coons_c_weber_m_eds_paternalism_theory_and_practice
.pdfPaternalism, (school) choice, and opportunity |
261 |
An overall assessment of the program conducted by IES following Congress’s mandate found that while students’ grades were not signifi- cantly a ected by participation in the program, those who were o ered vouchers and those who used them were more likely to graduate than those who were not o ered vouchers or those who declined them. In addition, parents who participated in OSP reported that the schools their children attended were safer, although the children’s perception of school safety was not in line with their parents’. A qualitative study that followed a sample of the families through the program found that safety was central to parents’ school-choice consideration, and some expressed that the reason was the extreme lack of safety in the public schools their children previously attended.32 Parents also cared a lot about class size, and many felt that the private school provided a smaller and thus more adequate class size for their children.
One of the most significant findings arising from the evaluations of OSP has to do with the importance of information. Information need not only be accurate, accessible, and clear; it must also be presented in a way that allows for parents to use it e ectively. Families need to be supported as they conduct the choice work, and the cost of information acquisition has to be reduced to allow families who face more challenges to benefit from the availability of choice. A report on OSP states:
By the end of the second year of data collection it became very clear to us that the vast majority of the families were moving from a marginal role as passive recipients of school assignments to active participants in the school selection process in very practical ways. For example, they were being challenged to collect information about several schools; review this information and use it to refine their choices; and eventually visit schools and engage teachers and administrators in a completely new fashion. This type of thinking and behavior is commonly associated with other big-ticket purchases like homes or cars. Yet, the average family in the OSP does not own a home or car and often has not acquired some of the transferable experiences and skills that are involved with these transactions.33
In sum, OSP targeted disadvantaged students in the DC area and provided their families with options other than the recognizably grim ones available to many of them. The participating families clearly appreciated the opportunity to be active decision-makers in their children’s education. The children benefited from a greater chance to complete high school than the control
32 This finding should shed another light on the expectation that parents consider academic performance when they choose schools for their children.
33 Stewart et al., Family Reflections on the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, 49.
262 |
si gal benporath |
group. However, many of the program’s aims were not fulfilled. The quality of education in other schools was not demonstrably improved; the educational achievements of most children participating in the program were not significantly a ected; children did not perceive their schools as safer; and the weakest families in the targeted population did not take advantage of the program. The targeted e ort to provide greater freedom to choose to an identified disadvantaged population did not result in equitable conditions of choice for all of them, with the weakest ones failing to benefit from the process at all; the policy also did not significantly contribute to equalizing educational opportunities.
conclusion
Reservations about state intervention and paternalist restriction of choice, along with criticism of the quality of education o ered in some public schools, merge to enhance the current coalition of supporters of school choice. Some major forms of school choice are charter, magnet, and other open-enrollment middle and high schools, and voucher systems for targeted populations. In this paper I considered two instances of implementing these policies, and presented the ways in which they come short of fulfilling their promises. While they do provide a certain degree of freedom to the families who participate in the programs, and thus minimize intervention in one sense, this accomplishment is marginal in the overall examination of their e ects on choosing families and students. Choice policies as currently practiced across the United States fail to advance equality, and only marginally promote freedom; moreover, their impact on providing access to quality education is questionable, as they support only some of the choosing students in some areas, while having a detrimental e ect on non-choosing students in the same localities.
The mixed results of school-choice programs like the ones discussed here led choice proponent Frederick Hess to declare that “the biggest mistake pro-market school reformers have made can thus be put simply: They have mistaken choice for competition. The conviction that school choice constitutes, by itself, a market solution has too often led reformers to skip past the hard work necessary to take advantage of the opportunities that choice-based reform can provide.”34 Hess goes on to recommend that pro-choice advocates support true markets in education, including for-profit options and real competition. This focus on the market,
34 Hess, “Does School Choice ‘Work’?”.
Paternalism, (school) choice, and opportunity |
263 |
I suggest, still fails to take into account the ways in which individuals choose schools, and the consequences of these choices for both individual preference satisfaction and the achievement of broader policy goals.
