While offering choice in education is seen as a laudable goal in many American communities and is certainly seen as a benefit by many in the current political class, there seems to be an impetus to cut once while ignoring the precautionary advice to measure twice.

It may be that the variables associated with choice are simply too diverse for accurate measurement. The list of options includes at least traditional public schools, public charter schools, private charter schools, magnet schools, pilot schools and voucher programs, to name a few.

It is likely true that there is more research on K–12 education available than at any time in the history of American education. That has not always led to evidence-based decisions.

Instead, our decisions are often based on ideology, politics, faiths, prejudice, rejection of the status quo, or the inability or unwillingness to fund what is best for our children.

When you add geography, race, special needs, poverty and language issues into the student mix the idea that there will be one ideal solution seems far-fetched. And, while there is never enough money, there are billions and billions of dollars at stake.

In such a disruptive and transformational environment, the opportunity for fraud, misplaced priorities and irreversible error cannot be ignored. The wrong choice in most aspects of life is unfortunate, but the wrong choice in education is a tragedy to be suffered by the most vulnerable.

Further, FCMAT said, “The district has not honestly examined how its actions and policies harm students at Bayside MLK.”

Again, these findings were vigorously argued by the board and their objections may have some merit, at least as far as intent. Yet reading the report, is an outstanding cautionary tale for any district implementing choice for even the best of reasons.

Since the report, new pilot programs have begun at Bayside MLK and there is talk that the Sausalito Marin City School District may be merged with Mill Valley.

Sausalito Marin City is hardly the lone example of choice gone wrong. A cursory search of mainstream media is filled with examples, some much more nefarious.

Stories in The New York Times and The Washington Post recently addressed deficiencies in New York City’s magnet and charter schools, alleging that the city’s magnet schools served only those high school students who could pass a test that inferior K–8 education had not prepared them for and that many of the city’s charter schools left seats unfilled, rather than admit students who might drag down overall test scores.

Business Insider reported in March on a study that compared charter school third-party transactions to the Enron fraud. In Oakland, California, an ex-charter school director was charged with grant application fraud and money laundering. A report by two nonprofits widely covered by media detailed more than $200 million in fraud or waste in charter schools.

In May, NPR went after school voucher programs in Indianapolis in a series of broadcasts entitled “The Promise and Peril of School Vouchers.”

It should be noted that media may be unconsciously drifting toward criticism of disruptive systems, as opposed to historical coverage of traditional public schools often described as violent, inefficient or entirely controlled by powerful unions.

Tom Boasberg is superintendent of Denver Public Schools, where some forms of school choice have been around since the 1990s. “We work extraordinarily hard to make sure that we have a focus on parents having a strong depth of choices,” Boasberg said.

To him that is more than a choice between a substandard neighborhood school and an hour bus ride to a charter school across town. “We believe it is important to have great schools in every neighborhood for families to choose from,” he said. “We’ve been extraordinarily strong around all of our schools being public schools. What that means is that we’re going to have a set of three equities for all our schools, public or charter.”

Those equity measures include funding, an insistence on serving all students and a uniform standard of accountability.

“One of the central purposes of choice is to drive greater equity of opportunity for families with the least historical privilege. We’ve worked incredibly hard to make sure that choice is about driving greater equity, rather than exacerbating existing inequity in our society,” Boasberg said. “We’ve closed more schools proportionally than any other district in the country in the last decade when the school didn’t meet our quality bar.”

Those three equity measures have been part of the reason Denver parents are sending their children to public schools again, with attendance up about 25 percent over an eight-year span.

In other districts around the country, charters free from accountability or commitment to equity have proliferated and led to chaos, as has been widely reported regarding Detroit, Michigan. After a yearlong investigation of its private and public charter schools, the Detroit Free Press found “wasteful spending and double dipping; board members, school founders and employees steering lucrative deals to themselves or insiders; schools allowed to operate for years despite poor academic records; no state standards for who operates charter schools or how to oversee them; and a record number of charter schools run by for-profit companies that rake in taxpayer money and refuse to detail how they spend it.”

In other attempts at bringing wider choice, many districts have created special magnet or pilot schools.
These schools often have more autonomy within a district and are often wildly popular with students and parents alike, and that can also be a problem.

In too many districts, magnet or pilot schools draw the best students away from traditional public schools, thereby lowering the traditional school’s performance rating and, in some cases, its funding.

Bruce Fuller, Ph.D., is a sociologist and University of California, Berkeley, Graduate School of Education professor and author of “Standardized Childhood: The Political and Cultural Struggle over Early Education.” He studies diversifying forms of education, including magnet and pilot schools.

In particular, he’s carefully watching pilot school programs in Los Angeles. Fuller believes that LA’s site-management schools could possibly bring differing education factions together.

“I do think LA has a lot of promise. I think there’s a bit of a détente movement that is starting to sprout,” Fuller said. He sees progressive educators and young principals taking over schools in Los Angeles Unified or Boston. “They’re run almost like charter schools except that the teachers stay in the district personnel system so they get pensions and benefits.”

“Social justice groups tend to support this model because it’s moving away from big impersonal high schools run from the district office. There’s more neighborhood-level accountability, at least in theory.”
Bruce Fuller, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Graduate School of Education

At the same time, Fuller said, teachers have only one-year assignments and can be dismissed by the principal. In addition to hiring and firing autonomy, the principals get more control of a school’s budget. “Social justice groups tend to support this model because it’s moving away from big impersonal high schools run from the district office. There’s more neighborhood-level accountability, at least in theory.”

In a paper produced by Fuller, there was evidence that at the beginning of grade cycles, like kindergarten, seventh grade and ninth grade, charter schools were already attracting higher achieving students. Another disparity comes when charter schools subtly force underachieving students to leave. “We know that charters can “coach” special kids out — or kids that have behavioral problems. There are currently three or four lawsuits on this subject from special education parents,” Fuller said.

Fuller views those promoting vouchers as a choice as producing unnecessary distraction, especially since research isn’t showing achievement through voucher choice. He said, “It distracts us from staying in the trenches trying to figure out effective forms of schooling. We get off into this public versus private battle — a massive political distraction.”

He sees the way to equitable choice through the elimination of distraction and a positive two-step process. It requires answers to two of his questions:

1. Can we agree as a civil society to focus our investment on publicly funded schools, advancing civic ideals?
2. Can we agree that there’s going to be a mix of charters, magnets, pilots and traditional schools?