School Choice Is About Education, Not Race

by Logan Albright

Education policies that promote school, choice are becoming increasingly popular in the United States, as traditional public schools continue to fail to adequately provide for the needs of students. The success of charter schools and other options that give individuals control over their own educations indicate that it is only a matter of time before more sweeping reforms transform the entire educational system.

However, this is not to say that there is not considerable backlash against the school choice movement, and those with the most to lose are trying hard to ensure that the status quo remains in place. It is difficult to argue against the academic effectiveness of school choice, and so critics turn to other, less relevant areas in an attempt to discredit the movement. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the always volatile issue of race has not been long in coming up.

Critics of increased school choice have argued that the practice will lead to spikes in racial segregation due to the fact that those families who care most about their children’s well-being will migrate to better schools, while the children who need help the most will stay where they are, in poorly run inner-city public schools.

Whether or not there is some legitimacy to this concern, we have to ask ourselves what the goal of education policy should really be. The purpose of schools is to provide students with a good education, and to prepare them for the job market when they reach adulthood. The main question we should be asking, then, is “does this policy succeed at meeting these goals?” Schools are not now, nor have they ever been, intended to serve as laboratories for the administration of social justice or equality of outcome. They are meant to educate, and if they do that we should be pleased.

Furthermore, these complaints about increased segregation assume that integration is intrinsically good without ever demonstrating why this might be so. Segregation is assumed to be per se bad because the word conjures up memories of the government mandated, blatantly racist policies of half a century ago. This case, however, bears no similarity to segregationist laws, and the word is used merely for its emotional impact rather than as an effective way to further discussion.

Any segregation resulting from increased school choice would be purely voluntary. The extent families switch or decline to switch schools depends on personal preference, not on race or socio-economic status. If people of similar race choose to attend the same schools, what reason is there for the government to prevent them from so doing? Doesn’t the Constitution protect freedom of association? This in no way resembles the mandatory segregation policies forced upon the country in the mid-twentieth century, and there is precious little evidence indicating why it is undesirable.

Finally, all of the preceding discussion is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that increased segregation is not actually happening. The latest research find no significant link between expanding school choice and increased school segregation. In the face of all evidence, the enemies of school choice are grasping at straws by dredging up a controversial subject in a last, desperate attempt to protect the status quo, favoring protectionism of teachers’ unions over the education and future prospects of America’s students.