What do you think?
Rate this book
The Choice We Face: How Segregation, Race, and Power Have Shaped America's Most Controversial Education Reform Movement
A comprehensive history of school choice in the US, from its birth in the 1950s as the most effective weapon to oppose integration to its lasting impact in reshaping the public education system today.
Most Americans today see school choice as their inalienable right. In The Choice We Face , scholar Jon Hale reveals what most fail to school choice is grounded in a complex history of race, exclusion, and inequality. Through evaluating historic and contemporary education policies, Hale demonstrates how reframing the way we see school choice represents an opportunity to evolve from complicity to action.
The idea of school choice, which emerged in the 1950s during the civil rights movement, was disguised by American rhetoric as a symbol of freedom and individualism. Shaped by the ideas of conservative economist Milton Friedman, the school choice movement was a weapon used to oppose integration and maintain racist and classist inequalities. Still supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, this policy continues to shape American education in nuanced ways, Hale shows—from the expansion of for-profit charter schools and civil rights–based reform efforts to the appointment of Betsy DeVos.
Exposing the origins of a movement that continues to privilege middle- to upper-class whites while depleting the resources for students left behind, The Choice We Face is a bold, definitive new history that promises to challenge long-held assumptions on education and redefines our moment as an opportunity to save it—a choice we will not have for much longer.
Most Americans today see school choice as their inalienable right. In The Choice We Face , scholar Jon Hale reveals what most fail to school choice is grounded in a complex history of race, exclusion, and inequality. Through evaluating historic and contemporary education policies, Hale demonstrates how reframing the way we see school choice represents an opportunity to evolve from complicity to action.
The idea of school choice, which emerged in the 1950s during the civil rights movement, was disguised by American rhetoric as a symbol of freedom and individualism. Shaped by the ideas of conservative economist Milton Friedman, the school choice movement was a weapon used to oppose integration and maintain racist and classist inequalities. Still supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, this policy continues to shape American education in nuanced ways, Hale shows—from the expansion of for-profit charter schools and civil rights–based reform efforts to the appointment of Betsy DeVos.
Exposing the origins of a movement that continues to privilege middle- to upper-class whites while depleting the resources for students left behind, The Choice We Face is a bold, definitive new history that promises to challenge long-held assumptions on education and redefines our moment as an opportunity to save it—a choice we will not have for much longer.
288 pages, Hardcover
Published August 10, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 16, 2023
My home state of Iowa this year significantly expanded parental choice with regard to where their students could receive their education. This was done, citizens were told, in order to better serve parents’ legitimate right to choose, a right inherent in their sacred duties as parents. Interestingly, despite an ongoing, well-funded effort to persuade citizens that this was the right way to go, polls showed that a majority of Iowans remained unconvinced that public tax dollars should be used to assist students who choose to receive an education other than in the public school system.
Dr. Hale, a professor in educational history, does us a great service by showing how the origins of “school choice” lie in the efforts of Southern states to resist desegregation efforts in the 1950s and ‘60s.
His book traces how measures to expand educational alternatives to public education spread from the South to the rest of the country over the intervening decades. He also makes it very clear that there is no “magic bullet” by which to save public schools and limit efforts to fund parental choices other than public schools. Rather, the only way – given how educational policy is relegated to states and local jurisdictions – is for citizens who believe in the importance of public education as a foundation stone for democratic republics to work together to expose – and resist – both the forces pushing for these alternatives as well as for the long-range implications of losing truly public education.
You might ask, however: Why is “parental choice” a “bad” or harmful thing?
I think there are two extremely important concerns about how “parental choice” is actually playing out:
First, because all these efforts, including home schooling, charter schools, and various academies purporting to offer exceptional educational opportunities for gifted students, end up diverting at least some tax dollars from public schools to these alternative ventures, their combined effect is to further weaken the ability of public schools to provide a sound education to all of their students. And please note: public schools are required to admit all students, whatever their economic background or familial difficulties. Since public schools increasingly are faced with ever more diverse student populations, at a time when budget support has remained static at best, any diminishment in financial support is bound to effect teachers, vital support staff, and – inevitably – the students. We should be bolstering our support of public schools, not diluting it.
