Life is full of choices. In fact, one semi-mathematical way to define the lives of individuals, organizations, and nations is simply to map out an almost-infinite series of choices that have been made during the course of their existences. By this definition, our identities, our purposes, and our very essences are all determined entirely by the choices we make and the choices others make for us.
The distinguished late 20th century philosopher Albus Dumbledore, from the famed Harry Potter series, is quoted as saying, “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” If you buy into this insight, it seems logical to conclude that those with more choices are freer to demonstrate who they truly are than those who have less choices. With increased freedom comes more opportunities to openly express ideas and pursue individual happiness; but the possibilities of making mistakes or harming others are also multiplied.
For the most part, the rights to choose, to express, and to seek out happiness have been revered values of the American people over the course of the nation’s history. Yet, regrettably, these rights and privileges have not been granted equally to everyone nor to every experience. One such experience where choice has remained incredibly limited for most citizens, especially the poor, is education during childhood and adolescence. The factory-like community schools that evolved over the course of the 20th century have demanded unreasonable levels of conformity, as all students have been required to sit in straight rows, move to the sounding of bells, and learn in the same way at the same pace, regardless of preference or ability.
The common experience of assembly-line schooling, as rigid as it sometimes is, has been celebrated by some for inculcating equality and helping build social stability in communities. But even those who are apologists of this system have recognized the gross academic disparities that remain between students in different schools and even between students within the same school—not to mention the misery of many students who have trouble conforming to this arrangement.
Having experimented and been unsuccessful with equal-experience education for more than a century has led a growing number of theorists and practitioners to embrace an education system that promotes equality of choice instead. In its ideal form, this system promises every child, regardless of geographical position or socioeconomic status, the right to select a form of education that best helps her/him excel academically. This system can, of course, be created with public charter schools, magnet schools, virtual courses, private providers, etc.
As a new diversity of courses, schools, and education providers proliferates across the American landscape, a very important, and very complex, question has been raised over and over again: Who should determine which of these options offers a “quality” education? (I place the word “quality” in quotation marks because, as is the case for the words “good,” “bad,” “moral,” and “tasty,” there are no mythological gods, monarchs, or reference books to tell us what it means. Its meaning is open for discussion.)
In modern times, at least three distinct answers to the question of who should determine educational quality have been proposed:
1. Individuals: Those who argue that individual parents and children should decide the best educational options for themselves, with minimal influence from others, often point out that children have unique needs that families understand and nurture best. They are also likely to argue that defining a quality education is an arbitrary process of selecting values and preferences, which differ significantly between communities, families, and individuals. Some of the problems with this proposal are that (i) individuals sometimes lack thorough information, (ii) people may make hasty decisions that they later regret or make mistakes that others have already made, and (iii) if people make decisions individually, they may not realize the greater benefits that they could’ve obtained through public debate and new perspectives.
2. Suppliers of Education: Some suppliers of education (ranging from schools of education that authorize charter schools to virtual learning providers to panels of teachers who select textbooks) often claim that they should decide quality in education. These wildly diverse groups regularly posit that they are the experts and professionals who know the field best from both working in it and keeping up with the latest research from universities and industry. It is they who have the most knowledge and experience, and, thus, can make the best decisions about what an excellent education should be, they say. The troubles with this position are that suppliers of education (i) mostly have the chief goal of maximizing their influence/profits/numbers of students, (ii) are frequently too zealous about the particular service they provide, and (iii) may work to defeat other quality services that compete with theirs.
3. Governments: State and local governments have long held the reigns of American schooling. Those who maintain that governments should be the primary deciders of quality in education often argue that democratic discussion, knowledge-sharing, and decisionmaking help citizens increase their understanding of trade-offs and intricacies. They also are likely to argue that ordinary people simply do not have the time to adequately research educational options nor the range of experiences necessary to know what skills children need for future lives of fulfillment. Some of the problems with this proposal are that (i) governments too often fail to recognize the unique strengths and needs of individual children, (ii) imposing standardization can lead to rigid equality that stifles creativity and expression, and (iii), like individuals, people in government sometimes lack information, have self-interested motives, and make mistakes that they later regret.
Presently, the trend in education is towards suppliers of education gaining more flexibility to design innovative new products and services and towards individuals acquiring more freedom to tailor their educations to their unique needs and desires. It seems that the most important roles for government, at all levels, are to ensure that fundamental civil rights are protected, to set basic curricular expectations in some key subjects, and to equitably distribute resources. This trend towards equality of choice and away from equality of experience is a welcome one, and it should be expedited.
Ultimately, determining what constitutes “quality” in education is an arbitrary process that is dependent on what one decides are the end aims of education. An Amish father may believe that the end aim should be teaching hardwork and Scripture while governments usually believe that the end aim is to achieve political stability and economic prosperity. The list of aims is nearly endless, as are the definitions of “quality.” The best way forward is to continue to strike a balance between what logician Bertrand Russell calls the competing values of individual freedom and social cohesion. Continuing to debate what a “good” education is and who should make decisions about education is also healthy and essential.
