Bartering Education in the Marketplace

I have recently been reading, with increasing concern, different opinions about "schools of choice." Since the inception of choice, most academic research has found that: "The rhetoric of choice positions parents and students as consumers of schooling; it implies that all parents are equally informed, politically connected, and capable of securing for their own children the best education. Yet early studies caution that such policies easily result in increased race and class stratification." (Bartlett, Frederick, Gulbrandsen, and Murillo, pg. 6) Researchers are now documenting the negative political and social effects of choice rhetoric, and I would be glad to give anyone who is interested a bibliography on this research.

I come from a state where School Choice has had a devastating impact on small, rural school systems. In Michigan, public school education has become a concern of politicians rather than concerned communities. The state’s executive branch argued that charter schools and Schools of Choice put pressure on the "failing" public schools to improve, so Michigan’s lawmakers enacted legislation to support these measures. (Michigan’s teacher’s unions, however, argue that this legislation is an effort to break their union, which is the strongest backer of the Democratic Party in the state.)

"Schools of Choice" allow parents an opportunity to choose where they want their children to attend school. If there is an available seat and if the parent can provide transportation to the school, a child can go to any public school in Michigan. The approximately $10,000 that the state provides for the child goes with that child to the school of their choice. Because parents will take their children to suburban districts that have more money and offer more services and extracurricular opportunities for their children, small, rural school districts and some inner-city districts have been devastated by this plan. In Michigan, the federal government has stepped in to save the inner-city schools, but both state and federal governments have neglected the rural schools.

Since its inception, the Schools of Choice approach has created an atmosphere that presses school districts to construct new buildings so that they can "sell" their district to parents in other districts. The wealthiest suburb in the Lansing area recently built a $44 million high school. Other districts have proposed bonds to compete with the building in that district. The latest proposal from a local district asked its property owners for $67 million in new taxes to tear down its old high school that was built in the ‘60s to build a new one and to renovate its middle school. Living in a district with a good school system has helped assure landowners that their property values will stay stable or increase. When students "fled" to the upscale suburban schools, there was a decrease in the property values in small towns around Michigan.

Bond issues for new construction are now passing in Michigan, but millages required to operate the schools are being defeated, even in wealthy districts. This means that many school districts are suffering serious budgetary deficits. But more important, it means that students are attending class in fancy buildings without a decent student-teacher ratio or adequate educational materials. Research suggests that a low student-teacher ratio is the single most important factor in fostering learning.

In August, every year, "schools of choice" fill commercial time slots on television in Michigan. Local school districts compete with charter schools that have billboards on the main roads in small towns. Advertising promotes schools that offer parents free computers if they enroll their children or that promise to make their 8-year-old more "marketable." To compete, the public schools now have line items in their budgets and have assigned administrators to "market" their schools. Larger, more successful school districts can afford to hire a marketing specialist and have line items up to $250,000 a year for school promotion. This is money that could be spent on the education of the children in the classrooms. It could, for example, be used to hire a minimum of seven qualified teachers.

The system of school choice also presents another problem. Parents can move their children from one school to another as often as they choose. Although this sounds attractive, research shows that, on average, a child who stays in the same school throughout their elementary education, no matter what that school’s reputation, does better than a child who changes schools more than once. Teachers are now seeing students who have been passed around from one school to another so frequently that they are both emotionally and academically behind other students.

Schools of Choice sounds as if it supports the principles of a democratic society, but at its core, it is elitist. It allows wealthier families in a district to transport their children to more affluent school districts, while politicians use it to cut budgets in the neediest school districts—where fixed costs will force the elimination of educational opportunities for children. The results have been disastrous in Michigan.

Education is not a product to be bartered in the marketplace. Our children’s education is the responsibility of the entire community and the nation. We need to think outside our individual boxes to find ways to solve the problems in American education. A free market system is not the answer.