Nine phoney assertions about school choice.

• Author: Allen, Jeanne

Should parents be allowed to choose the schools their children attend, rather than those to which they are assigned? Arguments against this policy are based on erroneous thinking.

In September, 1990, Keith Geiger, president of the National Education Association (NEA), asserted that Free market economics works well for breakfast cereals, but not for schools in a democratic society. Market-driven school choice would create an inequitable, elitist educational system." Similar arguments that education and consumer choice, like oil and water, simply do not mix are espoused by many other critics of educational choice.

With growing support for choice in education, it hardly is surprising that the NEA and other opponents of reform are stepping up their attacks on educational choice. The criticisms against choice constitute nine broad categories: * The undermining America argument: Choice will destroy the American public school tradition. * The creaming argument: Choice will leave the poor behind in the worst schools. * The incompetent parent argument: Parents will not be capable of choosing the right school for their child. * The non-academic parental neglect argument: Parents will use the wrong criteria, such as sports facilities, in selecting schools for their children. * The selectivity issue: There win be insufficient help for students with special needs. * The radical schools scare (or the Farrakhan-KKK theory): Extremists, like Louis Farrakhan or the Ku Klux Klan, will form schools. * The church-state problem: Choice is unconstitutional. * The public accountability argument: Private schools are not sufficiently regulated. * The choice is expensive argument: There are high hidden costs associated with school choice.

These criticisms too often go unanswered and thus begin to gain currency in the press and among many Americans. Even some business leaders are prone to accept arguments against consumer choice and competition in education, despite lauding it as the key to efficiency in the rest of society. Fearful of backing an issue that may be controversial, and lacking precise and accurate information about educational choice, they prefer to err on the side of caution and take no position in the debate.

This reluctance is costly, however, because American business pays heavily for the failures of the school system. U.S. firms, for instance, annually pay out more than $40,-000,000,000 to finance remedial education for their employees. The businessmen's reluctance to back choice in the debate also is misplaced because the criticisms either are completely spurious or no longer are valid because they have been addressed in modifications of the original choice concept.

The undermining America argument: Choice will destroy the long tradition of common schools in America by subsidizing private schools at the expense of public ones. These schools, which embody the classless and democratic principles of the US,, are enshrined in the public school system.

The term "public education" was used first in 1837 by Horace Mann, chairman of the New York State Board of Education, to describe the goal of an educated citizenry, seen in part as an effective way to knit together the millions of immigrants from many lands who were coming to America. Charles Glenn, former director of equal opportunity for the state of Massachusetts, writes that, "At the heart of this vision was the idea of the common school, a school in which the children of all classes and representing all levels of society would be educated together and would thus acquire the mutual respect essential to the functioning of a democracy." Indeed, opponents of choice often talk of the notion of the common school and frequently invoke Mann's name.

As University of Chicago sociologist James Coleman has discovered in his research, however, public schools rarely conform to the common school tradition. They tend, rather, to be the most exclusive and segregated. Ironically, private religious schools are more consistent with the common school philosophy than are public ones. Private, inner-city Catholic schools in such metropolises as Chicago and New York bring together children of widely differing social and economic strata.

Choice, in fact, affords Americans the best chance of recreating the common school by returning all children to a level playing field and ensuring that schools are representative of diverse communities. Parents of all colors, socioeconomic levels, and classes should be able to choose among the widest range possible, rather than being segregated out of a particular school because its cost may be prohibitive. Similarly, taxpayers required to subsidize their local school districts should have some say over what occurs in the schools. While choice opponents boast of "public accountability," in reality the schools no longer are accountable for their employees, product, or daily operations. Choice makes schools accountable directly to consumers. It would recreate Mann's notion of the common schools by restoring quality education and accountability for results. In the 19th century, the local public school epitomized these ideals, providing education which long ago ceased to respond to the needs of American children.

The creaming argument: Choice will leave behind the poor and most difficult to educate, while good students will be "creamed" into the best schools.

Adherents of this view presume that most minority or lower-income...