The School-Choice Balancing Act
Frederick M. Hess and Andy Smarick, in their piece “In Defense of Local Schools” (March 19), do an excellent job of describing some of the tensions between local control and school choice and pointing out a number of ways reformers can change their approach to better align their objectives with those who continue to value the traditional district school. What they and many school reformers fail to recognize and address is that, in most middle- and upper-class suburban communities, market-based school choice and local control are not mutually exclusive and exist together within the traditional geographic-based school district. Parents have made decisions about where to live and raise their families based, in large part, on the health and quality of their local schools. While the boundaries of these schools may be “zip-code based,” school choice is still in full effect for most residents. In these cases, parents are likely to view expansions of charter schools or school choice that reduce the resources of their district schools or result in their children’s inability to attend the local school as measures that are not in their best interests and are clear threats to their property value. Until reformers recognize that the solutions that work best in large, urban districts are not easy sells in most other communities and find alternatives that do not threaten those who have a vested interest in the status quo, many conservatives will continue to meet the school-choice movement with ambivalence.
Scott A. McConnell
Kildeer, Ill.
Frederick M. Hess responds: Mr. McConnell raises valid points. Indeed, we read his note as a useful illustration of our thesis. Decentralized government and local control are mechanisms for enabling a free people to choose how they wish to live. The communities that result are characterized by distinctive cultures, traditions, and rhythms, all of which extend to local institutions — especially schools. For homeowners who’ve paid a premium to live in a given locale, schools are typically valued communal touchstones. To such residents, bold school-choice proposals can feel more like a threatening ideological crusade than a solution to real problems. Choice advocates have struggled to respond to such disquiet, yielding some remarkably tone-deaf stratagems. Two years ago in Massachusetts, a state known for its academically accomplished charter schools, a charter-school referendum was soundly thrashed owing to suburban opposition. In the aftermath, choice advocates seemingly forgot that U.S. public policy is traditionally shaped by genial, Tocquevillian self-interest, instead opting to denounce small-minded, selfish suburbanites for rejecting their noble cause. Over time, school choice has been, first and foremost, crafted and marketed as an answer for families stuck in troubled urban schools, with scant attention to the benefits or costs for those in other circumstances. As Mr. McConnell notes, and as we argued in our essay, the challenge for choice advocates is to treat seriously the concerns of families all across the nation — including those who see their zip codes and schools as expressions of free choices honorably made.