Much has been written in the past few years about school choice.  Those individuals who promote the idea have a definite mindset that includes, among other things, the thought that parents should be supported if they have a belief that better schools are available for their children.  In turn, the argument holds that the State has the responsibility to provide the resources to the parents to find the school that best fits the individual student’s needs.  Those same proponents of using State resources to allow a choice for students may well believe that individuals should have many constitutionally guaranteed rights that, to them, seem lacking because of governmental rules.  Without apparent conflict in the reasoning, the choice advocates express a desire to take government resources for individual needs while demanding that the government get out of their lives.  To them, school choice means taking the money but ignoring the rules that public schools must follow when those same schools are supported by public funds.

The rules that public schools must follow include providing for students disabilities, English Language Learners (ELL), students of poverty and a wide array of other individual characteristics.  Public schools have no choice in selecting which students attend.  In fact, public schools must take all comers and provide a free and appropriate education for each child.  To do less would result in the loss of funds.  Why would the same criteria not be assessed with choice schools? If public dollars are used by individuals who can then select a private vendor for educational services, then should those same vendors who are the beneficiaries of public funds be required to take all comers, without or with learning disabilities?

Many other methods of discrimination are inherent in choice that often are not considered.  The location of the choice school is often the biggest deterrent, especially for those with less wealth.  The “best” choice school is, typically, near the neighborhood with the most affluent parents.  Location alone limits the choice for those less fortunate who may not have the resources to get their children to the “best” school.  Instead, those parents must rely on a transportation system provided by the public school. 

All those and others describe the “no” choice in choice education.  There is one, however, that is much more subtle and not often considered.  The small school, funded with governmental dollars, is slowly and systematically being eliminated by state government.  Parents who believe in the value of the small, community school are facing the prospect of losing that choice for no other reason than the lack of public funding to support them.  Is it rather amazing that the government advocates who support parental choice have found no dichotomy in their thinking when it comes to depriving the small, community school of adequate funding?  The community often relies on the local school for its very existence.  The taxpayers within the community recognize and subscribe to the benefits of a small school, yet the rule makers supporting choice in education do not believe that the small, community school is an appropriate choice for the expenditure of public funds. 

Even those advocates of less government prescribe that more government is the solution in “choice” education.  More government means more rules for public schools.  More rules to the extent that the small, community school is not capable, through lack of funding, to meet all the standards, whether those be standards of certification, transportation, or curriculum inclusion.  On the one hand, “choice” is being able to access one’s own standard of education for one’s child and being supported in that by governmental dollars.  On the other, “choice” does not include one being able to access one’s choice of standards of education because the government decides that all schools must look alike, regardless of size and location. 

The ultimate goal, it seems, of those rule makers is to quietly underfund and thus eliminate the small, community school.  Those favoring choice also favor removing choice by eliminating those schools that they perceive to be less than their standard.  Quiet consolidation of the smaller, community schools is happening through the elimination of funding and the increasing of requirements by the state.  Parents seeking that choice are being denied the option because those in charge do not agree with their choice as an “appropriate” choice.  On one hand, all must be allowed to choose.  On the other, all must only be able to choose from the choices “they” like. 

Research is lacking but is needed to determine the true value of a small school education.  There are many who subscribe to the value not measured by a test of a small, all inclusive education system.  Questions that need answers include things such as the intangibles afforded by a small school education.  Is there such a thing as a “success psyche” that comes through being able to participate in all offerings, regardless of ability? Does the graduate of a small school, although lacking access to the more advanced courses, still prove to be a successful contributor to the larger culture simply because that child has experienced success on many fronts and thereby develops a belief that success is possible in most any endeavor? Is there validity to the argument that small schools should exist as a choice for those who do not live in an urban/suburban settings?  If choice allows for some schools to exclude certain types of students through the inability to offer programs for those students, then should small schools be removed as a choice for those same reasons?

As the Legislature continues to debate the choice question the public should join in that discussion.  Choice may be the ultimate answer to all of education’s woes.  If so, then choice should be available to everyone, regardless of economic circumstance or choice of location.  We cannot approve of the school of no choice; the quiet consolidation of the small, community school being eliminated through too many rules and too few dollars.