Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
APPEARED IN


View All Articles

Download PDF

FAMOUS INTERVIEWS

Directories:

SCHOLARSHIPS & GRANTS

HELP WANTED

Tutors

Workshops

Events

Sections:

Books

Camps & Sports

Careers

Children’s Corner

Collected Features

Colleges

Cover Stories

Distance Learning

Editorials

Famous Interviews

Homeschooling

Medical Update

Metro Beat

Movies & Theater

Museums

Music, Art & Dance

Special Education

Spotlight On Schools

Teachers of the Month

Technology

Archives:

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

1995-2000


APRIL 2005

Manhattan Institute & Teachers College Argue Pros & Cons of School Choice at Jewish Theological Seminary

By Sybil Maimin

In hosting “Vouchers, Charters, Choice: A Conversation About Education Policy,” the Louis Finkelstein Institute at the Jewish Theological Seminary was fulfilling its mission, begun in 1938, of considering, from an interfaith perspective, public policy issues that have religious and moral dimensions. The subject of choice in education is complicated with “deep ethical and political implications,” explained the institute’s director, Alan Middleman. “School choice evokes fundamental problems,” because it creates a clash between a traditional goal of education—the “public good,” or education of citizens for a democracy with shared goals and values, versus the promise of liberty for parents to educate their children in accordance with their own values. There is a long history of tensions between the consensual needs of the majority and the particular needs of others. Catholic schools were established in this country because of the perception that public schools were dominated by Protestant values and hostile to Catholic beliefs. Legislation prohibiting public monies from going to private schools was aimed at Catholic institutions. Currently, the political and social climate is more open to school choice than in the past. The rise and influence of evangelicals, distrust of government, and a conservative political climate all contribute to the new mood. In a landmark case in 2002, Zellman v Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court ruled that publicly funded vouchers could be used at private (including religious) schools.

Two experts on the subject, Dr. Jay P. Greene, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Education Research Office, and Dr. Henry M. Levin, professor of economics and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College, discussed the pros and cons of choice. Greene, who favors choice, maintains parents already choose the school their child attends by “purchasing” a private school education or paying more for a home in a desirable neighborhood with a good public system. Vouchers would increase equity, he argues. Food stamps and housing subsidies help level the playing field for low-income people. Why not tuition vouchers? As for negative effects on public schools, he cites evidence that competition actually helps these schools, especially in improved test scores and graduation rates. He claims private schools show better results in inculcating civic values. Unrestrained by geographic boundaries, they are better able to buck racial divisions and promote integration. Students in private schools are more tolerant, he believes.

Levin is skeptical of vouchers. “You can’t have it all,” he advised, noting the basic conflict in the ideal of a system that builds social cohesion and a common language but still respects differences among families. He recognizes the need for experimentation in how education is delivered, especially in inner cities, and agrees that some aspects of choice are commendable, but asserts that others reduce equity. Like Greene he sees varying degrees of choice already embedded in the system. Historically, states mandated common educational goals but left responsibility for implementation to communities, producing “democratic localism.” Local or regional values (including religious) are often built into the curriculum, public funding reflects community income levels, admission requirements, testing standards, and accountability vary greatly, needed support services may drain resources from the classroom, and parental add-ons can alter a school’s culture. Generally, people are more concerned about equity and social cohesion than freedom to choose, according to Levin. While studies indicate competition may improve public schools, the percentage shown so far is “statistically significant but not educationally significant.” Again, while integration can be greater in private schools, the figures would drop if the entire system was based on the choice model. The production of democratic-minded citizens and social cohesion depends on the school and educational plan. In the past, 75 percent of private schools were Catholic. Today the number of Catholic schools is declining and fundamentalist schools of all religions are increasing. Some have narrow ideologies that could impact negatively on the teaching of tolerance and democracy. To Levin, equity and social cohesion are the dominant concern. “At this point, there is no evidence to show that choice will lead to a great improvement in education. Even the most favorable studies show only a very small percentage improvement. And, at what cost?” Greene retorted that everything involves trade-offs, and he questioned “how much cohesion is in the status quo” and “how much would really be lost.”

Vouchers are far from being a reality in New York, the speakers admitted. In the coming years, there may be some experimentation with them, especially in inner cities. In several states, legislatures are being deluged with voucher proposals.#

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Name:

Email:
Show email
City:
State:

 


 

 

Education Update, Inc.
All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2009.