Betts, Julian R. & Loveless, Tom. (Eds.). (2005). Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy. Reviewed by Yun Teng, Arizona State University

Betts, Julian R. & Loveless, Tom. (Eds.). (2005). Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 255 pp. $49.95 (hardcover)   ISBN 0-8157-5332-2 $19.95 (papercover)   ISBN 0-8157-5331-4 Reviewed by Yun Teng Arizona State University December 22, 2006 Although much of the debate over school choice has been focused on whether school choice is “good” or “bad,” Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy endeavors to move beyond polarized debate and draw attention to practical concerns about the policy design of choice proposals. The book is a product of the 2001 National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 education initiated by the Brookings Institution. It is a collection of papers from different scholars studying school choice. The contributors view school choice as an accepted and growing part of the nation’s education policy concerns and focus on how the benefits can be maximized and risks mitigated. The first part of the book discusses from a policy perspective how to promote a vigorous demand for and an adequate supply of education choices. The second part examines the impact of choice on the distribution of education opportunities. In Chapter 2, Betts explores how economic theory can inform choice design. He discusses the benefits of consumers from markets that are on a continuum: from “perfectly competitive” to monopolistic, with perfect competition providing the most efficient market. He then discusses the assumptions required for perfect competition and how policies can address violations of these assumptions. The basic argument is that what determines the outcome of school choice are the relative amounts of resources available to parents initially. Betts makes two proposals: quotas combined with lotteries for school admission, and an inter-school tradable market of high-achiever enrollment rights to address possible unequal educational quality resulting from competition. Hamilton and Guin analyze the demand for school choice by examining how families make choices in Chapter 3. They draw the conclusion from previously published research that academic quality is parents’ foremost consideration, but caution that parents have various choices that can only be understood in their diversified contexts. Parents might stress different sets of values, leading to greater school segregation. Moreover, what parents say sometimes differs from what they choose. It is unclear whether parents report socially acceptable values to hide their true reasons, or whether they have insufficient information to make informed choices. Also unknown are the processes, channels and factors involved in parental choice, as well as the mechanism of the two-way information flow between families and schools. The authors call for widely disseminated information for parents and the incentives for parents to use the information. In Chapter 4, Betts, Goldhaber and Rosenstock study the supply side of school choice. Having outlined a theoretical model, they analyze influences affecting the supply of both choice schools and teachers. They argue that major constraints on the supply of schools are market price and cost structure, which are significantly influenced by the political and regulatory environment. Their recommendations include increasing funding, deregulation, and reducing policy uncertainty. Hess and Loveless examine the “black box” mechanisms producing the purported achievement effect for active choosers in Chapter 5. They argue that such studies are essential for the replicability of such an effect on a larger scale, especially given that school choice encompasses an array of different arrangements and that the effects of choice may be confounded with success or failure of particular practices at choice schools. They look into structure, population, and classroom instruction of choice schools; and discuss the possibility of diminishing benefits and limitations of school choice when implemented on a larger scale. They urge for caution against the wider implementation of choice and more research on possible difference in effects between choice plans adopted on small versus large scales. In Chapter 6, Goldhaber and his colleagues analyze effects of choice on nonchoosers. Among their critical analysis of the possible benefits and detriments, particularly worth noting are the educational inefficiencies, regulatory costs, peer effects, underprovision of public education, and symbolic competition as possible negative effects of choice. Having emphasized the influence of contextual influences on choice dynamics, they urge that student flows should be tied with school resources. To solve the incentive-capacity dilemma— that is, the difficulty for schools losing enrollment to make improvements with less funding— they suggest that underperforming schools lose less than the marginal cost of educating the departed students to retain more funding for improvement in the short run. They also insist that all forms of public education funding be tied directly to per pupil spending in public schools to make explicit that the stake the entire society has in public schooling. In chapter 7, Gill provides a conceptual framework for evaluating school choice’s effects on integration. He first analyzes the factors influencing integration in schools within a hypothetical system absent of choice and then explores the possible added-on effects of school choice. He then