Second, and this is a more tenuous if equally important point: For a democratic society to function well, we require an educated citizenry equally well-versed in both civic consciousness about the duties and responsibilities of citizens in a republic as well as in the skills essential for navigating today’s complex societies. If there are some vital areas that are not taught as a consequence of students attending alternative educational institutions or, worse, mistaught or misconstrued – some “for instances” include the rights to which gay or transgender people have a legitimate claim, or the fact-based history of how people of color have been treated in this country – then a critical component of the “glue” necessary to hold together such a varied society as our own will be weakened.
Note: What follows hereafter are primarily my own feelings and reactions to the subject matter of this well-written if also discouraging book.
I was an Iowa legislator in the 1970s and early 1980s when the first pushes for parental choice began to be felt in Iowa. Moreover, I knew a lot about a kind of alternative education as the bulk of my schooling was in Catholic schools. An important caveat here, though: my Catholic school education was paid for by my parents without any state subsidy. Moreover, we didn’t believe that there should be such a subsidy. We accepted that the state’s responsibility to provide a sound, fundamental education for its citizens was limited to public schools since they were the ones to properly receive public funding. Clearly, my parents’ choice to put their three children through Catholic schools was a financial sacrifice for them. (And, in fairness, that was more affordable those days than is the case for such education today.)
Now the idea of parental choice seems, at both first and second blush, to be a non-issue. Why, of course, parents have the right – indeed, the duty! – to be involved with and concerned about their children’s’ education. So far, so good! Which is why we have local school boards and open meetings and parent-teacher conferences and all the rest.
However, when some parents become concerned that their children are learning “too much” about such things as evolution, gender differences, and the contributions of non-white populations to this country and then seek to “protect” their children from such knowledge – claiming this to be an infringement upon their rights as parents – then I think “we” have a very real problem that requires our attention.
Unfortunately, however, as is the case with so many complex issues of our day, the right answer or correct solution is not so easily determined.
I am as concerned as anyone about the growing divergences in belief and practice between – for want of a finer distinction – the more rural and small-town areas of this country and the more densely populated and urban areas. I can understand why parents in both portions – which are intermingled throughout the 50 states – would have concerns about elements of their children’s education and, as a consequence, be alert to alternatives that would present their own kids with a “better” education.
The question our democratic society must answer, however, is whether allegedly superior educational opportunities are best and most effectively provided through alternative educational venues, or whether a properly funded and staffed public school system is ultimately superior in helping children deal with an increasingly multi-cultural and diverse society.
Parents have the responsibility to care for and guide their children, but they do not have the “right” to plunk their own heads, as it were, on their children’s shoulders. We should not want or allow our children to inherit bigotry or slanted views of any sort.
Having said that, however, I admit the extreme difficulty of, and sensitivity to, establishing just which things are bigoted or slanted.
While I understand the impulse to address these nuanced questions in an over-all, just fixed the damned thing, way, I believe the superior response is to continue to involve parents and all involved in the education of their children in more in-conversations and relationships.
But, be forewarned: the most vigorous advocates of educational alternatives really do not want such discussions, for they already have the answers they wish, and one of their goals is the dismantling of public education, all as part of their larger agenda of ensuring that a future America will march to “the same drummer,” however autocratic the beat!
Dr. Hale, a professor in educational history, does us a great service by showing how the origins of “school choice” lie in the efforts of Southern states to resist desegregation efforts in the 1950s and ‘60s.
