School Choice: Not a Painless Magic Bullet : Richmond disaster shows downside of urge for quick fix

The economic and educational debacle that hit the Richmond Unified School District has captured national attention. Here is Richmond, cited two years ago by the Bush Administration as a model school district of so-called parental “choice.” Now, it is facing a $29-million debt and bankruptcy, saved from an immediate shutdown only by a court order. What should Richmond’s astonishing failure tell us about parental choice?

Is parental choice--that is, having parents choose which schools their children should attend and making schools more flexible and accountable--now a discredited notion? No. Many upper- and middle-income families already have a range of choices for their children; some can and do opt for the best public and private schools. Choice can be a valuable tool for lower-income families also--to prod more public schools, not just a selected few, to improve their performance.

Four local business and political leaders, writing about choice two years ago for The Times, made the case: “One of the primary causes of the decline in urban education is that teachers and principals have been forced to be more responsive to middle managers in the bureaucracy than to the real consumers of education--students and parents. If the incentive system can be shifted back in the right direction, teachers will be free to focus on what they do best--teach children and be responsive to their needs. The only way the system can respond to parental desires is to give principals and teachers greater flexibility and responsibility “ (emphasis added). In the Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, the school-based management program is a step in that direction.

But the disastrous Richmond experiment also demonstrates the limits of choice. Even in ideal conditions, choice is no panacea; it is fairest when limited to public schools; it is not cost-free; and making it work properly takes careful planning.

Unfortunately, most of those caveats were not taken into account in Richmond, a largely minority school district plagued in 1987 with low test scores and a high dropout rate. Then-superintendent Walter Marks came in offering the district a desperately wanted big and quick fix. The district spent millions of dollars upgrading its equipment, giving raises to teachers, gaining national attention and feeling good about itself. But no one felt so good when the deficit hit $29 million.

“People should realize . . . that choice is not cheap; it is expensive,” said Maureen DiMarco, Gov. Wilson’s secretary for child development and education. “I don’t know if (Richmond’s experience) will deter others from choice, but it should certainly deter them from trying a quick fix.”

Choice is deceptively simple and appealing in a society based on a free-market economy, but the implications for public schools are remarkably complex, says the Committee for Economic Development, a national nonpartisan business organization. Recent research, including a look at the promising, much-ballyhooed East Harlem choice program, indicates that choice by itself does not guarantee better educational quality.

Choice also must not be used as an excuse to leave the most needy students behind in public schools that nobody else wants. Thus, public schools should not be placed in unfair competition with private and parochial schools in choice programs unless private and parochial schools are subject to the same rules: that is, subject to collective bargaining with teachers for higher pay and open to all students--no matter how troublesome, uninterested, poor or slow.

Properly structured, choice can reflect sound common sense and accountability; without careful thought and design, choice can be a trap. Richmond’s calamity is no reason to stop thinking about choice. But Richmond is a vivid reminder of the folly of our national quest for quick fixes.