When I registered my first child for kindergarten in 1978, I never anticipated the degree to which I would become politically active in issues involving equity and choice. My commitment to democratic principles in public education, however, compelled me to take part in several heated policy disputes over newly created district options. Each conflict was marked by angry exchanges between parents benefiting from choice programs and parents like myself who opposed preferential treatment of some students over others.
I often wished more of my university colleagues could witness school board meetings where I heard statements like "Our children are superior and deserve better resources" or "Our magnet kids are too high on the bell curve to mix with kids in regular classrooms." Such statements supported my growing suspicion that unequal choices in public schools fueled discriminatory parental behavior. It also seemed that when conflicts over options arose, districts that created options expressly to attract certain students (such as those who attended private school) found it more difficult to articulate their commitment to equity.
My Children's Experiences
My own children (the youngest graduated from high school this year) attended public schools in two different cities, each of which was developing new educational options such as gifted and magnet programs. On the surface, these options were innovative and often designed to support important social goals such as school integration. Beneath the surface, however, the new programs developed identities that seemed more elitist than egalitarian.
My original goal of placing my children in a regular urban public school and working with other parents and community members to enhance that school for all the children enrolled was naive. Rapid changes within my children's schools seemed to create more of a sense of competition than community. For example, when my first child entered kindergarten, her school did not track children until 4th grade. Five years later, that school began tracking and testing for placement in an "optional" gifted program before kindergarten. My concern was that this early tracking would lead to exclusionary practices that would deny fair opportunities to less advantaged children, who might need more time to develop their abilities. Parents and teachers often talked about the need for early sorting so "brighter kids don't get held back by the rest."
I was not so much troubled by my own children's opportunities as by my perception of a diminished commitment to equal opportunity and successful education of all children. After I joined with other parents to challenge district trends in testing, tracking, and gifted programming, we attracted an unanticipated level of controversy. The system of "winners and losers" that emerged polarized parents in an increasing hostile climate. One school board meeting to discuss new gifted programs required added police protection because of escalating tensions between groups of parents.
My family's move to a second city in 1985 placed us face-to-face with repercussions of desegregation and magnet programs. The community middle school attended by my older child was largely resegregated because of "white flight" to magnets or private schools. Our community elementary school had a magnet as well as a regular program. I enrolled my younger child in the largely resegregated regular program, which had a bigger class and fewer resources. Even though my own children prospered in the regular programs, other children did not fare as well. I was still deeply concerned about the subversion of the spirit and intent of civil rights and integration.
I became the leader of a parent-community consortium in the middle school, an active participant in a task force to increase equity and excellence in the elementary school, and president of the local council on public education. While my efforts as an advocate for equity were controversial and often frustrating, I hoped my children and those of others would be inspired to become adults committed to justice in a democratic system of public education.
Three Central Issues
Although I recognize the potential value of choices for parents and students in public education, my experiences as an urban public school parent have convinced me that democratic commitments to school equity must be central to the evolution of fair and appropriate school choice. As educators develop public school options, I believe that three issues demand their attention.
1. Mixed results of voluntary desegregation programs. The Brown decision and subsequent movement toward integration resulted in the creation of choice programs in public school districts across the United States. The results of these options in education provide useful direction to those who are currently developing new programs.
Magnets, designed as an alternative to court-ordered busing, have been credited with stabilizing middle-class school populations, retrieving children from private schools, and stemming white flight while helping districts meet statistical federal desegregation mandates. A recent study of the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program, however, raised unanswered questions about the contribution of magnets to systemwide desegregation and availability of high-quality education to all students (Steel and Levine 1994).
Questions of equity have also arisen. The National Coalition of Advocates for Students (1991) reports that it cost more in actual dollars and staff to establish and support a magnet school, and that allocation of extra resources was most often at the expense of other schools in the district. The report challenges educators to recognize that any school improvements that foster uneven quality across districts must be evaluated in light of profoundly negative consequences to those children denied access to "good" schools.