Considering school choice through the framework of structured paternalism, what would be viable alternatives to these policy designs? Once we have identified freedom and civic equality as justified aims for this (and other) social policies, it seems that policies could respond by (1) allocating children to schools based on state priorities, or (2) providing a structured environment in which state and parents share the responsibility for children’s education. The first option, which is less politically feasible, is also, I would argue, less normatively desirable. Eradicating choice programs altogether, in a democratically just way, would require closing down the private-school option for all parents including eliminating elite options such as prep schools. It would further require busing children to overcome the current problematic sorting of students by race, ethnicity, and SES as a result of residential di erentiation; another solution to this problem would be redrawing catchment areas, but the consequence of such a (politically harrowing) act may simply be movement of those who are able to do so across the newly drawn lines. While some public-school advocates feel that such a level of social engineering may be a justified way to achieve social equality, this approach is not only unlikely to gain support in the American public. It may also exhibit an inappropriate balance between freedom and equality, the two democratically justified aims of school choice.
A structured paternalist approach, on the other hand, can balance intervention and choice by organizing a reasonable choice set of schools for families, and designing a policy that can anticipate a better result in equalizing access to quality education. Choice-policy design should emphasize the importance of information acquisition to the quality of the choice process and thus its impact on the outcomes of this process. The cost of information acquisition has been mentioned as a key dimension of choice from the perspective of parents, and the sources of information available to parents can make the di erence between e ective utilization of a choice program, and withdrawal. Thus DC parents who participated in OSP pointed at information from program o cers, including written directory and personal communication, as well as communication with school o cials, as among the most important aspects of their participation in the program. On the other hand, parents who withdrew from the program indicated that their main source of information was school visits, but not personal communication with school personnel. Other studies too
264 |
si gal benporath |
have shown the importance of relying on both o cial and non-o cial sources of information for developing a quality choice, and for reducing the cost of information acquisition that for some parents can become prohibitive.35 In Philadelphia, numerous reports commented on the complexity of the choice process, requiring families to obtain multiple o cial sources of information and contact a host of schools in order to benefit from the opportunity to choose a school for their child. Even those who manage this process are still barred from some important information, such as that on late enrollment.
In addition to supporting the choice process through providing information and support, structured choice designs should eliminate default options, as the Philadelphia case clearly indicates. In universal, voluntary choice contexts, where defaults – such as neighborhood schools – are provided, oftentimes those defaults o er convenience of location but less supportive and productive educational environments. In such cases those who opt for the default are often families with the least capital – those with low-quality information networks, and no time or inclination to collect information on their own. Thus the weakest children in terms of the crucial factors of parental involvement and social capital are left to attend the weakest schools with their similarly weak peers. To avoid this undesirable process, universal choice policies need to avoid defaults, and develop a choice structure by which all must choose a school, and are properly supported in the process.
A structured paternalist approach to school choice, as these brief policy suggestions indicate, should take seriously both values that underlie choice in democratic social policy-making, namely, freedom and equality. If freedom is to be understood substantially, not as the poor child’s right to drop out of school but as the right of individuals and families to pursue their goals within an institutional and social context, then this context has to be organized appropriately. Taking into account the diversity of preferences, backgrounds, and skills in the choosing public would clarify the need to provide structured options and processes for all those participating in choice programs.
A final note about school choice. One of the most compelling arguments against school choice maintains that education is a public good, and that the proliferation of school-choice practices undermines the shared institution of schooling and thus further fragments society. The shared foundations to
35 Schneider et al., “Networks to Nowhere”; Schneider, Teske, and Marschall, Choosing Schools; André-Bechely, Could It Be Otherwise?.
Paternalism, (school) choice, and opportunity |
265 |
which children are introduced through common schooling, or publicly mandated, administered, and regulated schools, are crumbling under the multiple options including private schools, homeschooling, and various choice programs. I find this argument to be quite instructive, and believe that there is a strong case to be made for preferring good public schools over good choice programs that include a variety of non-public options. Of course, choice and public schooling need not be mutually exclusive – as in the Philadelphia choice program, choice can be a orded to families who can select one of many possible public and other schools, rather than being assigned to the one closest to where they live.36 Contemporary arguments in the American debate, however, tend to promote private school choice, along with the proliferation of charter schools. Often accompanied by merit pay for teachers and changes to the tenure system, these are policies that prefer market practices rather than public provision of goods, including education. While education does not entirely fit into the market vision of supply and demand, it seems that the coalition supporting choice is currently a powerful one. In this paper my goal was not so much to strengthen the argument in favor of choice in education, but rather to consider ways to surmount some of its weaknesses and to provide a more balanced approach to choice in policy-making, one that recognizes both freedom and equality as the underlying values for supporting choice in a democracy.
