News Clippings on Sheff v. O'Neill

    ; 
L
b
 

Y 
£
3
 

    

dl JUN_LIL INN VV 1 
  

American Education's Newspaper of Record Volume X, Number 23 - February 27, 1991 

  

Weicker Calls for 
An Income Tax, 
Finance Reforms 

Conn. Plan Shifts Aid 

From Wealthy Districts 

By Karen Diegmueller 

Facing a severe budget crisis tied to the 

decline in the New England and national 

economies, Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. of 

Connecticut has challenged one of his 

state’s enduring traditions by proposing 

for the first time to tax personal income. 

But even that new and highly controver- 

sial source of revenue will not be enough to 

spare the education budget in a state re- 

nowned for school spending. 

Moreover, the Governor's 1991-92 

budget calls for a cut in state aid to nearly 

half of Connecticut’s school districts. 

Funding for less-wealthy districts would 

rise, however. 

“I predict the saying ‘turf battle’ will 

achieve a whole new definition in Connect- 

icutin 1991,” Governor Weicker said in his 

budget address this month. 

Mr. Weicker, a former Republican mem- 

ber of the U.S. Senate who was elected as 

an independent in November, inherited a 

deficit that his administration says has 

climbed to $2.4 billion. 

The Governor argues that the state 

needs to restructure its tax system and 

spending plans in order to cope with the 

Continued on Page 27 

  

  

  

By Ellen Flax 

WasHINGTON—With the United States 
and its allies poised last week for a possi- 

ble ground offensive in the Persian Gulf 

war, educators, politicians, and others 

weredebating ways toreduce a potential 

category of homefront casualties: war 

orphans. 

The demographic makeup of today’s 

armed forces raises the possibility that a 

  

WAR IN THE GULF 
  

large number of children of American 

servicemen and women could be left par- 

entless by the war against Iraq, some 

observers warn. In the current all- 

volunteer force, soldiers are more likely 

to be older and have children than their 

counterparts in the Vietnam era. And 

women, many of them single mothers or 

married to other soldiers, constitute 11 

percent of the active force. 

About 16,300 single parentsand 1,200 

military couples with children are 

among the 535,000 U.S. forces deployed 

to the Gulf, according to the Pentagon. 

Over all, nearly 66,000 single parents 

and more than 70,000 married couples— 

almost 47,000 of whom have children— 

now serve in the armed forces. 

Widespread reports about single par-     

Specter of Gulf’s ‘War Orphans’ 

Causes Concern Among Educators 

  A
P
/
N
e
w
s
f
i
n
d
e
r
 

Linda Osgood, an Army Reserve medic, 

says goodbye to her son, Kaleb, after 
being called to duty in the Persian Gulf. 

ents and married couples going offto war | 

and leaving their children—sometimes 

newborns—behind has raised new ques- 

tions about the role of parents and, more 

pointedly, women in the military serv- 

ices. 
Last week, the Senate rejected a propos- 

al that called for allowing single parents, 
or one parent from a military couple, to 

be reassigned upon request from combat 

Continued on Page 16 

  

After Slow Start, Asian-Americans Begining 
To Exert Power on Education-Policy Issues 

By Peter Schmidt 

McLean, Va.—The struggles of Nguyen 

Ngoc Lieu, a refugee from Vietnam, illus- 

trate both the strides Asian-Americans 

have made in influencing public-school 

policy and the long road they still have 

ahead of them. 

After fleeing from Saigon to Northern 

Virginia in 1975; Mr. Lieu decided that “the 

future of the Vietnamese-American com- 

munity is right on the steps of the school.” 
Acting on those beliefs, Mr. Lieu worked 

for several years as a resource assistant in 

the Arlington public schools and helped or- 

ganize the Vietnamese Parents Association 
of the Washington Metropolitan Area. 

After more than a decade of reaching out 

to parents, however, Mr. Lieu still finds        
  

ing on the steps of the school alone. 
The growth of the parents’ association 

has been slow, and the degree to which the 

region’s estimated 20,000 Vietnamese par- 

ents attend meetings of the parent-teacher 

association and school board “is shameful 

for us,” said Mr. Lieu, who now heads the 

V.P.A. 

Activists from other local, state, and na- 

tional groups concerned with the education 

of America’s highly diverse population of 

Asians and Pacific Islanders express simi- 
lar frustrations. 

Virtually all agree that the parents they 

represent are highly motivated to promote 

education in the home, but that they are 

reluctant to try to advance their children’s 

interests to school officials. 
The irony, several activists said, is that 

  P
h
o
t
o
p
r
e
s
s
 

  

    
  

Nguyen Ngoc Lieu heads a group of



   Income Tax, @ift in Aid 
Proposed in Connecticut 
Continued from Page 1 

huge shortfall. 
The linchpin of the proposal is the 

creation of a personal-income tax. 

Under Mr. Weicker’s plan, the state 

would levy a 6 percent tax on ad- 

justed gross income in excess of 

$12,500 for single filers and $25,000 

for those filing joint returns. 

To soften the impact of an income 

tax, Mr. Weicker is proposing to cut 

the sales tax from 8 percent to 4.25 

percent, while expanding its base 

by including such goods and serv- 

ices as gasoline, newspapers, cloth- 

ing, haircuts, and movies. 

The Governor also proposes to 

abolish the tax on capital gains and 

lessen the tax burden on business 

by removing a corporate surcharge 

and slashing some sales taxes. 

Theproposal,accordingtoadmin- 

istration budget documents, would 

raise sufficientfundstocovera$7.4- 

billion budget for 1991-92, which 

would represent a 2.3 percent de- 

cline in overall spending. 

The new tax structure would shift 

more of the burden from the poorest 

residents to those in the middle- and 

  

“I predict the 

saying ‘turf battle’ 

will achieve a whole 

new definition in 

Connecticut 

in 1991.” 
—Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. 

  

high-income brackets, administra- 

tion officials predict. 

The equity theme runs through- 

out the Governor’s budget, includ- 

ing education, said Commissioner 

of Education Gerald N. Tirozzi. 

“He’s respected the concern for at- 

risk children, children with the 

greater need,” Mr. Tirozzi argued. 

All told, elementary and second- 

ary education would receive $108.3 

million less than had been tenta- 

tively allotted for the coming year. 

The majority of the savings, $80 
million, would come from the elimi- 

nation of the hold-harmless provi- 
sion of the Education Cost Sharing 

Grant, the state’s formula for equal- 

izing funding among wealthy and 

poor communities. 

Under the hold-harmless clause, 

which legislators have long held sa- 

cred, districts are protected against 

year-to-yearcutsin their state fund- 

ing—ineffect,ensuring that nocom- 

munity receives more state money 

at the expense of another. 

By recommending the elimina- 

tion of the clause, however, Mr. 
Weicker would scale back funding 

to 81 districts while increasing 

funding for the other 88. 

Bridgeport, the state’s second- 

largest district, would receive an 

$8.75-million increase in state aid 
from the current fiscal year. 

