Theoretically, Daniel Akst's position that school choice can help reduce urban sprawl appears sound, but in practice, it may cause more harm than good. In most districts with open enrollment, transportation for students to travel to their school of choice is not available. This lack of transportation essentially deprives poorer, inner-city students of choice, as their parents do not have the flexibility in working hours, the funds (especially now that the cost of transportation has risen so significantly), or the vehicles required to transport their children to the better quality schools in the suburbs. More affluent students will then flee inner-city schools for the suburbs, thereby amplifying segregation problems and likely causing the quality of inner-city schools to decline even further.
   Instead, I strongly believe that by increasing school funding and the equity in its distribution, inner-city schools could hire better, more qualified teachers, improve facilities, and eventually improve performance. Once the performance levels of these schools begin to improve, people will begin to move back to urban areas, and segregation in the schools will decrease. Increasing funding, in contrast to initiating open enrollment policies, will provide a more permanent, sustainable, and fair solution to the existing problem and will eliminate the environmental and logistical problems associated with long commutes to schools in the suburbs. Now, if only we had an administration that valued funding schools more than the ginormous-budget military....

The reason most environmentalists don't support school choice is because its an idea from the right, and its opposed by the teacher's unions, which long ago put protecting teachers above educating children.   We need to be able to admit when our political opponents come up with a good idea, and not simply reject it because of our financial and historic ties to a certain special interest group. We lose any credibility for our own good ideas when we do that, and its a major cause for the nasty political schism prevailing today.

Laurel- so you're saying that maybe if we continue doing tomorrow what didn't work yesterday, we should get different results.  Throw more money at it, and it will improve.  I live in Atlanta and we spend more than $7000 per student on our public schools, and they are some of the worst in the nation.  And let me assure you, they didn't become so awful only when bush or reagan came into office.  I believe only D.C. spends more than Atlanta per student, and their schools are nothing to be proud of either.  We need new ideas, not more of the same blame-it-on-bush garbage from the jaded worldview of a canned ideologue who uses blame as a crutch to avoid having to think through these difficult problems for herself.  we have to continue trying to move forward here people.

First of all I agree with the post by Ms. Cunningham, it isn't that we need a voucher system to make education better across the board. It is the social stratification of the society as a whole, the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer, those that have can be better educated and have a choice of where their children are educated, those that have not do not have a choice. By giving a choice across the board to everyone, we will end up with empty buildings in the city going unused as the choice most would make would be to send their children to the "better schools" in the burbs.

This isn't the answer, the answer is better funding for all schools, not just those in ritzy neighborhoods or upper middle class suburbs. Give all kids a chance for a good quality education despite the cost, education is what will move this nation forward, not wars over oil and demanding the spread of democracy or proseletizing (sorry about the spelling here never seem to get that one right, probably because I think it is wrong!) This isn't a competition to see which country can produce the greatest debt or surplus, but who can have the education it needs to be sustainable, with a healthy, peaceful population that has enough to keep its people satisified and still have enough left over to give a helping hand where one is needed. If we produce dullards out of our education system then how will this sort of society ever be possible? Rich kids need exposure to other cultures, socioeconomic classes (of which there should be less distinction) and those from less advantageous backgrounds need to be exposed to things they would otherwise be unable to experience. In other words to make a long story short, schools should be funded the same wherever they are, they should be safe harbors for your children and fertile feeding grounds for their minds. This should not be a matter of politics whatever your platform, it should be a priority.

Your lowly poor disadvantaged environmental advocate! JJ

I agree with the premise that poor urban school quality contributes to urban sprawl by pushing those with choice into suburbs. However, I think the idea of cross-border school choice would be vigorously opposed by people who either 1) genuinely believe in local control of education or 2) use the long-established principle of local control to achieve the goal of excluding poor sudents from their districts.

Also, while I like the piece, I find it kind of surprising that someone would spend so much time advocating for a policy without considering what the current political implications of it are. I doubt that the right-wingers who advocate school choice would like the idea of cross-district choice, especially if that meant that poor (and black or brown) children would end up in school with their well-to-do (and white) ones. With traditional leftists opposed to choice in general, isn't this an idea with few natural supporters?

