect.
As one who has spent a lifetime involved in public education, as a student, parent, teacher, and union leader, among other things, I'm aware there is much to be said for public education, and that most students will remain where they are regardless of what options are made available.
This, however, is not to deny that the system fails to educate millions of students. Few of the defenders of the current system would argue that it meets the needs of all students; or even 90 percent. And 10 percent of the current enrollment is nearly 5 million students. Since all parents have a constitutional right to select the school for their children, all should be in a position to exercise that right.
The issue is money. As Ohio State Senator Patrick Sweeney (D-Cleveland) has said, if you have a checkbook, you have a voucher in your pocket.
To choose one school is not "bashing" another school. Millions of students attend a college of their choice and no one suggests that selecting college "A" is bashing college "B".
To say vouchers take money away from public schools is to argue that schools should be funded for students they don't have. Cleveland lost 75,000 students from 1972-1997, enrollment going from 150,000 to 75,000, and vouchers had nothing to do with it. The Cleveland Scholarship Program didn't go into effect until the 1996-7 school year. Should the Cleveland School District have been reimbursed for 150,000 students?
Private schools are charged with "creaming," ignoring the fact that, while they can reject students, they rarely do so, if space is available. Further, while they can more easily expel students, they rarely do that either. Typically, schools of choice comparable to public schools graduate a higher percentage of their students. The public schools drop-out rate, often a "push-out" rate, runs in excess of 50 percent for many urban schools. Even if "creaming" should occur, it will only happen if students/parents decide to make a change. Why should students be forced by law to remain where they are unhappy or unsuccessful?
It is said students don't pick a school, schools pick students, a strange argument. No school can pick students who do not apply. If this argument is valid students should be prohibited from selecting a college because it is the college that picks them. Actually, on a school basis, it is the public schools that pick students since the district establishes its schools, and their attendance boundaries, and assigns the students to them. Public school parents have no choice other than the district's mandate.
Nor do public schools have to educate everyone, a common claim. Not a single state has compulsory education. What is mandated are the number of days in the school year. Even then, students are not required to attend 100 percent of the time. Many drop out or graduate uneducated. Furthermore, an estimated 100,000 public school students are sent to private institutions, at the option of their public districts.
Another unverified charge is that vouchers lead to fly-by-night schools. Where? How many? And, even if that should happen, since no voucher student is assigned to a school, those that are inadequate usually pay the price; unlike public schools which, however unsuccessful, receive new students each year, and the money that comes with them.
Most observers note that students in schools of choice do, indeed, perform better than those in the public schools. In Cleveland an independent study found that students gained in the first year. The officially authorized study by Indiana University, said they didn't. Establishment defenders cited Indiana's as the correct study. However, by the end of the second year, Indiana University researchers found significant gains. Those findings were greeted with silence by those who hailed the first year's report. Even had there been no gains, where students do as well at a cost of $2500 a year as others do at more than three ties the cost, who has the better program?
It is claimed that nonpublic schools are not as accountable as the public ones. In fact, they are more accountable. Public schools are accountable for the money trail, not results. Nonpublic schools, or even public schools of choice, such as magnet, alternative and charter schools, are the ones that are accountable for both.
Finally, the claim that public and nonpublic schools do not compete on a level playing field.
It is true that public schools are more heavily regulated, but try to deregulate them and see who objects - the same ones who complain about too many regulations. Reformers and nonpublic school people do not oppose deregulating the public schools.
If a level playing field is the goal, why do public school receive much more money per student? The typical nonpublic school operates at a cost - cost, not tuition - of one-half to one-third that of the public schools.
The only chance opponents have to stop the school choice movement is to make public schools so good no one will want to leave, although that probably won't work either. Even among equally good nonpublic schools, or colleges, people have their own reasons for selecting one rather than another.
In a free society, that's the way it should be.
David W. Kirkpatrick is a Senior Education Fellow with the U.S. Freedom Foundation and The Buckeye Institute.
