From Nebraska to Tennessee to Oregon and beyond, this year has brought another round of school-choice debates, often portrayed as a “right-wing” issue. But if you think right-of-center policymakers own the movement, think again.
Yes, Republican governors are more likely to promote charter schools and public funds for private school attendance while the pro-charter, pro-accountability Democrats for Education Reform have no apparent influence in President Biden’s White House.
And yes, the teacher unions’ financial alliance with Democrats limits what’s politically possible in solidly blue states. Just last year, Democrats ended Illinois’ only tax credit program, which passed in 2017 with bipartisan support and gave low-income students scholarships to attend private schools.
But a closer look at recent history shows the crucial role that progressives have played since the 1960s in making the case for school choice. I explore their and other arguments in the new Cardus study, “The Progressive Case for Educational Pluralism.”
Pro-education reform progressives in America, it turns out, simply represent the normal practices of democracies around the world — most of which fund a wide variety of schools equally and hold them equally accountable for academic results.
From University of California, Berkeley law professors John E. Coons and Stephen D. Sugarman, to journalists like Joe Williams and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King III, a small but vocal set of progressives have objected to the district-school-only model on multiple grounds. Here are three.
First, some progressives saw the need for school choice through both negative and positive data. The inability of urban districts to serve students of color led Milwaukee’s then-superintendent Howard Fuller to launch the country’s first voucher program in 1990. Fuller still views the program as a clear continuation of the civil rights agenda of which he has been a part.
Sol Stern, a journalist for Ramparts Magazine, came to support school choice after years of encountering abusive teachers who could not be fired and administrators unwilling to rock the boat in New York City while Catholic schools offered academic rigor at a fraction of the cost.
James Coleman, the sociologist who authored the groundbreaking “Equality of Educational Opportunity Report” in 1966, found that in the aggregate, district schools did not change the academic trajectory predicted by family background. Coleman also found that Catholic high schools did change these trajectories, closing achievement gaps between low- and high-income students in four years.
Second, other progressives rejected the ethos of the district school. Sugarman and Coons argued against district schools’ search for moral neutrality, which resulted only in “riskless noncommitment” and “ethical detachment” — both of which they cited as bad for psychological development and adult citizenship.
Jonathon Kozol and Paul Goodman objected to the effects of school districts’ “depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy,” which bred conformity rather than creative expression. They called for alternative schools that were small, organic and responsive to communities’ needs.
Third, all of the above argued in favor of the inherent right of marginalized communities to exercise agency over their children’s educations.
Why did the government’s public housing and public food benefits allow participants to choose their meals or homes, but its public education benefit did not allow a choice for schools? Why were wealthy American parents able to choose schools by choosing to own or rent in “good” school districts, but low-income parents had to take what they were assigned? This seemed a violation of justice.
At the same time, these progressives argued for public assurances of quality — first and foremost, for a high academic bar. Coons, Sugarman and philosophy professor Harry Brighouse emphasized the role the liberal arts curriculum could play, with its exposure to specific historical, scientific and literary knowledge and diverse philosophical and religious perspectives, to build students’ autonomy and academic success.
The left-right binary to which we’ve become sadly accustomed is simply inaccurate. Correcting this narrative is the first step in finding cross-partisan ways to create a more generous, equitable, and academically excellent path for the next generation.
Milton Friedman wasn’t the only one calling for vouchers. James Coleman did, too.
Ashley Rogers Berneris the director and an associate professor with the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy and a fellow with the Mercatus Center’s Program on Pluralism and Civil Discourse.