36For more on this topic see Reich, “How and Why to Support Common Schooling and Educational Choice at the Same Time.”
Bibliography
Adler, M. D., and E. A. Posner. New Foundations of Cost–Benefit Analysis. Harvard University Press, 2006.
Adler, M. D., and E. A. Posner, eds. Cost–Benefit Analysis: Economic, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives. University of Chicago Press Journals, 2001.
AETNA. “Aetna Announces New Weight Management Program at National Summit on Obesity,” June 3, 2004. www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ PrintArticle.aspx?id=117613464.
Alexandrova, A., and D. M. Haybron. “High-Fidelity Economics.” In W. H. Hands and J. B. Davis, eds., The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012, 94–120.
Anderson, E. S. Value in Ethics and Economics. Harvard University Press, 1995. “What Is the Point of Equality?” Ethics 109 (1999): 287–337.
André-Bechely, L. Could It Be Otherwise?: Parents and the Inequalities of Public School Choice. London: Routledge, 2005.
ANES. “ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior: Government Guaranteed Job/Standard of Living (1) 1956–2002,” 2005. www.electionstudies. org/nesguide/toptable/tab4a_4a.htm.
Angner, E. “Economists as Experts: Overconfidence in Theory and Practice.”
Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (2006): 1–24.
Anscombe, G. E. M. “Modern Moral Philosophy.” Philosophy 33 (1958): 1–19. Ariely, D., and K. Wertenbroch. “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance:
Self-Control by Precommitment.” Psychological Science 13 (2002): 219–224. Arneson, R. J. “Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism.” Legal
Theory 11 (2005): 259–284.
“Mill Versus Paternalism.” Ethics 90 (1980): 470–489.
“Paternalism, Utility, and Fairness.” In G. Dworkin, ed., Mill’s On Liberty: Critical Essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997, 83–114.
“Perfectionism and Politics.” Ethics 111 (2000): 37–63.
“The Principle of Fairness and Free-Rider Problems.” Ethics 92 (1982): 616–633. “What, If Anything, Renders All Humans Morally Equal?” In D. Jameson, ed.,
Singer and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, 103–128.
Baron, J., and M. D. Spranca. “Protected Values.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 (1997): 1–16.
266
Bibliography |
267 |
Baron, M. “Manipulativeness.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 77 (2003): 37–54.
Baron, R. A. Essentials of Psychology. 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2001. Barrotta, P. “Why Economists Should Be Unhappy with the Economics of
Happiness.” Economics and Philosophy 24 (2008): 145–165.
Barrow, L., and C. E. Rouse. “School Vouchers: Recent Findings and Unanswered Questions.” Economic Perspectives 32 (2008): 2–16.
Battin, M. P. “Can Suicide Be Rational? Yes, Sometimes.” In J. L. Werth, ed.,
Contemporary Perspectives on Rational Suicide. Oxford: Taylor & Francis,
1999, 13–21.
Beattie, J., J. Baron, J. C. Hershey, and M. D. Spranca. “Psychological Determinants of Decision Attitude.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
7 (1994): 129–144.
Ben-Porath, S. R. “Race, Choice and Opportunity.” Forthcoming in Theory and Research in Education.
Tough Choices: Structured Paternalism and the Landscape of Choice. Princeton University Press, 2010.
Berlin, I. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” In Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press, 1969, 118–172.
Berry, W. “An Argument for Diversity.” In W. Berry, ed., What Are People For? New York: North Point Press, 1990, 109–122.
Blumenthal, J. A. “Does Mood Influence Moral Judgment? An Empirical Test with Legal and Policy Implications.” Law & Psychology Review 29 (2005): 1–28.
“Emotional Paternalism.” Florida State University Law Review 35 (2007): 1–72.
“Expert Paternalism.” Florida Law Review 64 (2012): 721–757.
“Law and the Emotions: The Problems of A ective Forecasting.” Indiana Law Journal 80 (2005): 155–238.
Blumenthal, J. A., and P. H. Huang. “Positive Parentalism.” The National Law Journal (2009): 27.
Bok, D. The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being. Princeton University Press, 2010.
