Thoughts on School Choice

When considering school choice one must also consider Equality of Educational Opportunity, as it is the consensus regarding the product of current education in this country. Nicholas C. Burbles and Ann L. Sherman, in their article, Equal Educational Opportunity: Ideal of Ideology, provide a valid understanding of Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO), which flows out of James Coleman’s original thoughts on the subject. Burbles and Sherman (1979) describe EEO as a distributive principle, which provides access to education that is considered as equal access. To them, equal access must meet two requirements: there must be an opportunity for education, and that opportunity must be the same for all.

School choice, from a conservative perspective, is still considered in a positive light, but, should it be? I want to unpack that argument a bit in light of my exposure to this idea of EEO. Coleman’s original comments relate EEO directly to the child and the family by way of economic production. The family, originally, provided access to the education needed in order to maintain the family’s means of economic production. There was no need for EEO, or better said, EEO was a natural by- product of the family structure, which also served as the primary economic means of the day. The family unit functioned in a familial manner as well as an economic one, and therefore, provide the education children needed for the times.

The modern understanding of EEO arrived simultaneously with the onset of public tax-supported education brought on by the industrial revolution’s demand for labor outside the home. The family unit was the structure of society, and, as I stated above, managed EEO as a by product of its natural state; however, all of that changed almost overnight as fathers began to work outside the home, and thus, a new issue in need of resolution was created as a by product of the industrial revolution. This is a reminder of the causal effects our actions always have regardless of intent. Again, in the past, the family provided the education that provided the needed entry point to the labor force, which was usually the family farm. The industrial revolution changed all of that and changed the meaning of education in the United States, and, from the onset, our educational focus was on equality. Was this focus an attempt to set things back to the balance of pre-industrial revolutionary standards or was it the only habitual response known at the time? Or, was it something else all together? Today, the goal of education still seems to be equality, specifically, EEO. What, practically, is EEO? Coleman references the following elements in regards to EEO:

1.       Provision of a free education up to a given level which was the entry point into the labor force.

2.       Providing a common curriculum for all children, regardless of background.

3.       Providing that children for diverse backgrounds attend the same school.

4.       Providing equality within a given locality.

Upon first glance, these seem to be fairly straight forward, but, according to Coleman, they come with two important assumptions that must, first, be considered. First, these elements assume that the existence of free schools eliminate economic sources of inequality of opportunity. And, second, these elements assume that opportunity lies only in a given common curriculum, and that the amount of exposure to this curriculum constitutes the amount of opportunity. I will add a third important assumption: that of education as the great panacea capable of solving all of life's problems; this collective ethos still resonates with us today as public schools, courtesy of the Federal Department of Education, inch closer and closer to a national one-size-fits-all school system.

Inside the second assumption lies a problem that must be addressed as it is one that grows each year. Annually, we continue to hold our communities and schools responsible for the education of our children, yet their roles continue to remain very much passive. I posit that one side of this equation must change in order to begin to even approach the issue of reform. Applying such logic to real world solutions would equate to a coach that runs all practices but has no control over his team during games, but that coach is still held responsible for the wins and losses of the team. Part-time active control is never active and always passive, no matter the levied responsibility applied.

Back to EEO, according to Coleman, EEO is the equality of results given the same individual input. Inequality comes from differences in inputs that lead to different outputs or inequality, and according to Coleman, those are the four general points of inequality:

1.       Differences, in terms of community input into schools

2.       Differences regarding racial composition of schools

3.       Differences in those intangible characteristics of schools

4.       Differences regarding the consequences of each school. 

Coleman acknowledges that this concept of EEO is a shifting concept and will shift over time in areas of curriculum: shifts include toward curriculum that is more academic, more diversified and more expectant of all children attending college. I will add that these shifts are the results of shifts in current culture which leads me to categorize the current state of public education regarding EEO as inequality. Which, again, brings us to that provocative question: what is the purpose of education? Is it equality, excellence, or something else? Currently, the product has been decided for the approximately 94% of American families who choose public education for their children, and it is EEO, or at least some form of it. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a form of equality with the heaviest element focusing on equal opportunity. I submit, that the product is the real issue regarding education in general. We are fragmented, as a nation, on what the product of education is to be. Before solving our education problems, we must first come to a consensus on this idea of product of education.

The next logical question is to define school choice as that is the overall questions of the post. While this is an easily assumed concept, it still warrants a definition of terms. School choice, for me, is the choice afforded to parents regarding the education of their children. Currently, in the American educational landscape, those choices that are considered for the question of school choice would fall into the following categories: public, private, faith-based, religious, sectarian, vocational, technical and home. There are few restrictions on parental choice as most parents are free to make the educational choices for their children with little intervention from the government. Those of us, and I include myself in this collective state, who endorse school choice do so making several assumptions. First, we assume that choice means competition and competition will leads us to excellence. Second, we assume choice means responsibility and that everyone will assume the same responsibility that choice affords. And, finally, we assume, or forget, that choice is open choice. Kenneth Howe brings up an important point regarding the perils of open choice. Choice, with no constraints or parameters, is also dangerous as it can lead to choices not compatible with growth or education excellence. We need only look back at history to see countless examples of the perils of open choice education. What, then, are we to do with school choice?  

Based on our current product of education, with is still this general idea of equality, I would have to conclude that school choice detracts from all forms of equality, if equality is our agreed upon product of education. There are several reasons for this. First, school choice does not provide equal access for all students. Multiple options with no control or constraint actually detract from equality, whether they produce a superior product or not is not the issue; the issue is the product they produce is not equal to other products. Second, there is a lack of control and accountability regarding school choice in regard to states, communities and regions as well as religious groups and non-religious groups. This lack of control limits opportunities in education, especially those educational aspects contributing to overall democracy. Third, there is no continuity or sameness, and that is a hallmark of EEO and of equality in choice. With a diverse group of school options coupled with these three issues, the only logical answer to the original question is that school choice detracts from equality and EEO, if these are our preferred products of education. The answer to my question regarding school choice should lead to another question: is the current product of education the right product?

The last word is this. I am not comfortable with equality or EEO serving as the product of education. I am working through my thoughts on this and on what should serve as the product of education. I believe equality, EEO and even equity are all pieces of the overall product of education, but my sense is there is still a large piece of the product missing. What is this missing piece? Is its absence intentional or a mistake? I am still a strong advocate for school choice, but not for reasons of EEO, equality or equity. Stay tuned for more thoughts on this and what this missing piece is. For now, these are my current thoughts on school choice after having been part of a class on political philosophy conducted by my advisor who is one of the brightest minds I have ever met. Blessings to all!