That increase had been anticipated, 

according to the district's superintend- 

ent, James A. Connelly. “If you look at 

poorer and larger districts, this was 

coming under normal circumstances 

anyway,” he said. 
On the other hand, Norwalk—   

which Mr. Connelly said has many 

of the problems of an urban district 

but on a smaller scale—would lose 

$5.7 million in state aid. Mr. Con- 
nelly warned that the cut in aid 

could undermine broader support 

for education funding. In the past, 

he noted, legislators from both af- 

fluent and poor areas have forged a 

coalition to support education. 

“This has opened up the [issue of] 

the haves and have nots,” he said, 

“which could crack that very, very 

fragile coalition that has united 

around education.” 
Mr. Connelly joined other educa- 

tors in commending the Governor’s 

overall attempt to put limited re- 

sources wheretheyaremostneeded. 

Educators nonetheless expressed 

concern with the level of funding. 

“If there is an unwillingness by the 

local community to pick up the slack 

. . . then we're going to see significant 

impact at the local level,” said Mark 

Waxenberg, presidentofthe Connect- 

icut Education Association. 

The cEA., along with the Con- 

necticut Association of Boards of Ed- 

ucation, wants a state panel that 

drafted the equalization funding for- 

mula to be reconvened. 
“I certainly have no quarrel that 

all school districts are going to have 

to bear some fair share of balancing 

the budget,” said Kevin B. Sullivan, 

Senate chairman of the joint educa- 

tion committee. 

But, Senator Sullivan noted, 

some of the communities losing fund- 

ing are those with high tax rates and 

large older populations that are al- 

ready skeptical about education 

spending. 
“The middle is exactly where this 

is falling hardest,” he said, adding 

that the same middle-income group 

will pick up the largest share of the 

burden if an income tax is adopted. 

Mr. Sullivan said he is also con- 

cerned about some cuts that could 

compromise performance, such asa 

planned assessment of 10th graders 

that does not appear in the budget. 

Funding for anumber of categori- 
cal grants would also be reduced or 

eliminated in the budget. 

Among those targeted would be 
mentoring- and cooperating-teacher 
programs, which provide stipends to 
master teachers who help student- 

and first-year teachers. 
Mentoring funds would be wiped 

out, while the costs of cooperating 

teachers would be borne by teacher- 

education programs. Professional- 

development grants would also be 

eliminated, as would funding for all- 

day kindergarten classes. 

Alsoslated forextinctionisnearly 

$12 million in transportation and 

health and welfare services for pri- 

vate-school students, which the 

state has provided for two decades. 

“It’s very disheartening to hear 

that people would want to put any 

children, regardless of where they 

go to school, at risk,” said Matt 

Boyle, executive director of the Con- 

necticut Federation of Catholic 

School Parents. 
The Governor’sbudget does, how- 

ever, recommend $1 million in new 

funding and nearly $2 million in 

transferred money for programs 
aimed at voluntary efforts to in- 

tegrate the schools and help disad- 

vantaged students. 

“It’s a significant increase in this 

fiscal climate,” said Mr. Tirozzi. “It 

sendsaclearmessageasto[the Gov- 

ernor’s] priorities.” 

  
. 

Get these services, 
for free? 

How do these 

people... 
  

Students Grants 
Parents - - Smart Money 
Teachers — Free Resources and Equipment 
Principals wal Scholarships 

Superintendents wis. Funding 
Guidance Counselors Awards       

They use the Education Interface Guides to augment their 

budgets, enhance curriculum, and access the knowledge and 

expertise of corporations, associations, foundations, and nonprofits. 

2,000 school districts subscribe, and they know about 10,000 

actionable and accessible in-kind and direct giving programs. Call 

for subscription information: 

ERIAATINMINTESS ST 
EUV IUNIN & S552 

P.O. Box 3649 « Princeton, NJ 08543-3649 

1-800-222-FUND       

  

   

    

   
DERAT I), tt LY 1 

l 

    
     

     
     
      

     
    
    

    

      
    
          

            

         

      

AMERICAN FEDERATION 

OF 

AFSA is the largest, national union representing public school 

administrators — PRINCIPALS, ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS, 

DIRECTORS AND SUPERVISORS, in places such as New York 

City, Boston, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, St. Louis, Newark, 

Detroit and Washington, D.C.. 

AFSA is the organization dedicated to improving salaries and 
working conditions for school administrators and to provide the 
opportunity to function in a more professional way, unhampered by 

intimidation and protected by fair and equitable contracts. 

   

AFSA is a union of concerned and caring professionals devoted to 
the pursuit of excellence in education. 

WRITE OR CALL FOR FULL INFORMATION 

Vice Presidents: 
Ronald Banks 

Leonard Berliner 

Bruce Berndt 

Edgar Burnett 

Joseph Chagnon 

Ted Elsberg 
President 

Regional Representatives: 
Edgar Burnett 

Midwest 

Murray Schneider (314) 531-7206 

Executive Vice President 
Alan Fibish 

West Coast 

David Mulholland (415) 564-1025 
Secretary 

Audrey Coleman 

Roslyn McClendon 

Donald Singer Murray Schneider 

East Coast 

(516) 349-9696 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF SCHOOL 
ADMINISTRATORS (AFSA) 
853 BROADWAY 
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10003 (212) 477-2580 
(FAX) — (212) 979-8590 

Joe L. Greene Myra Tsukamoto 

Treasurer     

      
     
          
 



  

otruriction is 1989" 
  
  

  

Unwrapp ing 
. the aphage: 

  

wy 

  

“The ihe at “choice” fis 
. become both encouraging and troubling in 

the past year: Those of us with strong 
commitments: to. public’ education: have 
reason to celebrate the retreat from choice 
concepts. that allow: public funding for 
private schooling, such as vouchers and 
tuition tax credits: Such plans almost in- 
variably would result in even greater edu- 
cational inequity than we have now. (See 
“The Inequity of Vouchers,” Rethinking 
Schools, Oct./Nov. 1988, pg. 2) We have 
won an important battle in centering the 
choice debate within the public school 
arena. 

  

This is an example of false 
choices, because not all 
options are open and not all 
options are equal. 
  

  
But there is reason to pausc, as well. 

- Increasingly; school choice has become 
the principal focus of school restructuring - 
efforts. The mass media have been quick 

. lo extol its virtues, usually with the sug- 
gestion that choice won ’t cost any money. 
Busincss leaders like the marketplace as- 
pects of choice, politicians like its pop- 
ulist resonance. School choice has become 
morc than this ycar’s buzzword—it has 
become the top item on the cducation 
agenda in over twenty states. 

+ Given the potency of the prescription, 
we need to be much clearer and more spe- 
cific about the pros and cons of choice— 
its purposes, scope, conditions and record 
of performance—before we swallow any 
magic pills. We cannot afford to be sim- 
plistic. School choice actually means dif- 
ferent things in different places, and differ- 
ent things for_different people. In fact, 
choice is the rationale behind a myriad of 
labels: magnet schools, charter schools, 
alternative concept. schools, unzoned 
schools, open enrollment plans, controlled . 
choice plans. Whenever choice is invoked, : 
we need to know exactly what we're get- 
ting in its name.   