One thing that seems to escape the "how do we improve public schools" question is the question of how did it get so bad in the first place?  It got so bad by creating a bloated, self-serving, top-heavy beaurocracy which resembles, to my best observation, an old-style Soviet Military Agency!  All the Generals got Mercedes and the front-line soldiers got rusted-out, non-working pop-guns and threadbare uniforms!  One of the most informative books I have ever read was Jonathan Kozol's "Death at an Early Age", a book precisely about the decrepit Boston Public School System.  Mr. Kozol also wrote a follow-up book several years ago. I believe that he basically stated that to improve public schools, school funding must be totally divorced from the local tax base, and must be funded equally throughout the country.  A very unpopular idea with the upper middle class, whom he angered quite a bit.  Also, he claimed that the quality of the actual teaching must be divorced from the beaurocratic ideology presently running it.  Putting parents in control of hiring and firing teachers would be a good first step.  One of my most beloved mentors was a junior high public school teacher, whom I knew not as a teacher but as a friend.  I was amazed at how he could hold the attention of a class full of deliquents and keep them all interested and entertained with MATH of all things.  His philosophy was that he had to hold their interest at all times. something hard to do in this day of electronic videogames, etc.  To improve schools we must be able to get rid of bad teachers!  These boring old codgers who could bore bread mold to death!  That is where parents come in.  Each parent is usually an expert on how their child is doing in school.  The parent is the first to know if the child has a problem. (At least I was.)  The teacher's opinion of why the student is having trouble presently is codified into law!  The parent and the student have zero input into this!  This situation must be reversed in order for any school to be improved.  No child should be enslaved to a teacher who is rigid and unresponsive to the student's learning style.  (People have different learning styles.)  As it is now, the only choice the parent has is to pick up and move to another district or zone and try their luck with another school and another teacher!  Talk about lack of choice!  We all know what happens to parents who can't afford to move!  Why should they have to?  Why should a parent have to pick up and move to get their child out of an intolerable school situation?  What in the HELL is wrong with this picture?  Don't even get me going on my own school experiences, OK?

There is a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach to the education problem in the US that would likely accomplish much good, and it has been shown to be effective through its application to "the draft" used by professional sports teams.  Most significantly, it is exactly the opposite of the approach currently being taken which as was recently observed in an editorial posted on the truthout.org website, is in effect privatizing our educational system through application of private school management methods.

Instead of focusing on the schools that are doing really well, the focus should be on the ones that are having trouble.  The problem schools should be the recipients of the greatest public investments, with incentives applied to attract the best teaching talent.  The quality of the whole system would improve like that, leaving no school (or its students) behind, instead of sucking all the best students, best teachers, most innovative administrators, and best equipment out to the wealthy neighborhoods and created cesspools of ignornat misery in their wake.

In all this discussion of educational choices, there is one that has not yet been mentioned-home schooling. Those parents who choose to teach their children at home can avoid fashionable nonsense like standardized testing, they are not encouraging urban sprawl for the sake of a better education, and they do not burn any fossil fuels driving their children to school.
         Now, don't get me wrong.  I am not suggesting that we abandon the public schools.  Not everyone is able to teach their children at home, and of those who can, most will probably choose not to.  Therefore, we need to make our public schools as good as we possibly can.
  I do want to say, however, that those who choose the home-schooling route should be supported, and treated with respect. There are a lot of stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding this lifestyle, (as there are about environmentalists), and that is most unfortunate.

I appreciate Akst raising an important issue -- the relationship between school quality and sprawl. Like most others, though, I'm not convinced school choice will solve anything.

The single best thing that could be done to improve schools is to detach funding from local property taxes. Federal funding, at least at some minimal level, will insure an equal starting point. Also, it will give everybody a stake in improving education quality and funding. Right now, those with political power already have good schools, and those with crappy schools have no political power.

It's absurd that the quality of a kid's education depends so completely on the wealth of his immediate neighbors.

If so many loathe the suburbs why don't they build themselves nice walkable towns instead of subdivisions and strip malls?

I teach at an inner city school, Riverdale Collegiate ( yes, we do have an Archie!) in Toronto. The surrounding neighbourhood is made up of  many new Canadians with relatively low income, urban homesteaders and a smattering of established professionals, politicians and rock stars. It is a typical streetcar suburb of the city (as discussed in The End of Suburbia, a model for new urbanism). Although the area is relatively poor the school is the educational institution of choice in the area. It is always over-enroled and has a strong reputation as the most academically progressive school in the area. Over 60% of graduates go on to postsecondary education. The structure was rebuilt 10 years ago as a beautiful and bright place to learn and work. How can this great success happen in an area with a per household income of less than $50000 CDN? Sharing. The school districts are equally funded on a per student basis, about $7000 per student, paid for by the province of Ontario and the federal government.  We all learned to share in kindergarten. As adults we tend to forget this lesson. Perhaps a paradigm shift of this sort will help heal the urban-suburban rift in the USA. If schools and opportunities are equalized people will not feel the need to flee to the burbs.