Bouwsma, O. K., and L. Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein: Conversations, 1949–1951. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1986.
Bradley, B. Well-Being and Death. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Brandt, R. B. “The Morality and Rationality of Suicide.” In S. Perlin, ed.,
A Handbook for the Study of Suicide. Oxford University Press, 1975, 61–75. Bratman, M. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, 1987. Brighouse, H. School Choice and Social Justice. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Brock, D. W. “Paternalism and Autonomy.” Ethics 98 (1988): 550–565.
Broome, J. “Does Rationality Give Us Reasons?” Philosophical Issues 15 (2005):
321–337.
Burrows, P. “Patronising Paternalism.” Oxford Economic Papers 45 (1993): 542–572. Calcott, P. “Paternalism and Public Choice.” Victoria Economic Commentaries
(2000): 39–46.
268 |
Bibliography |
Camerer, C., S. Issacharo , G. Loewenstein, T. O’Donoghue, and M. Rabin. |
|
“Regulation for |
Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for |
‘Asymmetric Paternalism’.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (2003): |
|
1211–1254.
Carothers, A. “Letter from Costa Rica.” E Magazine, September 1993. Cavanagh, J. T. O., A. J. Carson, M. Sharpe, and S. M. Lawrie. “Psychological
Autopsy Studies of Suicide: A Systematic Review.” Psychological Medicine
33 (2003): 395–405.
Cave, E. M. “What’s Wrong with Motive Manipulation?” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2007): 129–144.
Center for Health Transformation. “Healthcare That Works: Answering President Obama’s Challenge of Finding What Works.” Center for Health Transformation. www.healthtransformation.net/galleries/default-file/HBHR %20FINAL%20List%20Best%20Practices%201.26.09.pdf.
Cholbi, M. J. “A Kantian Defense of Prudential Suicide.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (2010): 489–515.
“Depression, Listlessness, and Moral Motivation.” Ratio 24 (2011): 28–45. “Suicide Intervention and Non-Ideal Kantian Theory.” Journal of Applied
Philosophy 19 (2002): 245–259.
Suicide: The Philosophical Dimensions. Bu alo, NY: Broadview Press, 2011. Chubb, J. E., and T. M. Moe. Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1990.
Clarke, S. “A Definition of Paternalism.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (2002): 81–91.
Cohen, G. A. “Self-Ownership, World Ownership, and Equality.” In F. S. Lucash, ed.,
Justice and Equality Here and Now. Cornell University Press, 1986, 108–135. Cowley, C. “Suicide Is Neither Rational Nor Irrational.” Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice 9 (2006): 495–504.
CREDO. “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States.” Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2009. http://credo.stanford.edu/.
Criddle, E. J. “Fiduciary Administration: Rethinking Popular Representation in Agency Rulemaking.” Texas Law Review 88 (2010): 441–503.
“Fiduciary Foundations of Administrative Law.” UCLA Law Review 54 (2006):
117–183.
Cullity, G. “Moral Free Riding.” Philosophy & Public A airs 24 (1995): 3–34. Cushman, F., L. Young, and J. D. Greene. “Our Multi-System Moral Psychology:
Towards a Consensus View.” In J. Doris, ed., The Moral Psychology Handbook. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, 47–71.
de Marne e, P. “Avoiding Paternalism.” Philosophy & Public A airs 34 (2006):
68–94.
Liberalism and Prostitution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Devine, P. “On Choosing Death.” In M. P. Battin and D. J. Mayo, eds., Suicide:
The Philosophical Issues. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980, 138–143. Diener, E., R. Lucas, U. Schimmack, and J. Helliwell. Well-Being for Public
Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Bibliography |
269 |
Dodenho , D. “Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: The Limits of ParentDriven Reform.” Wisconsin Policy Research Institute 5 (2007).
Dolan, P., and M. P. White. “How Can Measures of Subjective Well-Being Be Used to Inform Public Policy?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2 (2007):
71–85.
Durant, W. The Story of Philosophy. Eastsound, WA: Turtleback Press, 1991. Dworkin, G. Mill’s On Liberty: Critical Essays. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1997.
“Paternalism.” The Monist 56 (1972): 64–84.
“Paternalism.” In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/paternalism/. “Paternalism: Some Second Thoughts.” In R. Sartorius, ed., Paternalism.
