6 Scholars 6 Questions
School Choice....Their Choice....Your Choice....My Choice?
Forest Of The Rain Productions asked six well respected scholars, researchers, and higher education professionals to share their perspectives on the issue of school choice. We asked each a different question. Their responses are informative and insightful.
Karen Gross,Esq.
|
Dr. Kelly Daugherty
 @DrKBDaugherty
Q. What is School Choice? How would/does school choice change an educational landscape?
School Choice is an educational option provided under the No Child Left Behind Act that offers parents the option to choose other schools (or tutoring options) if their child attends a failing school or a school that needs significant improvements (US Department of Education, 2013). Generally speaking, dollars used to fund traditional public schools are taken to fund what many know as Charter or Magnet schools. Parents also have the choice to send their children to private schools with the use of school vouchers. In thinking about failing schools and school choice, the low-income family and urban city schools generally come to mind. Affording parents a school choice is affording their students a better education in a safer environment. That is what most think and in fact, there are several examples that this is true. The idea behind school choice makes perfect sense! After all, what parent does not want a better education for their children? However, what happens to the traditional public school if public education dollars are being used to fund these school choice options? Why are traditional public schools failing in the first place and how do they continue to function for as long as they do? Well, first we need to remember that most failing schools tend to be found in communities with low socioeconomic status. These schools are ill-equipped to deal with disabilities, learning or otherwise, and lack an understanding of what it means to educate ALL children holistically. Teachers in these urban schools are overworked, underpaid, and are dealing with students lacking the confidence to learn and express their frustration in the most unbecoming of ways. As a result, traditional public school teachers feel devalued and become easily burned out and increasingly unmotivated to provide the effective instruction students deserve, leaving them with a sub par education and ill prepared for the next grade level. More than that, you would think that dismissing these teachers would solve the problem, but teachers unions and tenure protect even the worst teachers from losing their jobs. It is a true disservice to our children and leaves parents with seemingly no other option than to find an alternative. Charter schools differ in that they allow for more flexibility for autonomous instruction |
and policies that consequently tend to bind the public schools. Since Charter schools can be more selective with the students they enroll, which students, then, are more likely to be selected?
Those that are high performing academically and more motivated to learn. This then leaves which students behind in the traditional public schools? Those that are lower performing academically, lack motivation, and have higher incidents of behaviors. These are the students teachers are less prepared to teach and have fewer resources to support behaviorally. This, in my opinion, does not level the playing field and does not support equitable education for ALL students. I do not necessarily disagree with school choice, however, I strongly believe that the traditional public school, more specifically urban schools, need particular attention when we consider the root causes for their failure. Poverty is a systemic issue that leads to the demise of the public school, as is the lack of resources, support, and professional development for urban school teachers. When monies are taken away from traditional public schools in order to fund the alternatives that means there is less money to fund public schools for necessary teacher learning and development. It comes across to me as counterproductive. By distributing public education funding back into the public school system, it would seem that parents would not need a school choice option because traditional public schools would be better equipped to educate ALL students, no matter their background or learning capabilities. I believe school choice options rob the traditional public schools from the opportunity to reform and redefine the structure of the educational system. 
|
|
Daniel Losen, JD
 @losendan
Q. Does school choice represent the best way, the fastest way to equalize or provide equity in education for all children?
This answer is an expression of my own views and does not necessarily represent those of the Civil Rights Project or UCLA. No. Choice is neither the best nor the fastest way to provide equity in education for all children. The choices we make are nested in the societal forces around us. There is no simple solution or fast way to remedy entrenched inequities or to overcome structural racism. A different kind of choice, exercising the right to vote, is probably the most important toward bringing about equity in education, from local school boards to the presidential elections. Ironically, in their report, Whose Schools? An Examination of Charter School Governance in Massachusetts, the Annenberg Institute has found that “Significant parent representation on charter school governing boards is largely confined to schools that serve predominantly White students.” It appears that for parents of color, choosing a charter school often means having less choice over how schools are run. Another choice, the freedom to choose where one lives, including the opportunity to move to a school district and live and work in a community where all the schools provide high quality learning environments, is currently a choice that is unavailable to most. Vouchers, and charter schools and other choice programs will not solve these deeply rooted obstacles to equitable educational opportunities and could exacerbate them. This concern is especially deep now, considering that the President and some of those in key cabinet positions have such poor civil rights track records. One would be foolish to think that under the Trump administration, a federally supervised charter or voucher program would include the kind of oversight needed to ensure racially or socio-economically equitable outcomes or have sufficient safeguards against segregation by race, ethnicity, class or disability status. Two problems with thinking that school choice could be the most effective or fastest way to achieve equity are as follows: 1. There are not enough highly functioning schools in existence today to provide an adequate education for all children. Developing enough schools will require a major investment in education, well above the current levels. In recent history, Americans have been reluctant to provide enough funds for adequate schools for all students. 