The mixed results of magnet programs indicate danger that options may reinforce discriminatory practices and decrease resources for children who need them the most. They also raise questions about assumptions that limited-access options create greater support for public education or progressive social goals. Magnet programs billed as "better" appeared to reinforce public belief that mainstream public education was inadequate and that "more desirable" students had to be lured with extra resources and controlled admission policies. When magnet programs attracted advantaged and higher-achieving students, strong pressure emerged to provide better programs and more resources for those enrolled. A sustained commitment to racial justice and equal opportunity for all children in the district was lost or subdued.
2. Political and social agendas that affect public schooling. The constitutional promise of liberty and equality has yet to be realized in many aspects of American life, including public education (Kozol 1991). In the absence of equal and excellent public schools for all children, citizens become competitors for the best (or even adequate) resources. Those in the position of justifying their advantage may denigrate the intelligence and worthiness of others. Disadvantaged parents may be blamed for not making choices that were unknown or withheld, impoverished children may be blamed for academic deficiencies that result from a lack of resources and opportunities, and communities with smaller tax bases may be blamed for problems of poverty and unemployment beyond their control.
Educators must be concerned about a public lack of regard for "other people's children" and the subsequent denial of responsibility for universally adequate educational opportunities. Widespread distrust of public schools and prejudice toward public school students lead to a mentality of save yourself and others who appear salvageable. Educators can reinforce public confidence by articulating a belief in democratic public education.
3. Continuing struggle for social and racial justice. The National Coalition of Advocates for Students (1988) reports that differential treatment of children by race, class, sex, language, and handicap subverts our nation's deepest values of fairness. Such treatment has enormous practical consequences (p. ix).
The conditions John Goodlad described in 1984 continue to exist today: minority children and those from the lowest socioeconomic groups are found in disproportionate numbers in lowest school tracks, and children from upper socioeconomic groups are consistently overrepresented in higher tracks. In spite of decades of national debate and attention, the promise of equal educational opportunity remains elusive.
Educators who design options must acknowledge continuing forces of racism, sexism, classism, and bias. Jonathan Kozol (1991) asserts that America has turned its back on the moral, if not the legal, ramifications of Brown. If we seek continued progress toward equity, options must not turn into escape routes for those who seek to avoid integration or fair distribution of resources. Ellen Lagemann (1995) urges educators to maintain the vision of equity because although we have a very long way to go before the promise of such a society can be realized to the benefit of all the people, the faith in education that was inherent in Brown was not misplaced—contributing to the achievement of racial justice and equality is among the most important public purposes of the public schools (p. 606).
Toward Greater Social Responsibility
- All children are equally valued and will receive equal consideration in the design and implementation of public school options. While concerns such as maintaining a tax base or competing with private schools may exist, the central mission of all public schools is excellent service to all enrolled children.
- The public schools are accountable for equitable distribution of resources to all children regardless of parental choice of available options. Parents may choose programs that are different, but options do not represent choices between adequate and inadequate resources. Public schools do not place parents in the position of choosing an inferior education for their children.
- The public schools remain committed to progress toward best practice for all students. Options may provide innovative or special approaches to education. Public educators, however, will make every effort to progressively extend successful elements of options to all public school students. Examples are smaller class size, health services, longer periods of instruction, or methods of bilingual education.
- The public schools remain committed to the full intellectual development of all students. Options may recognize and support specific talents or interests, but public educators respect the need to help all students reach their full potential. Standardized or IQ test scores may provide useful current information about students but are not used to justify differential treatment or uneven access to best practice or adequate resources.
- All options and choices exist in the context of full commitment to systemic equity and the pursuit of excellence for all children. The public schools will continue to conform to standards of law and justice without prejudice or favoritism. Their central mission will continue to be to open doors of opportunity for each and every child (McKenzie 1993).