  

  

  

— PE 
BGs 

- p——— 

- The: Choice Models fumidr 
Public school ‘choice concepts’ Faise : 

* many good questions: How do we create | 
+ programs suited to students’ diversc intcr- 

ests and talents, getting past the factory | 
; mode in education? How do. we help par- 
- ‘ents feel ‘more, invested in their child's | 
school, ,more supportive at home and in 
the “classroom? How: do’ we. ‘motivate 
teachers and administrators to squarcly as- 
sess the strengths and weaknesses of their | 
schools and make real changes? How do 
we reduce the role of bureaucracy, which 
has bcen inexorably standardizing and 
monotonizing the teaching and lcarning 
process? How do we rescue the children— 
approximately one-third of our student 
population—who are now being under- 
served and utterly Semoraiivod in failing 
schools? 
. These are the’ right anche, but how 
well do choice plans answer them? In the- 
ory, choice means that schools will earn 
their enrollments, thereby encouraging a 
wider range of educational options and 
spurring deficient institutions to sclf-im- 
provement. Schools that do not meet par- 
ent or student preferences, or do not live 
up to their program goals, will be faced 
with declining enrollments. Presumably, 
the result would be that a mix of decent 
schools and poorly functioning schools 
would simply go out of business. 

Yet theory is not always the same as 
practice—there are often intervening reali- 
ties. Take, for example, New York City, | 
which offers striking examples of how 
promising and how damaging (and how 
different) choice plans can be. 

  

The New York Experience 
New York City’s East Harlem school 

district, Community District 4, has be- 
come famous throughout the country, and 
paramount in the literature, as the place 
where choice works for poor and minority 
youngsters. All of its middle schools (7- 
8th grades) are schools of choice, along 
with three path-breaking unzoned ele- 
mentary schools and a new alternative 
high school. 

It must be stressed that choice works 
. well here because it is part of an overall 
- school improvement proccess that has been 
. underway in District 4 for fiftcen years. 
Choice was an important ingredient, not 
the motive force, of change. Choice was 

- not: introduced overnight, but expanded | 
school by school, as teachers themselves 
devcloped new programs and approaches. 
Each school of choice has been constructed 
as a small and relatively personalized unit. 
Alongside choice, District 4 has developed 

  

  

  

 



    

  

  

  

  

  

-@ 

  

Foice: Unwrapping: the Package - 

an exemplary parent information program 
and strengthened the guidance capacity of 

teachers and” counselors in the feeder 
  

: What if there are not enough 
“good schools” 10 go around, 
“as is the case in New York or 
City and the majority oe other 
‘urban systems? 
  

elementary schools. Moreover, District 4 
is. a densely populated areca where all 
schools are reasonably accessible: 
Perhaps most important, ‘choice i in Dis- 

trict 4 developed out -of collaboration 
among school people in the district, not 
competition between them. The district 
itself plays. an important role in 
coordinating the program, to insure that 
choice offerings are complementary and 

_ coherent among the schools. Enrollment 
is neither selective nor random; school di- 
rectors collectively decide on student as- 
signments to the middle schools after ap- 
plications are submitted. 

. For all of the pluses, District 4 is not a 
perfect model. It should be noted that the 
district’s bilingual schools are segregated 

  

  
from its schools of choice, as are special 
education programs. The only performance 
data available for New York City schools 
are standardized test scores, which show 
District 4 rising from the bottom rank 
among districts (32nd) to the middle range 
(16th), but within the district there remain 
very wide fluctuations of test performance. 
Wc hear a lot about East Harlem’s 

positive experience with choice, and not 
much about the New York high school 
magnct plan, which is the more common 
variety of choice and the other side of the 

coin. Here i isa city-wide choice plan based 

on magnet schools competing with com- 
prehensive neighborhood high schools. 
Over time, the system has evolved four 
tiers: clite academic high schools, special- 
ized theme schools, vocational schools, 
and ncighborhood high schools. 

These ticrs represent a strict hicrarchy of 
resources, opportunity, and results. The 
best schools are selective, through both 
formal admissions procedures and informal 
barricrs to entry. The worst schools are 
dumping grounds for children who don’t 
apply to magnets, don’t get into’ magnets, 
or don’t succeed in schools of choice. 
While magnet schools are more or less 

  

  

  

racially integrated, the neighborhood high 
schools are entirely segregated. Their stu- 
dents are minorities and are poor. 

These. schools on the bottom could 
{ break any teacher’s heart and regularly do. 
They are falling apart, physically and’so- 
cially, and producing drop-out rates of 50- 
80% for Black and Latino students. The 

“choice hicrarchy. is reinforced by middle 
school programs that neither prepare low- 
income students to compete nor inform 
‘parents about their children’s options (or | 
prerequisites); counseling ratios are regu- 
larly 600-to-1. This is an example of false 
choices, because not all options arc open 
an not all options are equal. 

The Minnesota Model 
If the New York City samplcs are sug- 

gestive of the promise and the pitfalls of 
choice, the much-heralded Minnesota 
model prompts unanswered questions. The 
Minnesota Enrollment Options Plan al- 
lows students to enroll in any participat- 
ing public school in the state. The plan 
takes into account some of the objections 
to choice: low-income students have 
transportation subsidies; schools can’t 
selectively accept or reject transfers, al- 

- though they can set space limits. 
 - But it’s hard to match the acclaiin ac- 

corded the Minnesota model with actual 
results; the program barely exists. By next 
school year, it is expected that 2,500 stu- 
dents will participate, out. of a total en- 
rollment of 700,000. That is simply too 
small a sample to say the program is 
working, that it is stimulating widespread 
school improvement and coping with the 
stress of major student shifts. 
Two more states, Iowa and Arkansas, 

have recently adopted state-wide choice and 
twenty more are considering variations of 

the model. As state-wide programs are 
weighed, the paucity of the record should 
be kept in mind. So should some of Min- 
nesota’s distinct advantages: the state pro- 
vides 60% of school funding, funding dis- 
parities between districts are not great, the 
population is relatively homogeneous, and 
the quality of schools is generally good 
and not highly uneven. 

Concerns and Conditions 
The record shows only one thing thus 

far: choice is a complex, double-edged is- 
sue, not a quick-fix for school improve- 
ment. There is nothing inherent in the 

  
  
 



  

  

  

. continued: Pg. 3 

  

   

  

choice concept that makes it automatically 
achieve such goals as quality, diversity and 
democracy in education. To figure out if a 
choice plan is going to benefit or damage 
a school program, educators and parents 
Eo citizens should be looking very 
closely at how the plan is constructed and 
how ‘well it suits the specific circum- 
stances of the local school community. 
What we do know is that if choice is 

genuinely pursued as a way to scrve qual- 

  

Where choice is | 
‘geographically extensive, as in 
state-wide plans, parents may 
no longer be taxpayers and 
voters in the districts their 

children attend and may be 
disenfranchised from the 
political governance process. 
  

ity, equality and diversity in schooling, 
~ then it cannot be scparated from a 

. comprehensive agenda for school im- 
provement and it cannot be divorced from 
the question of resources. 

