While there are arguments in favor of school choice that transfers public money to private schools, many of them focus on the benefits to those able to leave public schools. Those left behind seem largely ignored. This is a problem.
An argument in favor of school choice is based on the claim that it allows students to escape from dangerous public schools. It is true that public schools can be violent places and protecting children from violence is laudable. This approach is analogous to moving away from high-crime areas, ideally to well-policed gated communities. While this is beneficial to those who can choose to escape, it does nothing to address the underlying problems of school violence. It merely allows some to escape, while leaving the rest behind.
It could be argued that school choice can still solve the problem. However, the obvious reply is that even if all children are (for example) given vouchers, this will merely recreate the problematic public schools but in private form. This undercuts the safety argument for school choice. It would be like trying to solve the problem of high crime neighborhoods by creating gated communities and then moving everyone within the gates. This shows the basic problem with trying to create safety by moving some people away from unsafe areas: it does nothing for those left behind.
One could counter that the solution is dilution: if the problem children could be identified and distributed among various schools, they would be more manageable. This does have some merit, but this could obviously be done without school choice programs.
It could be argued that what matters is securing the safety of some, be it in private schools funded by public money or in gated communities. As such, school choice is good for those who matter. Those left behind do not matter. While this might be appealing to those on the right side of the gates, the obvious problem is that they do not (yet) exist in total isolation from those left behind. So, failing to address the underlying safety issues still leaves people unsafe. This argument is like arguing that public roads are unsafe because of poor maintenance, so the solution is to provide some drivers with publicly funded road vouchers so they can drive on the safer private roads. While this can be great for those who get the vouchers, it does nothing for those stuck with the dangerous public roads. It would make more sense to use the public money to make the public roads safer.
A second stock argument, the quality argument, in favor of school choice is that private schools perform better than public schools, so parents who want their children to get a good education should favor programs that permit their children to avoid or leave public schools in favor of private schools. This assumes that, in general, public schools will be inferior schools. Let us suppose that is true and the higher quality of private schools is a reason to provide public funds to allow some parents to remove their children from the inferior public schools.
From the perspective of those leaving, this seems like a good argument. Who would not want to be able to choose a better education for their children? However, what happens to those left behind, such as those who do not get vouchers? They, obviously enough, remain in what are claimed to be inferior schools. What about them?
It could be claimed that the choice programs can be expanded to allow more children to escape the bad public schools. But diverting more money to school choice programs will result in less funding for public schools, thus resulting in a spiraling decline for these schools.
It could also be argued that the choice program can be funded without taking money from public schools, so public schools would also be well-funded. However, this creates a problem for the quality argument. If public schools are bad, then it would make more sense to use public money to make them better rather than diverting funds to private schools. If public schools are properly funded and become good schools, then the quality argument would be undercut. Using public money so children can “flee” a good school to attend another good school has little appeal. So, the quality argument is self-defeating.
While school choice is appealing to those who want their children to escape public schools, it does nothing to address those left behind. This is a serious failing of school choice and makes one suspect that its proponents do not really care about the good for all children, just what is good for certain people.
Your final two-sentence summary cinches the problem accurately, I think. In different words, we have those who have less and those who can have more, with perhaps some minor inconvenience. There has always been an element of violence in schools and I suppose that is inarguably greater in public institutions. When I went to junior high and then high school, boys regularly engaged in fist fights, girls occasionally slapped each other around and pulled hair. It was adolescence as usual, in the public school system. Although it was regrettable, no one really thought about it. There was one would-be bully who picked fights with other boys, thinking he was a tough guy. He always lost. I had to knock him around a few times and never understood why he was the way he was. By grade eleven, he left me alone. I think there were some psychological issues around his behaviors, but never really knew. By the I graduated (1966),
school violence was still pretty tame. Guns and knives came later, and moreso now, there is rape. Some people have more than others…that is not all about money and never was. It has to do with circumstance and contingency. And, I think, social stratification.
Sorry if I am hogging comment space here, but, I thought more about public money>>>private schools. After further reflection (I thank Dr. Nick Byrd for insight upon the value of reflective thought), I said to myself: why SHOULD public money be funneled to private schools? I admit I don’t know what the argument(s) for this may be, but it seems to me, from the standpoint of fairness to millions of families, who can’t enroll their children in private schooling—must rely on the public school system, questionable though it may be, there is no arguable justification for redirecting public money. If that is not fallacious, it must certainly be counter-productive.
Wealthier folks, who want their kids in private school, OUGHT to pay for that….should not have public money at their disposal. This is not about equity. It is about advantage and/or assertion of rights, because of advantage. There are many discussions and disputes, around ethics, morality, etc. now. Interests, motives and preferences change…frequently. Those drivers create new contextual realities. I do not agree with, nor support any notion of funneling public money to private schooling. Let the richer folks take care of educating their own. They can afford that. Thank you!
Last Remark(s):
Does entitlement apply to all,equally? I don’t think so. In fact, according to my idea around contextual reality, and, previous notions from ancient and more modern thinkers, entitlement is illustrative, of my IMPs* notion. Everyone, rich or poor; intelligent or not so much, thinks/believes they are entitled to SOMETHING. Friends, in Europe, whether natural-born Europeans, or American ex-patriates, do not share that expectation. I think the late Donald Davidson would have found that comforting. He held such notions as being propositional attitudes**. Personally thinking, I do not think anyone is entitled to anything, other than, perhaps, opportunity. I did, what I could, with what I had…then got creative.
*Interests, motives and preferences.
** Davidson…