UNRAVELING THE CASE AGAINST SCHOOL CHOICE

By Judi Amri, Islamic Schools La!u o" Amrica

School choice proponents have been battling to prove the merits of school choice for more
than a decade. Opposition from groups such as the National Education Association (NEA),
American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the National Schools oard Association has
been fierce. !ntil recentl", school choice advocates had little more than analogies,
assumptions, and economic principles to defend their position.
Toda" numerous ta# programs, appro#imatel" $% privatel" funded voucher programs, &
publicl" supported voucher programs, and numerous charter schools provide ample empirical
evidence that school choice is e'uitable, (anted, and (or)s. A decade of research on the
*il(au)ee +arental ,hoice +rogram proves that choice produces improved test scores
(http-..(((.legis.state.(i.us.lab.reports.//01tear.htm). Even the ma2or 'uestion of the
constitutionalit" of school choice has been positivel" addressed in the recent Supreme ,ourt
ruling that upheld the ,leveland, Ohio voucher program.
The case against school choice is, indeed, unraveling. *an" of the arguments against
school choice have disappeared.
#isco$c%&io$s A'ou& School Choic
3. School choice will divert funds from public schools damaging the quality of those
schools.
The opposite has been proven to be true. +ublic schools don4t lose mone" (hen students
attend charter schools or private schools using vouchers. The amount of mone" provided to
send a child to a charter school or to pa" a voucher for use in a private school is less that
(hat the public school receives to educate each child. 5enerall" the difference sta"s behind
(ith the public school. 6n addition, the Federal government provides voucher monies. The
public school gets to )eep all the monies provided b" the State government.
There have been numerous e#amples in Ne( 7or), Ari8ona, and other areas that
demonstrate that competition is in fact improving public schools (here school choice
programs e#ist. ,aroline 9o#b", a 9arvard researcher, found that (here school choice
programs e#ist both public and private schools increased academic achievement and
graduation rates improved.
1. Private schools will only select for admission into their schools the cream of the
crop still leaving the poor behind in the worse schools.
The most obvious argument to this assumption is that the :best; students (ill sta" right (here
the" are. <h" (ould the move from a school (here the" are en2o"ing success= The
*il(a")ee +arental ,hoice +rogram found that it (as the students in the most need that tend
to leave the public school to enter a private school of their choice.
+ublic schools turn a(a" man" children (ith disabilities and behavioral problems and out0
place them to private schools. Nearl" >,/// private schools across the countr" education
3//,/// children (ith disabilities, man" of (hom (ere refused b" public schools.
1
*an" public schools, because of their location in affluent neighborhoods, are comprised of
the :cream of the crop.; These schools aren4t critici8ed. At the same time, children (ho live
in lo(0income neighborhoods are trapped in poorl" performing schools. School choice
addresses such ine'uit" issues.
>. Private schools are risky because they lack accountability. They dont have to
adhere to the same rules that public schools adhere to.
+rivate schools must compl" (ith the same reporting regarding non0discrimination and
financial practices. !nli)e public schools, private schools are accountable to their customers
?the parents. +ublic school spending has no correlation (ith declining student achievement.
@on4t confuse r!ula&io$ (ith accou$&a'ili&yA +rivate schools tend to establish real
measures of accountabilit" and set higher standards of e#cellence, unhampered b" valueless
regulation. Bemember?in a private school parents and students can choose to go
some(here else and their mone" goes (ith them.
C. Private schools will become more vulnerable to ederal regulation by accepting
public monies in the form of vouchers.
This is probabl" the most legitimate concern regarding school choice, in particular, voucher
programs. The )e" to avoiding this ris) is to have a (ell0designed choice program that
protects the private school and (hich provides for periodic assessment and revie(. Some
free0mar)et advocates staunchl" oppose an" form of government support of private schools,
>
but the realit" is that private schools, in most states, are alread" sub2ect to man" basic
regulations in the areas of health, safet", non0discrimination, and financial reporting. Some
states even impose regulations on curriculum content, length of the school "ear, and teacher
'ualifications. School choice (ould reinforce the numbers and strength of private schools
thereb" helping them to resist ineffective and meddlesome government regulation.
&. School choice !ust simply doesnt work.
Numerous studies b" researchers at 9arvard, 5eorgeto(n, !niversit" if <isconsin, Ohio
State @epartment of Education, and man" others indicate that students participating in school
choice programs do better than their peers in public schools. For more information on
specific studies please refer to :Selected +ublications on School ,hoice; on the ,enter for
Education Beform4s (eb site (http-..(((.edreform.com.schoolDchoice. ).
Another important factor that proves that school choice (or)s has to do (ith surve"s of
families participating in school choice programs. A surve" b" Ea" 5reene :A Surve" of
Besults from Foucher E#periments-<here <e Are and <hat <e Gno(,; indicates that :The
evidence in support of school choice is :unambiguous and over(helmingl" positive.; &/H of
choice parents in ,leveland reported that the" (ere :ver" satisfied; (ith the academic
program, safet", discipline, and moral values of their private school compared to a similar
response from onl" >/H of parents (hose children (ere enrolled in the public schools there.
+arents believe that their children are better off in the private schools of their choice.
I. "sing public funds for tuition at religious schools in unconstitutional.
C
School choice cases have al(a"s argued that the vouchers do not violate the constitutional
provision for separation of ,hurch and State because the funds are given to the parents and
the decision as to ho( that mone" is sent is directed b" the parents of students and not the
private schools.
Three State Supreme ,ourt decisions (Eac)son v. enson in <isconsinJ Simmons09arris v.
5off in OhioJ and Gotterman v. Gillian in Ari8ona) have upheld the programs under the First
Amendment. The final debun)ing of this legal argument came about (hen the Supreme
,ourt of the !nited States upheld the ,leveland, Ohio voucher program this summer.
Our (osi&io$
The 6slamic Schools4 Keague of America (The Keague) believes that the school choice
movement is good for our communit" based on our present understanding of the facts toda".
9o(ever, it goes (ithout 'ualification, that it is in the interest of the 6slamic schools that (e
ma)e an effort to remain current of the facts, to )eep an open dialogue, and to be prepared to
promote or protect those policies that (ill have the most beneficial impact on *uslim children
and 6slamic schools. <e encourage "ou to do the same.
&