Optimally, choice will follow from a 
' restructuring program that ensures all stu- 
dents have quality alternatives from which 

, to choose, all families are fully informed 
of their options, all teachers arc engaged 

. by and trained for their school mission, 
+ and every participant has equal access, 

both physical and cultural access, to the 
school of choice. 

In the absence of ideal conditions, there 
are a number of potential problems to as- 
sess in establishing any choice plan. First 
and foremost, we should be concerned 
about the potential for the further segrega- 

tion of students along the well-entrenched 
lines of class, race, gender, and handicap- 
ping condition. This is not only an issue 
of whether choice plans are non-sclective, 
or randomly accept non-resident appli- 

cants. 
What if there are not enough “good 

schools” to go around, as is the case in 
New York City and the majority of other 
urban systems? How far will students have 
to go to find a good school and how many 
spaces will be open? What kinds of kids 
will have the stamina to strike out on 
their own—and who will be left behind? - 
How will kids feel about leaving their 

neighborhood and how will they be ac- 
cepted by those already “at home” in the 

good school? 

  

  

Choice is not a substitute for 

adequate funding or qualified 

teaching. You can only be sure 

that anyone who says choice 

works without costing 

anything doesn’t mean fair 

choice. | 
  

= How will parents understand what op- 
tions are available and what schools are 

lly right for their child? Will parents 
get to these schools or influence their 
policics, beyond signing the enrollment 
forms? Will the schools such students 
leave behind be any better off or more 
‘compelled to change, when they are al- - 

ready dumping grounds for the education- 
ally dispossessed and know it? 

To put these concerns more formally, 

portunity, accountability and the demo- 

cratic governance of schools. Each of these 

concerns is important in its own right, and 

beyond district boundaries.” 

wip Equity Impacts - 

of resources and left to languish. : 
+» Schools competing for enrollment 

may increase informal screening and sort- 
ing mechanisms—through preferential re- | 
cruitment, complex application proce- |   dures, or “punching-out” processes—to | 
bolster the school’s achievement profile. | 

« Choice may unduly place the onus of | 
achievement on the individual student who | 
has opted out of the local school. Choice | 
may be particularly stressful or prohibitive | | 
for poor and minority students, if they are | 
required to depart from cultures of peer and | 
family solidarity and adopt the individual- 
istic modes of achievement which mark 
white, middle-class “mainstream” perfor- 
mance values. : 

« Parent involvement may decrease, 
rather than improve, if the school of 
choice is outside the residential commu- 
nity, which is a known universe of other 
parents and children. Practical barriers to 
parent access, such as time and distance, 
may also increase disproportionately for 
poor families.   

  

we need to consider the potentially nega- | 

tive impacts choice can have on equal op- | 

is seriously compounded when choice goes i 
cha § CER AS ERTRL 

+ Students and teachers may bc creamed, 
so that chosen schools ‘garner high: 
achievers, while poorer schools are drained | 

| enrollment patterns make integration ef- 
| forts wholly artificial. Although choice 

| plans often include stipulations to observe 

«Civil rights mandates and desegrega- 
tion plans may be eroded if choice allows 
specific waivers to apply_or if changing 

integration orders, it is also true that such 
court orders have been legally undermined 
and diminished in recent years. In New 
York City, the decaying neighborhood 
high schools are left with the main re- 
sponsibility for providing mandated ser- 
vices to limited English proficiency (LEP) 
and special education students; 

Accountability Impacts 
Schools may stress public relations 

and packaging over program innovation 
and substance in promoting enrollments 
for their schools. Joe Clark is not the only 
PR principal | in 1 the nation. 

. Reliance « on standardized testing as a 
measure of student and school performance 
may significantly increase as schools 
compete. This is a very deep worry, since 
we are already in danger of sacrificing 
comprehension and critical thinking to 
systems, teaching, and learning driven by 
tests. Moreover, we are not close to 
eliminating cultural bias from standardized 
testing. It is not reassuring to find Min- 
nesota’s governor, Rudy Perpich, touting 
his choice plan by saying: “Choice, sup- 
ported by testing, will create a marketplace 
for education that is accountable and re- 
sponsive to the individual necds of our 
students.” [Education Week, 1/11/89] 

Governance Impacts 
+ Where choice is geographically ex- 

tensive, as in state-wide plans, parents 
may no longer be taxpayers and voters in 
the districts their children attend and may 
be disenfranchised from the political gov- 
ernance process. 

« Where choice requires any significant 
shifting or instability of teaching staff, it 
may undermine reforms to increase teach- 
ers’ authority over the school program; 
school-based management may become a 
strictly administrative prerogative. Teacher 
choice may be negated by parental choice. 

« Schools that are not rcsidentially 
based may be less influenced by and inte- 
grated with community life, in ways that 
potentially make them less responsive (0 
or less supported by education con- 
stituents. This isolation from community 
life is particularly damaging to minority 
students and families. 

« Extensive choice may sorely place 
more control in the hands of state 
administrators and less in local schools 
and districts, if there are significant and 

 



    

  

! 
| 

  

eontinued Po. 4 
» 

unstable enrollment shifts, expenditures, 
staffing and HARSpONALON Jogistics to 
manage...’ ri, 

. Ending disparities between schools 
and districts may also widen with enroll- 
ment disparities, if states do-not substan--- 
tially increase their portion of funding, - 
decrease reliance on local tax bascs, and 
equalize aid to schools. In funding and 
performance, poor districts could simply. 
get poorer, not necessarily better. 

I believe there are reasonable remedies to 
some of these problems with choice, al- 
though the correctives require much greater: 
caution and commitment than most choice 
plans - demonstrate thus far. The 
fundamental issue is whether or not choice 
is developed in the spirit of improving all 
schools for all children. But here we can- 
not rely on rhetoric alone. We have to 
look at the contexts far choice, both the 
educational and political contexts. 

I3 Our assessment must include a recogni- 
tion of what choice cannot accomplish. 
Rehabilitating inner-city schools, revital- 

  

I happen to believe that 
education is an entitlement of 
free citizens, not a commodity 
for consumers. I don’t 
applaud an educational system 
that structures achievement int 

terms of winners and losers... 
  

izing rural schools, recruiting talented and - 
representative teaching corps, lowering 
class size, rebuilding decaying school 
plants, modernizing curricula and peda- 
gogy, extending youth support systcms— 
to do all this for every community and 
every school in need is going to require 
intervention on many fronts and a much 
greater investment of tax dollars. Choice 
in itself doesn’t solve any of these prob- 
lems. Choice is not a substitute for ade- 
quate funding or qualified teaching. You 
can only be sure that anyone who says 
choice works without costing anything 
doesn’t mean fair choice. 

