Introduction
Most Americans agree that the current public education system requires significant reform. American citizens believe that the declining levels of student achievement make some fundamental change necessary. An increasingly popular potential solution to the education "crisis," school choice, would change the basic structure of American education by loosening public control over schools. School choice advocates cite a number of reasons why this kind of structural reform of the public education system is necessary.
School choice advocates reject the public school monopoly over education funds. The problem stems from the fact that all public education money for grades K-12 can only go to public schools, thereby granting public schools an educational finance monopoly. This educational finance monopoly prevents competition for public schools. Such a monopoly provides no incentives for public schools to improve due to the absence of free market competition. Public schools currently receive funds regardless of their performance.
Additionally, choice advocates want parents to determine where to send their children to school. The government, not parents, controls where students go to school under the existing public school system. If public schools do not produce adequate results, parents have almost no escape mechanism or alternative to public schools. Currently, most students must attend the public school in their immediate geographic area, as mandated by the government. This situation denies parental freedom because the government decides where the students must attend school.
Choice advocates argue that these controls have a particularly negative impact on low-income families. The public school system denies underprivileged families any sort of escape mechanism. Poor families have no choice but to send their children to the government mandated public school, regardless of its quality. Upper income families, however, can afford to send their children to private schools. Choice advocates argue, therefore, that this situation unfairly discriminates against the underprivileged.
Although support for school choice is widespread, not all choice advocates agree on any single form of choice. Three reform movements have steadily gained support. Charter schools essentially provide choice within the public school system. The goal of charter schools is to create innovative, regulation-free alternatives for parents within the framework of the public school system. However, charter schools maintain the education finance monopoly for public schools. Privatization of education involves restructuring the public school system through contracting with private agencies for operation of the school system. Privatization places the management of public schools in the hands of private organizations. The goal of privatization is to eliminate the perceived bureaucratic inefficiency of the current public school system. Voucher programs provide parents with a complete escape mechanism from the public school system. Parents would receive public money in the form of vouchers that can then be used at the education institution of their choice. The goal of voucher programs and other forms of choice is to provide competition that will hopefully provoke public schools to improve themselves. These forms of school choice share three characteristics. Each school choice option provides: 1) choice, 2) competition, and 3) specific accountability via the market or contracts
Charter schools provide a choice within the public education system by allowing the formation of alternative "public" education. These schools are publicly funded and non-sectarian, yet they are relatively autonomous from state regulations. Charter schools can be founded by parents, educators, administrators or townsfolk. Charter schools often receive the same "per-pupil funds that traditional public schools receive" (Nathan, 1996, 1). Because these schools are freed from many state regulations, various forms of innovative teaching styles can be employed. Nevertheless, charter schools must be held accountable for positive results within a certain amount of time or else the charter can be revoked. Proponents of charter schools state that these schools can bring diversity, quality, and accountability to public schools. However, opponents of charter schools state that these reforms could lead to a resegregation of public schools. By investigating three charter schools in Boston, the Boston Renaissance, City On A Hill and Academy Of The Pacific Rim, we can evaluate the benefits or costs embodied in the charter school movement.
Privatization is a proposed solution that seeks to eliminate the bureaucratic inefficiencies of public schools. Privatization represents another alternative to the education finance monopoly. It is argued that by contracting out to private corporations, schools can become more efficient and produce quality results. By privatizing schools, the local school districts would hand control of the schools over to private companies. These corporations feel that they can run the schools with more efficiency and compete effectively with other private corporations or public schools. This "market" in fact, will force schools to produce results, and depending on the results, parents will be able to choose which school is best for their child. This section explores the two most popular contracting school projects, the Edison Project, and the Education Alternatives Inc. These groups are the leaders in the privatization movement, and by studying their successes and failures we will be able to identify the advantages and disadvantages of this form of school choice.
Vouchers are cash grants provided by the government to families. The families can then use the money to pay for a substantial portion of the tuition at the school of their choice outside of the public school system. Voucher programs provide freedom to the parent, not the state, to determine where children will go to school and also provide competition to public schools.
Voucher advocates argue that autonomy in choosing a child's education must rest with families, not the state. A voucher system would essentially dismantle the educational finance monopoly. Public schools would no longer be the sole recipients of public education funds. However, vouchers raise issues over the constitutionality of providing public funds to private institutions (particularly religious institutions).
Voucher programs currently exist in both Milwaukee, and Cleveland. Both programs are currently being challenged in state courts. The issue in the Milwaukee case is whether or not it should be expanded to include religious schools. Milwaukee also provides an excellent case study to determine voucher program effectiveness. A number of detailed studies have been done on the Milwaukee Program. This section will examine the results arrived at in those studies and the overall effectiveness of voucher programs. Cleveland has already passed laws that make it the first city in the country to provide public money to parents for use at religious schools. Voucher opponents have brought the constitutionality of the Cleveland laws into question before the courts. The examination of the characteristics of these two innovative programs is crucial to the evaluation of voucher programs and their potential results.
Government 375: Educational Reform and Ideology