His book traces how measures to expand educational alternatives to public education spread from the South to the rest of the country over the intervening decades. He also makes it very clear that there is no “magic bullet” by which to save public schools and limit efforts to fund parental choices other than public schools. Rather, the only way – given how educational policy is relegated to states and local jurisdictions – is for citizens who believe in the importance of public education as a foundation stone for democratic republics to work together to expose – and resist – both the forces pushing for these alternatives as well as for the long-range implications of losing truly public education.
You might ask, however: Why is “parental choice” a “bad” or harmful thing?
I think there are two extremely important concerns about how “parental choice” is actually playing out:
First, because all these efforts, including home schooling, charter schools, and various academies purporting to offer exceptional educational opportunities for gifted students, end up diverting at least some tax dollars from public schools to these alternative ventures, their combined effect is to further weaken the ability of public schools to provide a sound education to all of their students. And please note: public schools are required to admit all students, whatever their economic background or familial difficulties. Since public schools increasingly are faced with ever more diverse student populations, at a time when budget support has remained static at best, any diminishment in financial support is bound to effect teachers, vital support staff, and – inevitably – the students. We should be bolstering our support of public schools, not diluting it.
Second, and this is a more tenuous if equally important point: For a democratic society to function well, we require an educated citizenry equally well-versed in both civic consciousness about the duties and responsibilities of citizens in a republic as well as in the skills essential for navigating today’s complex societies. If there are some vital areas that are not taught as a consequence of students attending alternative educational institutions or, worse, mistaught or misconstrued – some “for instances” include the rights to which gay or transgender people have a legitimate claim, or the fact-based history of how people of color have been treated in this country – then a critical component of the “glue” necessary to hold together such a varied society as our own will be weakened.
Note: What follows hereafter are primarily my own feelings and reactions to the subject matter of this well-written if also discouraging book.
I was an Iowa legislator in the 1970s and early 1980s when the first pushes for parental choice began to be felt in Iowa. Moreover, I knew a lot about a kind of alternative education as the bulk of my schooling was in Catholic schools. An important caveat here, though: my Catholic school education was paid for by my parents without any state subsidy. Moreover, we didn’t believe that there should be such a subsidy. We accepted that the state’s responsibility to provide a sound, fundamental education for its citizens was limited to public schools since they were the ones to properly receive public funding. Clearly, my parents’ choice to put their three children through Catholic schools was a financial sacrifice for them. (And, in fairness, that was more affordable those days than is the case for such education today.)
Now the idea of parental choice seems, at both first and second blush, to be a non-issue. Why, of course, parents have the right – indeed, the duty! – to be involved with and concerned about their children’s’ education. So far, so good! Which is why we have local school boards and open meetings and parent-teacher conferences and all the rest.
However, when some parents become concerned that their children are learning “too much” about such things as evolution, gender differences, and the contributions of non-white populations to this country and then seek to “protect” their children from such knowledge – claiming this to be an infringement upon their rights as parents – then I think “we” have a very real problem that requires our attention.
Unfortunately, however, as is the case with so many complex issues of our day, the right answer or correct solution is not so easily determined.
I am as concerned as anyone about the growing divergences in belief and practice between – for want of a finer distinction – the more rural and small-town areas of this country and the more densely populated and urban areas. I can understand why parents in both portions – which are intermingled throughout the 50 states – would have concerns about elements of their children’s education and, as a consequence, be alert to alternatives that would present their own kids with a “better” education.
The question our democratic society must answer, however, is whether allegedly superior educational opportunities are best and most effectively provided through alternative educational venues, or whether a properly funded and staffed public school system is ultimately superior in helping children deal with an increasingly multi-cultural and diverse society.
Parents have the responsibility to care for and guide their children, but they do not have the “right” to plunk their own heads, as it were, on their children’s shoulders. We should not want or allow our children to inherit bigotry or slanted views of any sort.
Having said that, however, I admit the extreme difficulty of, and sensitivity to, establishing just which things are bigoted or slanted.