If we assess choice as one factor in a 
total reform agenda, we must also assess if 
it is part of a hidden agenda. Is choice be- 
ing pushed by legislators to circumvent 
battles over rural school consolidation? Is 

  

  

choice being offered to justify disinvest- 
ment in failing urban systems? Is choice a 
“new, improved sorting machine” to re- 
place the increasingly discredited mecha- 
nisms of standardized testing and tracking? 
Is choice among public schools intended 
as the opening wedge for funding private 
and parochial school options? Or is choice | 
simply today’s vehicle of convenience for 
political careerists and educational cn- 
treprencurs? Again, the answers are not 
embedded in choice itself, but in the very 
specific circumstances under which it is 
put forward. 

Finally, there is a philosophical wrinkle 
in assessing the merits of choice which 
strikes a personal chord. Some of the 
strongest proponents of choice like to talk 
about creating a school marketplace. They 
envision an educational system akin to a 
private enterprise system where competi- 
tion spurs schools on to excellence and 
consumers call the shots. 

  

  

cer at Xerox, that “an economic model of 
education is both more democratic and 
more responsive than a political model.” I 
happen to think it is a particular strength 
of the American educational system that it 
is governed by constitutional and electoral 
processes, and not by the “invisible hand” 
of the marketplace. ik 

I happen to believe that education i is an 
entitlement of free citizens, not a com- 
modity for consumers. I don’t applaud an 
educational system that structures 
achievement in terms of winners and 
losers, whether it be a school or the stu- 

dents in it. I don’t look forward to schools 
as service centers or employment agencies; 
I envision them as community insti- 
tutions, serving the goal of democratic 
empowerment. 

So it doesn’t help me analyze the real 
impacts of school choice, as a system of 
enrollment, by extolling the virtues of the 
marketplace. Let's keep public education 
  

  

These schools on the bottom 
could break any teacher’s 
heart and regularly do. They 

are falling apart, physically 
and socially, and producing 
drop-out rates of 50-80% for 
Black and Latino students. 
  

I’m not sure which marketplace they 
have in mind, but the one I'm familiar 
with, here in the real world, works a bit 
differently. It is a marketplace where com- 

| petition not only produces winners, but 
losers as well. It is a marketplace where 
consumers do not have equal buying 
power, reliable product information, or 
very much control over what. gets pro- | 
duced. In recent years, with massive 
deregulation, it is a marketplace which has 
created immense polarizations of wealth 
and well-being. 

Frankly, I am offended by the proposi- 
tion of David Kearns, chief executive offi- 

N 

  

  
There is nothing inherent in 
the choice concept that makes 
it automatically achieve such 
goals as quality, diversity and 
democracy in education. 
  

  

as a public enterprise, a common good 

creating common ground, and see how we 

can increase the options and diversity 

within it. Let’s have choices that represent 

all we know about good schooling avail- 

able in every school and district. Let's not 

fulfill Ronald Reagan’s departing 

prophecy: “Choice works, and it works 

with a vengeance.” 
  

Ann Bastian is a Program Associate of 

the New World Foundation, an educational 

policy consultant,.and a college history 

teacher. She is co-author of Choosing 

Equality: The Case for Democratic 

Schooling (Temple), which received the 

1988 Oboler Award for intellectual free- 

dom of the American Library Association. 

    

 



    

Some useful sources on 
the choice debate | 

. .William Snider, “Parley on .‘Choice’...” .. 

Education Week, January 18, 1989. 

National Parent Teacher Association 

(PTA), “Guidelines on Parental Choice—An 

Educational Issue,” Chicago, 1988. 

Don Moore and Suzanne Davenport, “The 

" New Improved Sorting Machine,” Designs 

for Change Report, Chicago, 1988. 

Janet R. Price and Janc R.- Stern, 

“Magnet Schools as a Strategy for Integra- 

tion and Reform,” Yale Law and Policy 

Review, Spring/Summer 1987. 

Deborah Meier, “Success in East 

Harlem,” American Educator, Fall 1987. 

Education Commission of the States. 

“Overview of State Public School Choice 

Activity,” Denver, December 1988. 

Ross Zerchykov, Parent Choice: A Di- 

gest of the Research, Institute for Respon- 

sive Education, Boston, 1987. 
David Kearns and Denis Doyle, Winning 

the Brain Race: A Bold Plan to Make Our 

Schools Competitive, Institute for Con- 
temporary Studies, San Fransisco. 

Bastian, Fruchter, Gittell, Greer and 

Haskins, Choosing Equality: the Case for 

Democratic Schooling, Temple University 

Press, Philadelphia, 1986. 

3 

: 
; 

  

 



    

       

        
      

  

$1.7 nada 
8CLZ—-%%120 VYuW ITT NYIWO0S 
nv 1S NYKHY09 91 

VILIS3TINY v NYNr 

T169NY9Z LZSNYN 8ELL9 9 
YHIC0 LTIOTA-SXXXXX¥XX ¥EYXXXY 

  

    | SCHOOLS AND DEMOCRACY THE NUCLEAR [ESR CHOICE CAN 
OPTION CEE SAVE PUBLIC 
The war is going “right on schedule,” military Maynes briefers tell us. But lurking behind their bland Peter Weiss EDUCATION assurances we sense uneasiness, a feeling that the 
Iraqi military is not about to crack, an unspoken Robert C. DEBORAH W. MEIER fear that American ground forces could walk into A[1] F nsen some terrible calamity—a bloody tank battle, a 
chemical attack—that would cause great pain and 
anger at home. These lurking anxieties lend cred- 
ibility to reports that the Administration is looking 
seriously at the possibility of nuclear retaliation, 
which it has never categorically ruled out. 

It’s unlikely at this point that President Bush : LL LURE would authorize a nuclear offensive to soften Slavenka up Iraqi defenses—the political fallout would be & 4 too great. But it’s not so clear that he would not Drakuli¢ take up the nuclear option in the event of some 
military disaster. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney 

   

    

        
    

        

    
Before deciding to go down in history as a war Richard Falk President, George Bush called himself our “educa. ; tion President,” announcing ambitious goals to ra 23 make American schoolchildren first in the world 
by the year 2000. These goals were applauded by BALKAN politicians, educators and corporate leaders across 
the political spectrum. America’s future itself, they 
all declared, is at stake, but, unlike the gulf war, 
they believe this future can be bought cheaply. 

