The Struggle for School Choice
Friday, July 9, 2004
U.S. Freedom Foundation www.freedomfoundation.us
David W. Kirkpatrick Senior Education Fellow

While Americans pride themselves on their social conscience and concern for the individual, other nations often have been the leaders in establishing social programs. For example, Social Security was introduced here in the 1930s, long after its establishment in other nations, not least of all Bismarck's Germany in the 19th century. The pattern has held true for educational freedom as well, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 1925 ruling that school choice is a constitutional right.

It is particularly strange that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a self-proclaimed advocate of individual civil liberties, consistently opposes school choice, which the Supreme Court has said is a civil right. The ACLU in this instance defends governmental coercion rather than individual rights. For years they argued that publicly funded school choice would violate the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ended that argument on June 27, 2002 when it upheld the voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio. It did not, however, end the ACLU's uncompromising opposition to such programs.

As with most proposals for significant change, progress to implement school choice has been slow and hard-fought. Opponents include a coalition of large, well-funded organizations, not least of all the teacher unions. School choice supporters, if organized at all, and millions are not, belong to many small groups with limited resources. They are also less unified because not all choice proposals are the same and some want their version or none at all.

It is also easier to block change than to bring it about. Successful legislation must pass through a series of stages before it becomes law. Blockage at any point kills it.

It is unfortunately true that many Americans lack a basic commitment to democracy and pluralism despite much rhetoric to the contrary. Otherwise why is there so much fear of letting parents determine the course of their children's education? The emotional charge that choice will lead to schools for witches, or schools started by the David Dukes or David Koreshes of the world has, sadly, been effective.

Forget for a moment that those extremist schools don't exist now, and for good reason. First, there has been no demand for them. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court in the same 1925 decision that upheld parental rights in choosing the education of their children, also said the government can regulate, limit or prohibit schools inimical to the public interest.

Those making these charges might also pause for a moment and consider where the David Dukes, David Koreshes, Ku Klux Klanners, neo-Nazis and the like obtained their education. The answer, almost always, is the public schools. While the public schools have not taught such agendas, they obviously haven't been able to dissuade students from holding such views either.

Most professed advocates of education are advocates of schooling, and the two are not the same. There is no shortage of those who support government schools or private schools. On the other hand, there are too few who are primarily concerned with the education of students rather than the welfare of institutions.

So it is that we have compulsory schooling, not compulsory education. There has been no requirement that citizens be educated, as large numbers of high school dropouts and functionally illiterate adults attest.

It would be well to remember the words of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court in the 1943 West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette case, the still controversial decision that students could not be required to pledge allegiance to the flag. Jackson wrote:

"As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public education officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort.'

As Carmen Brutto, a columnist covering Pennsylvania state government once wrote, "I haven't met anyone yet who is against the right of free choice. Except, of course, when someone else wants to exercise the option."
# # # # #

"At every crossing on the road that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand appointed to guard the past." Maurice Maeterlinck