University of Minnesota Press, 1982, 105–112.
The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge University Press, 1988. Dworkin, R. Justice for Hedgehogs. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
2011.
Dwyer, J. G. “Changing the Conversation About Children’s Education.” In S. Macedo and Y. Tamir, eds., Moral and Political Education. New York University Press, 2002, 314–358.
Edwards, C. “Beyond Mental Competence.” Journal of Applied Philosophy
27 (2010): 273–289.
Ellerman, D. “Inalienable Rights: A Litmus Test for Liberal Theories of Justice.”
Law and Philosophy 29 (2010): 571–599.
Estlund, D. M. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton University Press, 2007.
Farnsworth, E. A. Contracts. 4th edn. New York: Aspen, 2004. Feinberg, J. Harm to Others. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Harm to Self. Oxford University Press, 1986.
“Legal Paternalism.” In Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty. Princeton University Press, 1980, 110–129.
Figlio, D. N., and C. Hart. Competitive E ects of Means-Tested School Vouchers. Evanston, IL: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010.
Fleurbaey, M. “The Importance of What People Care About.” Forthcoming in
Politics, Philosophy and Economics.
Forgeard, M. J. C., E. Jayawickreme, M. L. Kern, and M. E. P. Seligman. “Doing the Right Thing: Measuring Well-Being for Public Policy.” International Journal of Wellbeing 1 (2011): 79–106.
Foster, E. “Here Come Catch Shares: How NOAA and the Environmental Defense Fund Plan to Destroy North Carolina’s Working Watermen.”
Island Free Press, November 10, 2010.
Fox-Decent, E. Sovereignty’s Promise: The State as Fiduciary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Frankfurt, H. “Reply to John Martin Fischer.” In S. Buss and L. Overton, eds.,
Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002, 27–31.
270 Bibliography
Frey, B. S. Happiness: A Revolution in Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. Galenson, D. W. “The Rise and Fall of Indentured Servitude in the Americas:
An Economic Analysis.” The Journal of Economic History 44 (1984): 1–26. Gallup Organization. Survey by Gallup Organization, May 2–May 8, 1988. Gallup
Poll, May 1988. iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ipoll. html.
Gert, B., and C. M. Culver. “The Justification of Paternalism.” Ethics 89 (1979):
199–210.
Gilbert, D. T. Stumbling on Happiness. New York: Knopf, 2006.
Gilbert, D. T., and J. E. J. Ebert. “Decisions and Revisions: The A ective Forecasting of Changeable Outcomes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (2002): 503–514.
Gilbert, D. T., M. J. Gill, and T. D. Wilson. “The Future Is Now: Temporal Correction in A ective Forecasting.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88 (2002): 430–444.
Gilbert, D. T., and T. D. Wilson. “Miswanting: Some Problems in the Forecasting of Future A ective States.” In J. Forgas, ed., Feeling and Thinking: The Role of A ect in Social Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 2000, 178–196.
Gilles, S. G. “On Educating Children: A Parentalist Manifesto.” University of Chicago Law Review 63 (1996): 937–1034.
Gillette, C. P., and J. E. Krier. “Risk, Courts, and Agencies.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 138 (1990): 1027–1109.
Gilovich, T., D. Gri n, and D. Kahneman, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Giordano, R., and D. Hardy. “School Choice Gains Widespread Momentum.” Philly.com, January 31, 2011. http://articles.philly.com/2011–01–31/news/ 27092132_1_charter-schools-public-schools-center-on-education-policy.
Glaeser, E. L. “The Moral Heart of Economics.” The New York Times Economix Blog, January 25, 2011. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/the- moral-heart-of-economics/.
“Paternalism and Psychology.” University of Chicago Law Review 73 (2006):
133–156.
Gleason, P., and M. Silverberg, National Center for Education Evaluation, Regional Assistance (US), and Institute of Education Sciences (US).
The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts: Final Report. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, 2010.
Gold, J. L. “Paternalistic or Protective? Freedom of Expression and Direct- to-Consumer Drug Advertising Policy in Canada.” Health Law Review
11 (2003): 30–38.
Graber, G. “The Rationality of Suicide.” In S. Wallace and A. Eser, eds., Suicide and Euthanasia: The Rights of Personhood. University of Tennessee Press,
1981, 51–65.