The conservatives have the answer: choice. 
It’s a solution, they note, that doesn’t require Lav A throwing money at schools. And furthermore it’s : politically correct. The marketplace, they remind 

hinted as much when he told U.S. troops in Saudi CONFESSIONS us gloatingly, will cure what a socialistic system 
Arabia that if “Saddam Hussein is foolish enough : of schooling has produced: the miseducation of 
to use weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. re- | i OF BAGHDAD our young. The most articulate and contentious 
sponse would be absolutely overwhelming and it : ANNE Hi; proponents of marketplace choices in educa- 
Joly x Savestunes Civ i conventional Marg of Kidder tion are John Chubb and Terry Moe, whose arti- g has already pulverized Iraq, what sort cles, speeches and book, Politics, Markets, and 
of “devastating” options remain? lel pm America’s Schools, have sparked widespread de- 

Chemical weapons might not have the massive : bate. But this is not merely a battle of words. A 
retributive effect sought by Washington. Fuel-air number of localities and several states have in- 

; : ve | LUI IAA] | ™ : 
explosives (FAEs) approximate the destructive ; tiated systems of choice, often using Chubb 
power of smaller nuclear munitions, but they SHELBY STEELE and Moe’s data to support their programs. While 
would not appreciably shorten the war. In the end, Adolph Reed J I Bush may conclude that only nuclear weapons io Fas could provide an “absolutely overwhelming” re- | FE : sponse and hasten Iraq’s defeat. 
America may well “prevail” in the gulf war 

without recourse to nukes, but the fact that U.S. 

  

            
       

   

   
     

       
             

  

      
      
             

  

      
      
      

  

   =.    

     
      
      
      
     

      

Chubb and Moe contend that they favor pub- 
lic education, what they mean is public fund- 
ing for education. Public institutions are their ; enemy. They make no i+ 

M [} @ bones about it: Private 

   
   

        

  

      

         
     

      

  

    

    

NEUHAUS’S is good, public is bad. leaders are even considering the use of nuclear, : Private equals enter- 09 chemical or FAEs shows the ‘TIMES SQUARE’ prising, public equals 5 pathological impact of this |B eo § | stifling bureaucracy and 3 war on the national psyche— Arthur Le Danto destructive political in- one that will persist for many STi 8 | fluence. years to come. 

  

03775351,   (Cont. on p. 266) 

  

   



CT T
—
—
 

. 
9%
 

    2€6 The Nation. March 4, 1991 

  

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest 

To children ardent for some desperate glory, 

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est 

Pro patria mori. 

Was it as sad as this in World War II, Mummy? Write soon. 

I love you, 

Margie 

  

Choice 
(Continued From Front Cover) 

The original right-wing challenge to public education, 

vouchers for private schools, went down to a resounding de- 

feat. The newest star on the right, choice, is both a more 

powerful challenger and a more interesting one. Because pro- 

gressives are on the defensive, their concern with equity leads 

them to attack choice reflexively as inherently elitist (natu- 

rally, it has few friends among educational bureaucrats either). 

This is, I believe, a grave mistake. The argument over choice, 

unlike the one about vouchers, offers progressives an oppor- 

tunity. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that progressive edu- 

cators were enthusiastically supporting schools of choice, 

usually called “alternative schools.” However, those alterna- 

tives were always on the fringe, as though the vast majority 

were doing just fine, thanks. We now have a chance to make 

such alternatives the mainstream, not just for avant-garde 

“misfits’’ and “nerds” or those most “at risk.” 

Americans have long supported a dual school system. 

Whether schools are public or private, the social class of the 

students was and continues to be the single most significant 

factor in determining a school’s intellectual values and how 

it works. The higher the student body’s socioeconomic sta- 

tus, the meatier the curriculum, the more open-ended the 

discussion, the less rote and rigid the pedagogy, the more re- 

spectful the tone, the more rigorous the expectations, the 

greater the staff autonomy. Numerous studies have confirmed 

a simple fact: The primary factor in determining the quality 

of schools (as well as programs within schools) is not wheth- 

er they are public or private but who attends them. Chang- 

ing this is what education reform is all about. What we need 

is strategies for giving to everyone what the rich have always 

valued. After all, the rich have had good public schools as well 

as good private schools. If we use choice to undermine pub- 

lic education, we will increase the duality of our educational 

system. If we want to use it to undermine the historic duality 

of our schools, the kind of plan we adopt is more important 

than choice advocates like Moe and Chubb acknowledge. 

When I first entered teaching, and when my own children 

began their long trek through urban public schools, I too was 

an unreconstructed advocate of the strictly zoned neighbor- 

  

Deborah W. Meier has been working in New York City pub- 

lic schools for the past twenty-three years and is currently 

principal of Central Park East Secondary School. This arti- 

cle is adapted from her essay in Independent Schools in 

the 1990’s, edited by Pearl R. Kane (forthcoming from 

Jossey-Bass). 

hood school. I knew all about choice, a favorite tactic of rac- 

ists escaping desegregation. There were even moments when 

I wished we could legally outlaw any selective public or pri- 

vate institutions, although I could readily see the risks—not 

to mention the political impossibility—of doing so. That’s no 

longer the case. My change of heart has personal overtones: 

I’ve spent the past sixteen years in a public school district in 

East Harlem that has pioneered choice, and I have founded 

a network of small schools of choice in that community: the 

Central Park East schools. All of District 4’s schools are 

small, largely self-governing and pedagogically innovative. 

They are schools with a focus, with staffs brought together 

around common ideas, free to shape a whole set of school pa- 

rameters in accord with those ideas. 

It would have been impossible to carry out this ambitious 

agenda without choice. Choice was the prerequisite. It was 

an enabling strategy for a District Superintendent, Anthony 

Alvarado, who wanted to get rid of the tradition of zoned, 

factory-style, bureaucratically controlled schools that has long 

been synonymous with urban public schooling and replace 

it with a different image of what “public” could mean. The 

District 4 way was deceptively simple; it required no vast blue- 

print, just a new mindset. Within ten years, starting in 1974, 

District 4 totally changed the way 15,000 mostly poor Latino 

and African-American youngsters got educated without ever 

pulling the rug out from under either parents or profession- 

als. The words “restructuring” and “reform” were never 

used—this was, after all, the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 

Superintendent sidestepped resistance by building a parallel 

system of choice, until even its opponents found themselves 

benefiting from it. 

To begin with, Alvarado initiated a few model schools open 

to parental choice, locating them within existing buildings 

where space was available. He sought schools that would 

look excitingly different, that would have a loyal, if small, 

following among families and would have strong profession- 

al leadership. Alvarado and his Alternate Schools director, 

Sy Fliegel, gave such schools extraordinary support in the 

form of greater flexibility with regard to staffing, use of re- 

sources, organization of time, forms of assessment and on- 

site advice and counseling. Wherever possible, they also ran 

interference with Central Board of Education bureaucracy. 

When people in the “regular” schools complained of favor- 

itism, Alvarado and Fliegel assured them that they’d be fa- 

vorites too if they had some new ideas they wanted to try. 

Some even accepted the challenge. Each year, more schools 

were added. They generally started with a few classes and the 

largest grew to no more than 300 students. Some stayed as 

small as fifty. Within half a dozen years most of the students 

in the middle and junior-high grades were attending alterna- 

tive schools, and each district building housed several auton- 

omous schools. 

