RETHINKING SCHOOL CHOICE

A tightly argued effort to reduce the crisis mentality about American education and suggest that shopping for schools is not the same as shopping for VCRs. The idea of giving taxpayers vouchers and allowing them leeway to pick and choose schools for their children surfaced in modern times about 30 years ago, says Henig (Political Science/George Washington Univ.; Public Policy and Federalism, etc.—not reviewed). Economist Milton Friedman was the early proponent of vouchers—a better-mousetrap idea (build a better school, and they will come)—and freedom of choice became the soundbite. But it was an idea that got distorted during the civil-rights era of the 1960's and '70's, when southern states grabbed it as a justification for segregated ``academies.'' Market choice surfaced again during the Reagan and Bush—and Clinton—administrations over what was generally agreed to be a crisis in American education. SAT scores were falling, high-school graduates were ``illiterate,'' US students were ignorant of math, science, geography, and the foundations of Western culture. To some, choice became a code-word for either segregation or desegregation; to others, it was the answer to bringing American students up to par in the global economy. Henig argues here that the ``crisis'' in education is exaggerated, and that setting up competition among schools via vouchers or other directly competitive systems evades the complexity of the problem. Vouchers are still under debate, but now-popular magnet schools are a model of one variant of market choice. Citing the usual suspects—New York City's District 4; Montgomery County, Maryland; the Twin Cities—Henig's claim is that choice succeeds when government support and citizen involvement are strong, political leadership is focused, and educators have a goal. An intricate but fair-minded discussion that ultimately—while for choice—comes down against market-based vouchers.