[Homestead] Free Choice not free choice if no seats to move into.

Tvoivozhd tvoivozd at infionline.net
Tue Sep 14 21:03:21 EDT 2004

Charter Schools are a mixed bag---transferring to a "better" school 
within the Public School System or from a Public School to a "better" 
Charter School is completely without meaning if the "better" school has 
no seats for the hopeful transferring students.
It is a lot easier and more effective to move a better faculty (and 
fewer redundant administrators) to a school, any school, than to move 
students forty miles from home.

	The Christian Science Monitor - csmonitor.com 

from the September 07, 2004 edition - 

    Can competition really improve schools?

*By Teresa Méndez* | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

When an economist first introduced the idea in the 1950s, it was a 
notion both controversial and contentious. Education, he argued, was a 
commodity like any other, and would benefit from fierce, free-market 

It was a fairly simple idea: Parents and children should become 
consumers, and schools the product. If a school isn't up to snuff, 
parents move their children to a better one. Thus good schools flourish 
and bad ones are forced to improve, or else fall away.

Choice has since become the driving force behind much of education 
reform in the United States. Charter schools, school vouchers, and the 
ability to remove kids from failing schools are all attempts to let 
public education benefit from giving families more choice.

But the theory of choice has faced some difficult reality checks of 
late. Studies don't necessarily support the claims that students will 
perform better either in charter schools or in private schools made 
accessible by vouchers. At the same time, the idea that students should 
be free to leave failing public schools is bumping up against the simple 
reality that there are not enough seats in good schools to go around. 
It's causing some to ask if the growth of the choice movement may not be 
outpacing evidence of its efficacy.

"While choice is not bad for the individual kids or parents, our 
experience in New York is that it has done little or nothing to improve 
neighborhood schools," says Clara Hemphill, director of 
*www.insideschools.org* and author of several guides to the city's best 
public schools. If anything, she says, "it has drained some of the 
vitality and excitement from neighborhood schools."

Ms. Hemphill says she isn't against choice, "it's just that the market 
metaphor doesn't work. And I think the New York experience of 30 years 
is clear on that."

But for many others, choice remains the bedrock of education reform - a 
tenet not even to be questioned.

"I don't think the debate should be choice or no choice. I think that's 
absurd," says Henry Levin, a professor at Teachers College at Columbia 
University. "It's how we do choice."

Choice, of course, can't be viewed as a monolith. It's best understood 
as a continuum of options beneath the larger umbrella of school choice.

They range from vouchers - which, with little government oversight, 
allow parents to use taxpayer money at any school, including private or 
religious - to open enrollment where children may choose from any public 
school within a certain area, whether a district, city, or even state.

Charter schools, independent public schools that operate with greater 
autonomy than traditional schools in exchange for a promise to perform, 
fit somewhere in between. Each has its proponents and detractors, so 
that a supporter of charter schools, for example, may at the same time 
oppose vouchers.

But even as the school choice movement surges forward - charter schools 
can currently be found in 38 states and are expected to be in all states 
by the end of the decade; 46 states offer open enrollment, up from 32 
last year - experts are cautioning that the research to support such 
robust growth simply isn't there.

Data released last month by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 
indicating that reading and math scores of charter school students on 
the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress lag behind their 
traditional public school peers, has had the education world up in arms.

In an unusual move, a group of 31 scholars signed on to an ad in The New 
York Times, where the study first appeared, criticizing its methodology 
and taking issue with the newspaper's "uncritical coverage."

This week, Caroline M. Hoxby, a professor of economics at Harvard 
University and one of the undersigned on the Times ad, will release her 
own more comprehensive study - looking at students in 99.5 percent of 
charter schools across the country. Professor Hoxby's findings, based on 
test scores from the same year as the AFT study, show charter school 
students outperforming traditional public school students in both 
reading and math.

But in states such as North Carolina, other findings are in line with 
the AFT results. Helen Ladd, an economics and public policy professor at 
Duke University, compared gains in test scores made by students in 
charter schools with those made by the same students while they were in 
public schools - and found the students performing worse in the charter 

With research that's at best contradictory, it's difficult to know how 
charter schools are performing. For some, this is particularly troubling 
as President Bush's cornerstone education act, No Child Left Behind, 
matures. By 2007 sanctions for struggling schools will have kicked in, 
and those that have failed to meet standards will face, among other 
things, conversion to charter schools.

The same question mark hanging over charters also punctuates the larger 
idea of competition among public schools. "One of the issues that we're 
looking at, but still haven't seen studies to prove, is the idea that 
competition is the better answer," says Luis Huerta, a professor at 
Columbia University's Teachers College, who, nonetheless says 
competition is "a good thing."

Following an extensive look at New Zealand's decade-long experiment with 
parent choice and competition, Professor Ladd and her husband wrote 
"When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale," which foreshadows some of the 
problems the US is now struggling with, namely not enough seats in 
desirable schools.

Still, Ladd says she hopes that "we'll draw on some of the good insights 
from market-based reform in education."

A tangle of complications has also arisen with open enrollment, one of 
the oldest and least controversial forms of choice that, according to 
Cathy Christie of the nonpartisan Education Commission of the States, 
has come to be accepted as the norm.

This year, 12,000 to 14,000 students in New York City - the nation's 
largest school system where students may choose from 290 high schools - 
had no idea in June where they would attend school come fall. Even as 
the city's education department expanded the number of schools that new 
ninth-graders could request to attend, some 94,000 students were vying 
for slots in the most coveted few.

For those able to afford it, choice has long been a part of American 
education. Parents with the means and wherewithal select neighborhoods 
to live in based on the quality of schools, and pick up and move if 
school performance plunges. At its purest, the school choice movement is 
trying to bring those same options to low-income and minority families.

"The issue then becomes, for me, should all families have the same 
choice that upper and middle class Americans have," says Ted Sizer, 
visiting professor of education at Harvard and Brandeis universities. 
"Or should the system remain as it is, giving mobility to those who 
could buy it and leaving the rest as they are."

However, Alex Molnar, director of the Education Policy Studies 
Laboratory at Arizona State University in Tempe, argues that the idea of 
choice in education is fundamentally flawed. Schools, he says, are 
"social institutions, not boxes of wheat flakes." Treating them as just 
another market commodity will never work, he argues.

Barry Schwartz, professor of psychology at Swarthmore College in 
Pennsylvania and author of "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less," 
agrees. He sees the marketing of education as a "reflection of just how 
much the ideology of the market as the solution to all problems has 
penetrated our culture."

Professor Schwartz's research focuses on what he calls "the tyranny of 
choice" - the destructive psychological toll that a preponderance of 
options can take. "It seems to me that choice would have to improve the 
quality of education a lot to be worth the price parents pay," he says.

And while the question of whether choice has in fact improved education 
has yet to be answered, others say the real concern is that as the 
choice movement forges ahead, becoming ever more politicized, ideology 
may come to trump experience.

Despite the numerous studies that emerge, supporting one side or the 
other, the question of school choice is "not going to be settled on the 
basis of evidence," says Professor Levin. "Because at the bedrock, at 
the foundation, it's like window dressing to use these studies to move 
in one direction or the other. People pick up the evidence that supports 
their side."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and 
related links <http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0907/p12s01-legn.html>


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All 
rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email Copyright 

More information about the Homestead mailing list