Schools were no longer equated with buildings. Where there 

had been twenty-two schools in twenty-two buildings, in less 

than ten years fifty-one schools occupied twenty buildings 

(along with two housed in a nearby high school). Only then 

did the Superintendent announce Stage Two: Henceforth no 

junior high would serve a specific geographic area. All fami- 

 



° 
»     268   

lies of incoming seventh graders would have to choose. The 

district provided sixth-grade parents and teachers with lots 

of information to assist them in their choice, although prob- 

ably word-of-mouth was the decisive factor (as it isin private 

schools). Sixteen neighborhood elementary schools remain 

intact, with space reserved first for those living within the des- 

ignated zone, but Alvarado promised that parents were free 

to shop around if space existed. In addition, the district sup- 

ported the creation of twenty alternative elementary schools, 

eight of them bilingual. As a result, the neighborhood elemen- 

tary schools became both smaller and, in effect, also schools 

of choice. Alvarado even enticed a former independent ele- 

mentary school to enter the public sector, leaving intact its pa- 

rental governing board. 

A majority of the new schools were fairly traditional, al- 

though more focused in terms of their themes (such as music, 

science or journalism) and more intimate and family-oriented 

due to their small size. Size also meant that regardless of the 

formal structure, all the participants were generally informal- 

ly involved in decisions about school life. Most of the schools 

were designed by small groups of teachers tired of compro- 

mising what they thought were their most promising ideas. 

As a result there was a level of energy and esprit, a sense of 

co-ownership that made these schools stand out. They devel- 

oped, over time, differences in pedagogy, style of leadership, 

forms of governance, tone and climate. A few schools (such 

as the three Central Park East schools) used this opening to 

try radically different forms of teaching and learning, test- 

ing and assessment, schooly/family collaboration and staff 

ALLAHU AKBAR 
The Anti-War 

Novel of 

the 1990’s 

$24.95 hardback — 498 pp- 

Available at your local 

bookstore or by writing: 

    

  

   
   

  

Smyrna Press 

Box 021803-GPO 

Brooklyn, NY 11202 

Add $2 for postage 

and handling 

« 2 book the public needs.” 
Prof. Jobn Quigley 

Wy SMYRNA, 
J" | THE RELEVANT PRESS 

The Nation. 

Ne 

March 4, 1991 

  

self-government. In this one small district, noted only a dec- 

ade earlier as one of the worst in the city, there were by 1984 

dozens of schools with considerable citywide reputations and 

stature, alongside dozens of others that were decidedly more 

humane, where kids found it hard to fall through the cracks 

and teachers were enthusiastic about teaching. A few were me- 

diocre or worse; one or two had serious problems. The con- 

sensus from the streams of observers who came to sce, and 

those who studied the data, was that the change was real and 

lasting. What was even more important, however, was that the 

stage was set for trying out more innovative educational ideas 

as professionals had the opportunity to be more directly in- 

volved in decision making. It was nota cost-free idea, but the 

added expense was small compared with many other herald- 

ed reform efforts; it was less than the cost of one additional 

teacher for every newly created school. 

If this were the best of all possible worlds, the next ten years 

would have been used to launch Stage Three. The district 

would have studied what was and was not happening within 

these fifty-three small schools, examined more closely issues 

of equity, tracked their graduates over time, studied the fam- 

ilies’ reasons for making choices and looked for strategies to 

prod schools into taking on tougher challenges. The Central 

Board would have worked out ways to legitimize these “wild- 

cat” schools while also encouraging other districts to follow 

a similar path. Under the leadership of Alvarado’s successor, 

Carlos Medina, District 4 launched Stage Three. But it was 

not the best of all worlds, and the district found itself on the 

defensive for reasons that had nothing to do with education 

in the fifty-three schools. As a result, Medina’s efforts to move 

ahead were thwarted, and new leadership hostile to choice was 

installed. Today, in 1991, District 4 stands once again at a. 

crossroads, with new sympathetic leadership both within the: 

district and at the Central Board, although badly hobbled by’ 

the threat of draconian budget cuts. That the fifty-three 

schools have survived the past few years in a system that nott 

only never officially acknowledged their existence but often 

worked to thwart them is a tribute to the loyalty and ingenu-- 

ity that choice and co-ownership together engender. 

W hile the District 4 story suggests that choice is fully comt- 

patible with public education and an efficient vehicle 

for setting in motion school reform, it is foolhardy not to ac: 

knowledge that in the political climate of the 1990s choice 

runs the risk of leading to privatization. 

However, it’s not enough these days to cry out in alarm atl 

the possible demise of public education. If public schools are 

seen as incapable of responding to the demand for wholesali€ 

reform, why should we expect the public to resist privatizas- 

tion? Maybe private schools aren’t much better, but if publmc 

education has proved so inept at meeting the challenge, if it 

has had such a poor history of serving equity or excellence, 

it’s easy to see the lure of privatization. Given this histor, 

why not just let the chips fall where they may? 

The question is a good one. If we want to preserve public 

education as the norm for most citizens then we’d better hav /€ 

important and positive reasons for doing so, reasons that ai t€ 

compelling to parents, teachers and the broader voting pu’ b- 

PA
N 

y
r
 

 



- 

270 The Nation. 
» 

March 4, 1991 
  

lic. To do so we must make the case that the rationale for im- 

proving education goes far beyond the problem employers 

face in recruiting sufficient numbers of competent and reliable 

workers or our chagrin at finding the United States at the bot- 

tom in test scores for math and science. At least as important 

1s the role education plays as a tool in reviving and maintain- 

ing the fabric of our democratic institutions. While public ed- 

ucation may be useful as an industrial policy, it is essential 

to healthy public life in a democracy. The two go together, and 

never has this been clearer than it is today. If we cannot make 

a convincing case for this, we will see our public schools dis- 

mantled in one way or another, either by a misused choice or 

by erosion and neglect as funds dry up for public education 

and private schooling becomes the norm for those who can 

afford to opt out. The status quo plus cosmetic changes won’t 

save public education, at least not in our major urban areas. 

The alternative to privatization is good public education, 

and choice is an essential tool in the effort to create such ed- 

ucation. It is the necessary catalyst for the kind of dramatic 

restructuring that most agree is needed to produce a far bet- 

ter educated citizenry. Virtually all the major educational task 

forces, for example, agree that dramatic changes will require 

removing the stifling regulations that presently keep schools 

tied to outmoded practices, to doing things in lockstep. They 

agree that if we want change, we’ll have to put up with non- 

conformity and some messiness. We'll have to allow those 

most involved (teachers, administrators, parents) to exercise 

greater on-site power to put their collective wisdom into 

practice. Once we do all this, however, school X and school 

Y are going to start doing things differently. How then can 

we ignore personal “tastes”? Besides, it’s a lot easier to un- 

dertake difficult innovations successfully if teachers, parents 

and students are in agreement. 

