Some Points on Choice in Education

Abstract

The movement toward choice is the first step in a movement toward getting the incentives right in educationincentives for both the suppliers of educational services, that is, schools and their teachers, and for the consumers of education, that is, parents and children. The incentives for schools that a voucher system would introduce would include an interest in attracting and keeping the best students they could. The incentives for parents and students would include the ability to get into schools they find attractive and to remain in those schools. These incentives already exist, of course, but in the absence of choice by parents and schools, they can be implemented only by moving. That is, parents can implement their interests by moving to a school district or attendance zone within their financial reach that they find most attractive. Principals and teachers can implement their interests only by trying to get transferred to a school with a student body that is more to their liking. The results are unfortunate in several respects. For both the schools and the parents and child, an important incentive to improve is missing: The school cannot attract students by improving itself and cannot dismiss students who do not live up to its standards, and the student and parents have no incentive to perform and behave well for the student to be in the school they aspire to. This absence of appropriate incentives on both sides of the educational process means that an important source of educational improvement is missing. A second consequence of the absence of choice in education is that there is extensive stratification of schools, but unlike the comparison used by Astin of Caltech and low-status colleges, this stratification is based entirely on income and race. For example, the incomes of parents of children at New Trier High School in a wealthy Chicago suburb differ far more from those at Chicago's inner-city Dunbar High School than do those at the most selective colleges from those at the least selective. The result of choice in elementary and secondary education, whether confined to the public sector or including the private sector through vouchers, would not be to increase stratification; it would be to replace the current stratification by income and race by a stratification based on students' performance and behavior. To be sure, students' performance and behavior are correlated with income and race, but they are a different basis for stratification that both changes the grounds on which the competition for schools and students takes place and reduces the stratification by income and race. To use an example introduced by Astin, the top students at the selective Bronx High School of Science in New York City (as well as the student body as a whole) are far more diverse in income and race than are the top students (or all students) at New Trier High School or any other suburban school in North Shore Chicago. (I use Chicago-area schools as an example because I am familiar with them, but nearly comparable stratification can be found in almost any large metropolitan area in the United States.) It is perhaps time to be straightforward about stratification among schools more generally. Numerous scholars inveigh against choice on grounds of inequality or stratification, as does Astin.