School Choice

The case for relying on market forces to initiate and direct educational reform draws intellectual coherence from social-science - and particularly economic- theories about the relationships among popular values, electoral institutions, public bureaucracies, and market forces. The theoretical case for school choice was fully and forcefully developed by Milton Friedman more than three decades ago. Friedman directly challenged two presumptions, widespread at the time, that linked the growth of government to the pursuit of a common good.

The abstract appeal of these theories subsequently was supplemented by historical analysis and empirical evidence. The historical narrative developed by proponents of choice offers an explanation of how the current system evolved, and accounts for the public-school monopoly and centralization of decision making as cases of good intentions gone wrong. In addition to this historical narrative, proponents of choice argue that systematic policy evaluations of proposals for choice at all levels of government provide valid and reliable empirical support for their contention that market-based initiatives are both viable and effective. One advocate claims that the number of studies documenting the successes of school choice at the local level "undoubtedly... is now above one-hundred."

The historical narrative and policy evaluations play an important role in alleviating the public's fear that radical change means venturing into the unknown. The claim for school choice is presented as something much less tentative than theory or hypothesis. What is offered, instead, is presented as "lessons learned."

Lacking any working examples of a truly marketbased system of school choice, proponents have based their claim to empirical support on the implied analogy between certain existing practices and free-market models. They assert that existing practices that incorporate elements of choice- such as magnet schools, districtwide arrangements for public-school choice, and state-initiated open-enrollment options - are like free markets, only a little less so.

It is this analogy that sustains the interpretive leap: if it can be demonstrated that these practices succeed in promoting educational achievement without undermining equality, then stronger steps to displace governmental with market forces are surely worth trying.

In the thin, pure air of abstraction, educational choice can be presented as a universal goal, opposed only by those so mean-spirited and daring as to claim allegiance to repression, suppression, and force. This illusion fades when theory is translated into specific programmatic forms. There are many visions of what school-choice programs should comprise, and the distinctions among them are far more significant than acknowledged in the proversus-con format of the current debate. They are linked, however, in this regard: each and every proposal to expand school choice has the potential to impinge on the free exercise of choice by some groups as the price exacted for increasing the options for others.

Proponents of school choice sometimes acknowledge that variations in schoolchoice programs can lead to highly variable results, and that- done incorrectly - options might actually make things worse. But they do not take this issue of variable implementation seriously. Their response is simply to affirm their insistence that school-choice plans be put in place according to the particular blueprint they offer.

School choice plays a role in this agenda, but it is a role properly limited by an understanding of the institutional, cultural, and political milieus in which individuals' values are shaped and their interests pursued. Rather than specific pedagogical innovations or new organizational techniques, this agenda focuses on what is necessary to build the civic capacity to undertake and sustain schooling fit for a democracy.