offers suggestions for policymaking and research. His emphasis is on the quality of integration, consideration of constitutionally protected choices based on residence and private schools. Gill prefers school-to-school or even classroom-to-classroom comparison between choice and traditional public schools. He also prefers a dynamic model to a static one to account for the effect of school choice on integration. The effect of charter schools on integration in Michigan are examined in Chapter 8. Ross finds that the racial composition of charter schools is not dramatically different from traditional public schools in their vicinity. However, charter schools are significantly more likely to locate in districts with greater segregation in traditional public schools. Although this indicates that charter schools are responding to minorities’ educational needs, it exacerbates public school segregation. As the main effects occur when charter schools serve large proportions of public school population, Ross suggests putting a cap on the percentage of a district that charter schools can serve. Henig surveys the political conflict over school choice in Chapter 9. He argues that although the four dimensions of education provision (delivery, financing, regulation and decisionmaking) can be analytically autonomous, they might not be empirically independent. He distinguishes pragmatic and systematic privatization. Given the fact that the U.S. education system already comprises both public and private characteristics and the deeply-imbedded ethos of incrementalism and pragmatism, concern about pragmatic privatization is overblown. However, caution is needed for systematic privatization involving shifts of power, public perception and institutional arrangements, all of which might weaken democratic control. Unlike most authors in this volume, Henig is less enamored with policy design, which is ultimately dependent upon the nature of political constituencies and the institutional capacity of government. That granted, it is likely that political power will trump pragmatism and neither proponents nor opponents will cede territory in pursuit of common ground. In the last chapter, Wolf concludes from a review of existing quantitative research on choice schools in teaching civic values that private schooling and school choice rarely harm and often enhance such learning. He recognizes, however, that these studies are not without limitations. Unlike Hess and Loveless, Wolf argues that although precisely how schools of choice teach civic values remains hidden in the proverbial black box, the importance of the existing studies should not be discounted. This single volume covers most issues in the current debates over choice. The shift from polarized battles to pragmatic concerns is to be appreciated. Contributors come from both camps. Although it is not difficult to identify their affiliations, the line in between is less clearly limned. The book itself signals a move toward “pragmatic privatization,” as in Henig’s chapter. However little the move is, it initiates a healthier discourse for future discussions. There are certainly limitations. I share Henig’s caution that it is unwise to become obsessed by policy design. The belief that good policy design will “get choice right” is not much different from the belief that school choice is “the magic answer.” We need to consider the various contexts of school choice. Although all contributors agree that the black box requires exploration, little effort has been made in this direction. Methodologically, unraveling these contingencies would be accomplished neither by quantitative (especially randomized) studies taken as the “gold standard” by some contributors, nor by constructing grand theories. Qualitative studies represent a more promising approach to answering these questions, but few have been cited or recommended as models for future research. Paradoxically, many of the policy suggestions contradict the alleged advantages of choice schools and the alleged failure of traditional public schools. For instance, although choice schools have been extolled for their economic efficiency and political autonomy, many contributors call for more funding and deregulation. This is not to decry choice, but to remind the public that despite their differences, choice schools (as long as they remain “public”) and traditional public schools are in the same boat. On the one hand, the “necessary evils” are necessary for both types of school for good reasons. On the other hand, the difficulty choice schools now face mirrors the morass traditional public schools have been trapped in. The suggestions for “alternative” schools unintentionally reveal the fact that traditional public schools are not the scapegoat but the victim of the “education failure.” If traditional public schools cannot escape their fate doomed by the unfriendly economic, social, and political context, neither can choice schools. All detours lead to the same destination. Historically, detours have been designed to bypass the contextual problems haunting U.S. education, but they have not led us anywhere else. Choice has its own values, but if it is meant to be just another detour, it will soon become clear that we again reached the same destination. About the Reviewer Yun Teng is a PhD student in the Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the Mary Lou Fulton College of Education at Arizona State University. His major research interest is in choice-based school reform.

Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.