Chapter 2: Negotiating Public And Private: Philosophical Frameworks for School Choice

Beneath controversies about whether or not choice “works” are deep philosophical and moral commitments about how choice proposals reconfigure commonly accepted definitions of public and private education.¹Perhaps more so than other educational policies, school choice raises fundamental questions about the nature of American education: how individual rights are tempered by social obligations, how demands for liberty are balanced by demands for equality, and how private interests interact with public goods.

Indeed, concepts of “public” and “private” have been central to arguments for and against choice. Choice is often said to be “redefining” public education, as new organizational arrangements—often privately operated—deliver public education. In fact, some of the rationale for choice involves reconfiguring the very terms “public” and “private” by expanding and reshaping what counts as public education. While both advocates and critics of choice use the language of the “public” and “private,” the meanings of these terms vary across positions. For advocates, school choice policies provide a means of building equity in education, and acknowledge parents’ rights to have their children educated in line with their own values and beliefs. For critics, choice weakens access and opportunity for the most disadvantaged students, and risks segregating students into increasingly unequal schools. Moreover, for critics, the very notion of choosing one school from among a “marketplace” of options transforms education into a commodity, in contrast to its tradition as an essential public good. In these arguments, the very terms “public” and “private” are invested with different meanings and positions.