While I understand the impulse to address these nuanced questions in an over-all, just fixed the damned thing, way, I believe the superior response is to continue to involve parents and all involved in the education of their children in more in-conversations and relationships.
But, be forewarned: the most vigorous advocates of educational alternatives really do not want such discussions, for they already have the answers they wish, and one of their goals is the dismantling of public education, all as part of their larger agenda of ensuring that a future America will march to “the same drummer,” however autocratic the beat!
October 6, 2021
This book is an outstanding introduction to the charter school debate.
It was Thomas Jefferson in 1787 who promoted public schooling--or schooling at the expense of the taxpayers. The tension between American liberty and American community was at the heart of the conversation, then and now. Race was at the heart of the conversation then, and it is now.
Being a slave owner, Jefferson's "crusade against ignorance" and desire for a "natural aristocracy" based on merit did not provide for black education. Still, he was defeated by a Virginia legislature nervous of an educated black population and worried about their own children. Their argument is one that we hear today: "Why should we have to pay for other peoples' children? We should spend our money ONLY on our own children, with maybe a scholarship here and there for the poor and marginalized." Some things simply never change.
I cannot highly recommend Jon Hale's concise and spirited defense of the public schools. He reminds us that taxpayers get a strong return on investment from the public schools. He reminds us that a learned population is necessary to be elect qualified officials, serve as an innovative economic superpower, and stand together strong moral community.
The charter school strategy is simple...
1. Defund the public schools (or defund communities whose property taxes fund the schools),
2. Let the public schools fail due to lack of funding, then
3. Use that failure to justify further lack of funding.
By bringing race to the forefront, Hale shows us that today's discussions about "learning," "choice," "the market," and "freedom" must take history into context to avoid (unintentionally) repeating the racist outcomes of the past. The question is not on whether or not the government should spend (it spends too much whether a republican or a democrat is in office), but rather what should the government spend on? The question is not just how much are children learning, but why has learning and poverty been so closely correlated to race?
Hale clearly and concisely summarizes a mountain of sociological and educational research and packages it brilliantly for the public. I have seen other reviews that suggest that Hale does not cite enough research. Again, this is a book for the public. However, as an education professor, I can assure that each of his arguments has a good deal of research to back it up. Use this book as a gateway to a very important debate. You will keep coming back to it again and again.
It was Thomas Jefferson in 1787 who promoted public schooling--or schooling at the expense of the taxpayers. The tension between American liberty and American community was at the heart of the conversation, then and now. Race was at the heart of the conversation then, and it is now.
Being a slave owner, Jefferson's "crusade against ignorance" and desire for a "natural aristocracy" based on merit did not provide for black education. Still, he was defeated by a Virginia legislature nervous of an educated black population and worried about their own children. Their argument is one that we hear today: "Why should we have to pay for other peoples' children? We should spend our money ONLY on our own children, with maybe a scholarship here and there for the poor and marginalized." Some things simply never change.
I cannot highly recommend Jon Hale's concise and spirited defense of the public schools. He reminds us that taxpayers get a strong return on investment from the public schools. He reminds us that a learned population is necessary to be elect qualified officials, serve as an innovative economic superpower, and stand together strong moral community.
The charter school strategy is simple...
1. Defund the public schools (or defund communities whose property taxes fund the schools),
2. Let the public schools fail due to lack of funding, then
3. Use that failure to justify further lack of funding.
By bringing race to the forefront, Hale shows us that today's discussions about "learning," "choice," "the market," and "freedom" must take history into context to avoid (unintentionally) repeating the racist outcomes of the past. The question is not on whether or not the government should spend (it spends too much whether a republican or a democrat is in office), but rather what should the government spend on? The question is not just how much are children learning, but why has learning and poverty been so closely correlated to race?
Hale clearly and concisely summarizes a mountain of sociological and educational research and packages it brilliantly for the public. I have seen other reviews that suggest that Hale does not cite enough research. Again, this is a book for the public. However, as an education professor, I can assure that each of his arguments has a good deal of research to back it up. Use this book as a gateway to a very important debate. You will keep coming back to it again and again.
