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.#
