By Nancy Lippe

Marge Gratiot, superintendent of the Los Altos School District; Don Shalvey, co-founder and CEO of Aspire Public Schools; and Matt Neely, assistant principal of Mountain View High School and mayor of Mountain View, listen intently at the March 6 community dialogue on school choice.

Nearly 70 people gathered March 6 at the Community Dialogue on Education, sponsored by the Los Altos-Mountain View League of Women Voters and the Los Altos Community Foundation, to learn about a growing paradigm in American education - school choice.

Attendees, including school board and PTA members from many districts, sounded like consumers trying to understand a new product: How much does it cost? What are the options? What are the opportunity costs? What quality control mechanisms should we use?

In a conversation with Hoover Institute Senior Fellow Terry Moe, Aspire Public Schools CEO Don Shalvey and Los Altos School District Superintendent Marge Gratiot, moderator Matt Neely guided the panel and audience through some of the basic choices families and educators have in meeting student needs. Neely is vice principal of Mountain View High School and mayor of Mountain View.

School choice includes a wide spectrum of options that look very different from state to state and from district to district. Choice includes vouchers, which are funding options, often in the form of tax credits, to attend private schools; private schools; charter schools; magnet schools; intra- and inter-district open enrollment; and special site programs, such as Middle College, available to our local high school students.

In Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, 20-40 percent of families choose private school, according to Gratiot. The charter school currently attracts about 170 students and projects a significant increase in enrollment for next year. Except for the vouchers offered to students of failing schools through the No Child Left Behind Act, no voucher programs are available to local students.

Applying the market model to public education is controversial. Moe referred to the debate that surfaced with the publication of a book he wrote with John Chubb, “Politics, Markets and Public Education.”

Moe thinks pressure can be a good thing, as competition changes the incentives for teachers and administrators. Opponents question the loss of values, stability and sense of community in a more commercial environment.

In small-group discussions, attendees brought up their own concerns: What happens to the concept of a neighborhood school in a choice model? What is the impact of limited spaces in choice schools? How can choice schools be adequately and fairly funded?

Gratiot, whose doctoral dissertation examined school choice and found that parents want “basics,” sees many upsides and downsides of choice. Are the opportunities for more parental involvement or a different curriculum negated by the costs to the public education system by vouchers or charter schools?

Both locally and nationally, financing choice schools is hotly debated. Some funding structures, such as Basic Aid, are disincentives for working with choice schools.

But Don Shalvey added that public education looks like a monopoly that should be changed - just as they can choose from several restaurants on a street, families should have choices in schools. Attendees in small-group discussion said it is desirable for schools to meet student and family needs even if the choices are offered within traditional programs.

Small groups also discussed teachers unions, improved choice legislation and financing, school closures, and the need for school districts to communicate and state their philosophies clearly.

In presenting their thoughts to the panelists, group leaders highlighted the many benefits of choice as well as the unknowns and variables that need to be addressed in choice debates.

Moe emphasized that choice is an option that communities and educators can select and design to meet the needs of students and of the communities that host choice schools.

Supporting the concept of collaborative design, Shalvey emphasized the preference for choice schools working closely with local districts. But with his charter schools, which strive to meet the needs of students in underperforming districts, he is prepared to be fiercely independent if they cannot work closely.

Accountability also surfaced in questions and discussions. The way we measure charter schools may not reflect the work they are doing. Moe stated that in some areas, charter schools will not perform as well on test scores unless student background is considered. Shalvey said, “We have a thousand flowers blooming - the next decade will be about accountability.”

The next Community Dialogue on Education, a state budget simulation with Next Ten, is planned for April.

Nancy Lippe can be contacted at nlippe@losaltoscf.org.