|
Unfortunately, in many winning lawsuits brought to bolster equity under states’ constitutional law, and requiring states to more equitably distribute resources, the legislatures have chosen not to respond, and the courts in many such states (i.e., Ohio and Alabama) have sought no further remedy. Where states fail to provide enough funding to provide an adequate education in the first place, vouchers often do no more than increase the number of substandard choices available. Moreover, in voucher exchanges involving private schools, students often give up federal civil rights protections for a school they think or hope will be much better, but is not substantially higher performing than the school they left.
2. A competitive choice model can’t drive enough improvement in the context of widespread inadequacy either. Students and families wind up competing over a share of a shrinking pie. Those with power and influence get the better schools, and this helps them maintain a competitive advantage in the workplace. There is not a sufficient commitment to the public good to ensure that competition will create good schools for all students. Unfortunately, until there is a recognized constitutional right to an education, and the political will to enforce that right in a non-discriminatory fashion, school choice is more likely to perpetuate an educational opportunity system filled with losers and winners. Even in the fairest of lottery systems, even when choice programs conduct vigorous outreach, too many children have nobody to help them navigate the choice process well. In particular, children in foster families or group homes, children who are homeless, children whose parents do not speak English, children from dysfunctional families and children whose parents are undocumented, do not have an equal chance. When choosing well entails collecting and analyzing the information about the available choices and then filing an application and responding to an acceptance the process of choosing tends to leave some children behind. Children experience profound inequities in access to adults who are committed to making the system work for their interests. So unless the choice program has an effective way of ensuring that the most disadvantaged children and families will avail themselves of better educational opportunities, school choice will contribute to the separation and isolation of the children with the highest educational needs and/or the least support. This additional segregation is harmful to the students, and to our society. Not all choice mechanisms are equally problematic: 1. Vouchers may pose the greatest risk for achieving equity and may enhance inequity rapidly. In the immediate term, they drain public dollars such that students whose parents can 
|
fford to send their children to an elite high performing private school now get a rebate. The economic incentive to ensure high quality schools for all students, schools that protect the civil rights of children, is undermined if public dollars subsidize white children to attend separate segregated schools. The only possible way vouchers might have a chance to improve equity would be if only the historically disadvantaged and the poor received the vouchers and all schools receiving were required to accept all children who had a voucher. And even then, the amount would have to be high enough to enable the poorest family to compete for enrollment at the highest performing private schools.
2. Charters can also drain public dollars from public schools if they disrupt the economies of scale found in larger school districts. More important is that most charters are not currently serving their original function as laboratories of innovation and therefore are neither the best nor fastest way to provide equity in education for all children. But, I believe that charters have the potential to become instruments of equity. For example, charters could be used to break down district boundaries that entrench inequity in opportunity to serve an equitable purpose in much the same way that magnet schools do. 3. The choice mechanisms with the greatest potential are voluntary desegregation through inter-district choice and magnet schools. Where these choice programs are designed with racial equity as their main purpose, such as in Hartford, Connecticut, they can increase equity and can be very effective if the schools the students attend are significantly more effective schools and do not practice within school segregation (i.e. low tracking). This third school choice mechanism has the lowest risk of leaving behind a segment of the population. Ideally, to completely avoid such an impact there must be a mechanism that assigns the most vulnerable students to the highest performing schools and careful oversight is needed to prevent entrenchment of even greater racial or socio-economic isolation. A form of controlled or limited choice could possibly overcome the tendency for choice to give advantage to those with the most information, knowledge of the system and transportation capacity. An equitable choice program takes on these challenges and often does not give every parent an equal choice without consideration of differences in current needs and historical disadvantages. For a public school choice program to work toward the long-term interest of equity for all children, the goal of improving outcomes and educational opportunity for all children must be at the center. As one who believes that separate is inherently unequal, and that diversity in education and equity in educational opportunity is attainable, carefully designed choice programs would likely help, but they are not sufficient for fully realizing these goals. 