We can’t expect the marketplace, public or private, to stim- 

ulate this kind of reform magically. Private schools as an ex- 

ample of the market at work aren’t very inspiring when it 

comes to innovation. They may encourage livelier education- 

al practice, but in general they are as convention-bound as 

public schools. They mostly differ in an invidious way, much 

    
    

  

  

  

like their public school sisters. There’s a hierarchy among 

them, based mostly on how choosy the school can be about 

whom it accepts. The fact that the choosiest schools attract 

higher-status families and select only the most promising 

students insures their success; replication, by definition, is 

impossible. Their value lies in their scarcity. This kind of mar- 

ketplace has led not to innovation but to imitation on a steadi- 

ly watered-down basis, appealing not so much to different 

“tastes” but to different means and expectations. The dual 

system has remained alive and well in the private sector. But 

if the marketplace is not a magical answer, neither, experience 

suggests, can we expect that forced change from the top down 

will work. What results from such bureaucratically mandat- 

ed change is anger and sabotage on the part of unwilling, un- 

ready parents and professionals as well as the manipulation 

of data by ambitious bureaucrats and timid administrators. 

The end result: a gradual return to the status quo. 

To improve education for all children will require more than 

one simple cure-all. It requires a set of strategies. For start- 

ers, federal, state and local initiatives can stimulate districts 

to adopt one or another variation of the District 4 story: 

providing incentives to districts to break up their oversized 

buildings and redesign them into many small schools, easily 

accessible for families to choose from. Once we think small, 

we can even imagine locating new schools in other available 

public and private spaces, near workplaces as well as resi- 

dences, in places where young people can interact with adults 
going about their daily business. While no system of rules and 
regulations can insure equity, public policy can assure that re- 

sources are fairly allocated. It can go further by establishing 
guidelines that promote appropriate social, ethnic, racial and 
academic diversity. 

We'll also need a better quality of information if we want 
to promote long-range school change. We’ll need a public that 
is not confused by misleading data or quickly discouraged by 

the absence of dramatically improved statistics. Who knows 

today what the definition of a high school dropout is or what 
“reading on grade level” means? We’ll need to place less re- 
liance on standardized high-stakes testing systems. Good lay 

          
  

  

  

  

    

  

  

      
  

       



   

    

«March 4, 199] yA The Nation. . » 271 
  

+ information will encourage the kind of lively, even conten- 

tious, dialogue about the nature and purpose of education 

that is so badly needed. Choice offers no guaranteed solution 

to these concerns, but the existence of clear and coherent al- 

ternatives encourages such debate. 

Similarly, greater school-based autonomy goes well with 

choice. School-based management itself does not trigger in- 

novation, but it offers a much better audience for such inno- 

vation. Empowered faculties and families are better able to 

hear new ideas and less likely to sabotage them. Innovation 

no longer appears threatening. School-based management 

combined with the idea of small schools of choice allows both 

parents and teachers to embrace new ideas even if they can- 

not convince all their colleagues or all the school’s parents. 

Furthermore, once we set loose those who are already eager 

to “restructure,” it will be easier to encourage successive waves 
of innovators and risk takers. While R&D in education can’t 
take place in labs separate from real life, as it can in most in- 
dustries, no one wants to be a guinea pig. Creating a school 
different from what any of those who work in the system are 
familiar with, one that runs counter to the experiences of most 
families, is possible only if teachers, parents and students have 

time to agree on changes and a choice on whether or not they 

want to go along with them. 

  

B y using choice judiciously, we 
can have the virtues of the 
marketplace without some 
of its vices. 
  

Since school officials, like parents, are naturally conser- 
vative and reluctant to change their habits, we don’t need to 
sign them all up at once. What’s needed first is a range of 
models, examples for teachers and the public to scrutinize and 
learn from. Credibility will require a critical mass of such 
schools; at this stage it is hard to know how many. But we can 
go only as fast and as far as those who bear the burden of 
change can tolerate. Putting more money into schools does 
not guarantee success but it can accelerate the pace of change. 
Of course, taking money out slows down the possibilities for 
change too. 

In short, choice is necessary but not sufficient. There’s 
something galling about the idea that you’re stuck in a par- 
ticular school that’s not working for you unless you are rich 
enough to buy yourself out of it. Still, if it worked for most 
students, we’d put up with it, but it doesn’t. What’s not nec- 
essary is to buy into the rhetoric that too often surrounds 
choice: about the rigors of the marketplace, the virtues of pri- 
vate schooling and the inherent mediocrity of public places 
and public spaces. By using choice judiciously, we can have 
the virtues of the marketplace without some of its vices, and 
we can have the virtues of the best private schools without 
undermining public education. J 

  

EDITORIALS. 
(Continued From Page 257) 

gained the result of devastating Iraq’s military infrastructure, 
making it highly unlikely that Iraq could mount a serious 
threat to its neighbors in the near future. The sense of achieve- 
ment would be reinforced by the remarkably low level of 
American casualties relative to the scale of the war. By stop- 
ping now Bush would also avoid the risks of a ground cam- 
paign, including heavy casualties, growing dissent at home 
and in Europe, likely defections from the coalition and an al- 
most certain hardening of Islamic hearts against all things 
Western for a long time to come. To go ahead with the war 
might truly imperil access to gulf oil and generate a tidal wave 
of fundamentalist militancy, sweeping away existing political 
arrangements throughout the region. Ironically, the Ameri- 
can war machine might in the end achieve what the Ayatollah 
Khomeini and Saddam Hussein could only dream about. 

On Saddam’s side this cold logic of peace is equally com- 
pelling. Iraq has, in a sense, withstood the incredible air on- 
slaught of the coalition without collapse or surrender. No 
Arab country has managed this much resistance throughout 
the entire century. Saddam’s voice has been heard by the Arab 
masses, indeed by the whole Islamic world. But to go on with 
the war by remaining in Kuwait is suicidal at this stage. 

Of course, cold logic is never enough. It must be reinforced 
and masked by some sort of political process. One can assume 
that the flurry of recent diplomatic activity by France, Iran, 
Algeria, the Soviet Union and others is intended to establish 
this process. Perhaps both leaders are too stiff-necked to heed 
even their most primitive self-interest, but citizens must act 
on the assumption that some possibility exists to avoid car- 
rying this already dreadful war to its bitter end. 

The easiest way to move forward is for either leader to act 
unilaterally. Saddam could stop the war simply by withdraw- 
ing, Bush by reverting to the sanctions-plus approach. But the 
mindset of the two leaders creates an almost zero prospect of 
that happening. 

Hence we must assume that if a political process is to ma- 
terialize, it must have at least the semblance of mutuality. 
Without doubt Iraq must quit Kuwait, while the United States 
must remove its forces from the gulf. Further, both leaders 
will have to endorse a Middle East conference on peace, 
security and cooperation with an open agenda and a flex- 
ible format. 

I wish fervently that our best hope did not rest on cold logic. 
I wish that the horror of war—so manifest these past weeks— 
could have produced a backlash of revulsion. Or that the suf- 
fering of the peoples of Kuwait and Iraq could move the op- 
posing leaders to back off. Or that the U.N. would summon 
the courage to revoke its mandate to wage unrestricted war. 
But such compassionate responses will not be forthcoming 
without a “new world order,” not in the form of Bush’s geo- 
political fantasy but built on the foundation of human rights 
and shaped by democratic social forces dedicated to the vi- 
sion of a warless world.