Some forward-minded real estate developer could buy up lots of land on the cheap, pour lots of money (and effort) into improving the school system, and then benefit from the influence of better schools on real estate prices.

I really like it. That would work as far as urban sprawl is concerned. Hopefully someone will pick up on it. On the other hand, those schools will be filled with wealthy white kids.

Also, it is a fact that school quality is one of the greatest determinants of where people decide to live. I've been there and have watched my peers make thier decisions. Most opted for urban flight or private shcools.

First... not all enviros are wealthy.  I have always been what most Americans would consider poor, and have been my whole life.  I've been an environmentalist since I was a kid... even when my family was living in a "bad" neighborhood and receiving food from the food bank on occasion (oh yeah... and I'm white.  Yes, white people can be poor and live in poor neighborhoods too).

Second... why not fund all schools equally?  That way it won't matter where the school is, they will all receive the same economic opportunity.  Not that money fixes everything, but it can help in schools where there aren't even enough textbooks to go around, let alone money to hire quality teachers.

Third... some people mentioned parental involvement, which is great... if you have parents who give a hoot, or have the time to get involved.  If a child's parents are drunken/addicted to drugs/abusive/etc., or even good parents but forced to work 80 hours a week at their low-paying job just to put food on the table, it's likely they're not going to be around to check homework or go to parent-teacher conferences.  And this is the case in a lot of homes in the "poor" neighborhoods.

Fourth... teachers do make a huge difference.  We had our fair share of Ben-Stein-in-Ferris-Bueller's-Day-Off kind of boring teachers in my old "poor" school (and even one that was so afraid of the students that he would give out "A"s like they were candy and change lower grades to "A"s if challenged by the student), but we also had some awesome teachers that got involved and really cared about their students.  You can't, however, expect every teacher to resonate with every student the same way.  What to one student is their most hated teacher can be someone else's favorite, so how a teacher teaches can probably be pretty relative.

Fifth... there probably isn't any one solution to this problem, but perhaps we could look to countries that have good school systems for ideas on how to modify our own?  Japan is always talked about for having excellent schools, as well as many places in Europe.  Perhaps some of their programs might work for us as well?

Sixth... discussion is good.  Everyone that would like to see their local schools improve, take your ideas, suggestions, and energy and try and get involved!  A lot of good can come from a caring community rallying together to change things for the better, even one PTA meeting at a time. ^_^

No, no, no, no, no on so-called choice as the answer to sprawl! Doesn't the author notice that the children will have to be transported to the "good schools" in the suburbs? UNNECESSARY TRANSPORTATION UNNECESSARILY POLLUTES THE ATMOSPHERE.

Why do inner-city schools do such a bad job? Some of the answers have been touched on, but not the most important ones. Money helps, but parental involvement helps more. Schools can be successful even if they're poor if they can manage to maintain a high level of parental involvement.

An even more important point is that inner-city schools have exponentially more obstacles to successful education than wealthy suburban ones. Teachers are trying to educate populations of kids that include homeless kids, kids who speak English as a second language, kids who aren't getting enough to eat, kids whose parents are abusive, addicted, and/or absent, etc. I believe that school funding should absolutely be de-linked from property values, because right now the schools that need the most money (because they must handle the most difficult problems) get the least. Allowing parents "choice" will only exacerbate the problem.

Schools need to be smaller (500 in a high school, max), filled with teachers who are motivated and energetic (read: paid enough), racially and economically diverse, and given the resources to address the problems their students bring in the door. There COULD be a good school in every neighborhood, but we've never really applied ourselves to the strategies that might make it happen. Schooling kids is expensive and it will never turn a profit; our capitalist-obsessed nation needs to face that fact. But doing it right is always worth it.

It sounds like the author mainly wants to justify his desire to bus his kids out. There are lots of self-justifying arguments that so-called environmentalist parents come up with because they're not willing to do the work of being real environmentalists. These are the same folks who want to believe that Pampers are as environmentally friendly as cloth diapers, mainly because they're too lazy to mess with cloth diapers.  

I agree with the majority of your commentary about the advantages of school choice regardless of residence.  However, I speak from experience when I say that this choice will not necessarily have a positive impact on urban sprawl or reducing greenhouse gases.  

In Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, we have that choice in education.  The calibre of schools all over the city is so impressive that one hardly stands above the others unless you are looking for special programs.  However, people still buy houses in the suburbs, now they just drive their children to school.  The percentage of children driven by their parents from other parts of the city has risen dramatically.  So much in fact that many children are at risk to increased danger of roadside accidents because they do not practice road safety in daily walks to school.  The line ups of idling vehicles before and after classes leaves clouds of fumes in the school yard.  

I certainly don't know what the ideal combination is for this ecological and social school dilemma.

Can we also have a discussion about the insanity surrounding where schools are sited?  According to the guidelines used today by most school districts, school sites need from 10 to 25 acres to qualify as "suitable."  This requirement effectively rules out siting schools in neighborhoods, whether urban or suburban.  If we want people to care more about the quality of schools, we should put them in more accessible - and visible - locations.  Recommended reading: "Why Johnny Can't Walk to School," published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

I totally agree that lots of folks probably do
leave the city to get a decent education for their kids.  I live and am a public school teacher in NYC and I see it all the time.  My boyfriend's
family lived in Queens until he started high school, then moved to Westchester.  Case in point.

But I don't buy  the argument that school vouchers are the answer for a bunch of reasons.  First, under No Child Left Behind, parents do have choice
within the public schools, so no child need attend a failing school.  

The author contends that parents in urban areas have only 3 choices: have their children attend failing public schools, private schools, or move to the suburbs.  This article also neglects the importance of parent involvement in changing schools.  Or the possibility of middle class families getting involved in teaching at schools.  I'll cite Jonathan Kozol again in this thread.  His new book describes how urban schools are continuing to fail except for one thing: young, optimistic teachers are moving to inner city schools in droves.  As a Harvard graduate who chose to come teach in NYC public schools, and am now entering my fourth year teaching, I can vouch that it's true.  Most of my colleagues (and almost all of those in my generation) are brilliant, creative, committed people who have chosen to teach.  Don't like your local public school?  Get involved!  

Another point is that I find doubtful the author's claim that if all parents received vouchers that
would make schools less segregated.  Perhaps cities would be less segregated, but I bet there would still be pockets of good (probably mostly white) schools and poor (probably mostly students of color) schools.  There are just differing levels of social and intellectual capital in those communities.  Parents who don't speak English, or
who've been harrassed because of their skin color or undocumented status, or who have to wait in line for foodstamps are not going to know how or be able to find a good school for their child, much less navigate the complicated process of school choice.  This model of vouchers sort of requires that some schools end up being better than others.  (Even his comparison to the college system tacitly acknowledges that. And access to college for minorities has improved, but isn't equal to access for white, wealthier students.)  Instead of creating this hierarchy, I think we owe future generations a legacy that all schools must be excellent.  Idealistic?  Yes.  Impossible.  Perhaps.  But I don't think vouchers are the way to approach that goal.

I live in an area that has school choice.Urban kids choose urban schools. Bussing kids out to the burbs does not work, because urban kids cannot stay for afterschool activities even when there is a late bus. They cannot get back to the school for evening programs or sports. They cannot afford the "traditions" such as prom or homecoming. Teachers bring snacks to school and buy pizzas to encourage kids to stay.
  The district carves out certain neighborhoods to be "feeder" patterns. Our neighborhood is in the burbs but feeds into an urban middle school with  a 60+% poverty rate. The school that is closer to us and extremely wealthy just got soccer balls donated to their league. My daughter's volleyball team had to share water bottles and can't afford a game ball. They have old balls to practice with, but have to rely on the other team for a gameball.
  You can give equal amounts of money from the district, but the fundraising that goes on outside of that is where urban schools are at a disadvantage. There are no parents who are bank presidents or engineers who can write checks for the latest magazine drive. Our school celebrates when they raise $200 for the Red Cross while the next school came up with $1500 from a lemonade stand and the children's last names you would recognize from an American dynasty.
  Competition did come from the school choice program...one school designated itself as an "honors" high school while another school is now considered the "dumping ground" for troubled youth. But it's my feeder pattern, so I can apply for choice at another school, but there are no guarantees. But many of us don't "choice out". We believe in public education and work to make sure these schools do not fail. We have the luxury of not being poor and having the time to volunteer. We work with our children at home and provide decent meals and a place to sleep without having to hear bullets whizzing by as the urban kids do. But my children are learning about all the different types of people there are in the world  and have not been surrounded by only affluent white soccer SUV families. They are learning about empathy and injustice and communication and frustration. There will never be equality in education unless everyone shares from the same pot, where no one is allowed to donate equipment or funds to one school or class. Sounds scary, but it really is all about the money.