|
|
Dr. Karen Moaton Johnson
 @IamDrMojo
Q. Does school choice leave students in more vulnerable schools?
I believe it does. While school choice offers the illusion that parents have the option to send their children to any school they desire in the area, there are still many issues that prevent it from happening equably. *Selectiveness – Students have to apply to schools and are chosen as space is available and at the discretion of the selection committee. Most committees are looking for the best and brightest, resulting in a “brain drain” for school in poverty-stricken areas. * Transportation – When a child is accepted into a school outside of their zoned area, it is the parent's responsibility to secure transportation for the child. For poorer parents without reliable transportation or those who live in cities or rural areas with limited public transportation, the more viable option is to remain at the school they currently attend. *Funding - In Mississippi, when a child leaves the public school to attend a charter school, their public school funds follow them. If the child leaves the school for any reason before the end of the school year, their public school funds still remain at the charter school. With cuts being made to public education constantly, this additional drain on the public school systems reduces services to the children who remain. *Services offered – Most charter schools cannot offer the necessary services to students with special needs. While in some cases, private school vouchers are offered using state education funding, many private schools do not offer services for students with special needs either. School choice seems like a viable option on paper but doing so at the expense of public education only undermines the entire system. Eventually, it has the potential to return to the times before Brown vs The Board of Education. Separate but equal has never been productive. 
|
Dr. Camilla Ferebee
 @DrMi_Mi
Q. What is school choice? How does school choice change an educational landscape?
In my opinion school choice is when a parent is afforded the opportunity to choose where he/she would like their child to be educated. The decision is sometimes based on students need or how the student is progressing in his/her current educational environment. Local public schools are currently underfunded. School choice would decrease funding schools received, being the funding follow the student. With school choice, I think many of the students who are performing well and helping to balance the classroom would leave. This would leave public schools to service those who are identified as low performing or behavior problems. Without the balance, public schools would continue to fail and perhaps at a higher rate. Q. Does school choice represent the best way, the fastest way to equalize or provide equity in education for all children? Equity is about providing a fair education. In my opinion school choice is not fair. Equity would be providing students with the resources they need to be academically successful and reaching them at their level. To me, it means not expecting all students in a certain grade to take the same assessment and display mastery by achieving a certain score. Equity would be measuring a student’s progress on a particular skill to identify growth. Q. What should parents do who believe their neighborhood schools are inefficient, that they deem to be failing their children? I think that parents should become more involved. They should be at the schools helping and learning. The best way to improve student performance is for parents and school officials to build a positive working relationship. Q. Does school choice leave students in more vulnerable schools? I think it does. As more students leave a school, so will the teaching staff. I believe public schools will have good teachers leave because of a lack of resources. Q. To what extent will the proposed cuts as outlined in President Donald Trump’s budget in K-12 Federal funding and his subsequent increase in school choice funding held or harm poor children? I think the proposed cuts will hurt poor children. They will be left to attend schools with limited staffing and resources, or attend schools that will not know how to fully address their needs. |
Dr. Doris Lee
@Under1love
Q. What are a few misconceptions about school choice?
School Choice offers the opinion that charter schools provide better options than public schools especially for minority and low-income students. However, they often service lower percentages of students with disabilities and English language learners boosting their performance statistics when compared to their public counterparts. Moreover, their enrollment policies allow them to deny applicants mid-year or only accept students in certain grades while public schools are mandated to enroll students at any time of the year in any grade. Some charter schools also have discipline policies that can not be replicated in public schools. Providing more options that may not always equate to quality. A study by Stanford University revealed that 19% of charter schools do significantly worse than their public school counterparts in reading and 31% of charter schools do significantly worse in math. The also suggested 56% of charter schools perform at the same levels as their public school counterparts in reading and 40% in math. It seems that we are spreading limited resources with the middle school choice model and we are getting the intended outcomes in approximately a quarter of charter schools.
School Choice offers the opinion that charter schools provide better options than public schools especially for minority and low-income students. However, they often service lower percentages of students with disabilities and English language learners boosting their performance statistics when compared to their public counterparts. Moreover, their enrollment policies allow them to deny applicants mid-year or only accept students in certain grades while public schools are mandated to enroll students at any time of the year in any grade. Some charter schools also have discipline policies that can not be replicated in public schools. Providing more options that may not always equate to quality. A study by Stanford University revealed that 19% of charter schools do significantly worse than their public school counterparts in reading and 31% of charter schools do significantly worse in math. The also suggested 56% of charter schools perform at the same levels as their public school counterparts in reading and 40% in math. It seems that we are spreading limited resources with the middle school choice model and we are getting the intended outcomes in approximately a quarter of charter schools.