October 24, 2023
I never knew how tied school choice and vouchers were to resisting integration after Brown v The Board of Education. Vouchers take money that could be used to improve public education and give extra to the wealthy, the majority of private school supporters. If you are poor how is $8000 going to get you a place at Kincaid or St Johns?
September 25, 2021
The fact that it took me two months to plod through this book will be a good indicator of what I thought about it. Since my granddaughter goes to a charter school in an almost all-Black community, I was very interested in this topic.
The author argues that choice in schools diverts money and resources - such as good teachers - from the local public schools, which perpetuates the cycle of poor public schools and making parents feel they need the choice of other options.
What the author never brought up is the fact that in the US, schools are funded by local tax dollars. This sets poor communities up to have public schools that don't measure up. They will always have less dollars to work with than schools in affluent communities. This impacts everything, from the inability to attract great teachers due to poor pay, extras the school can afford to offer, etc... As long as schools in poor communities have fewer resources, they will never measure up to better-funded schools. The only solution I see would be for all taxes to be distributed throughout a state on a per-student basis, evening the playing field. When public schools can offer a great education, people will not feel the need to search for better alternatives.
The author argues that choice in schools diverts money and resources - such as good teachers - from the local public schools, which perpetuates the cycle of poor public schools and making parents feel they need the choice of other options.
What the author never brought up is the fact that in the US, schools are funded by local tax dollars. This sets poor communities up to have public schools that don't measure up. They will always have less dollars to work with than schools in affluent communities. This impacts everything, from the inability to attract great teachers due to poor pay, extras the school can afford to offer, etc... As long as schools in poor communities have fewer resources, they will never measure up to better-funded schools. The only solution I see would be for all taxes to be distributed throughout a state on a per-student basis, evening the playing field. When public schools can offer a great education, people will not feel the need to search for better alternatives.
September 8, 2021
Such a well researched and important read. Charter schools and the "school choice" movement weren't on my radar until I had school aged kids. I remember noticing that we had friends zoned for our public school who were going to a nearby charter and I thought it was a private school, just because these friends were all rich (I know, I know). And then I found out it was "public" i.e. free, and I was like oh ok, hm. But literally it's mostly well off, white folks so I couldn't ever put my finger on what seemed off to me. Like, it seeeeemsss private vibe, ya know? Fast forward to upper elementary, another charter opened a mile down the road from my kids elementary school and my kids' school lost enough students to that charter that we almost lost our assistant principal (funding based on enrollment, lower enrollment means less funding), so I started really questioning these particular pop ups. Anyway, this book was incredible at filling in all of those gaps and questions and including some important nuance. Absolutely recommend, great great read
August 21, 2021
No matter where you stand on the issue of school choice, I recommend reading this book for much needed understanding of the history of school choice. I appreciate that the author covers pro-choice folks of varied races and backgrounds along with his entirely valid criticisms of school choice. My mind was blown by the original concept of charter schools, which were supposed to be unionized teacher-led subsets of existing schools that empowered teachers to try new ideas over a period of time after which the things that worked would be incorporated into general instruction. The charter would be dissolved and new charters could begin. This is a far cry from what we got in terms of charter schools, and the book does an amazing job of outlining our choices, how we got them, the consequences of choice, and how to fight for keeping school decisions local. The audiobook narrator does a great job, and I can recommend experiencing the book that way.
October 29, 2021
A very sobering portrait of how school choice has fostered continued segregation and inequity in most cases and contributed to the decimation of public school education for all. I am horrified at the privatization of education, both the fraud, stealing, and misadministration of public funds and a skewing of the goals of education toward the needs of corporation. I admit having been confused about the value of magnet and charter schools, and this book gave a clear history of the development of these alternatives and the harm they have inflicted on communities of color.
November 7, 2023
This was a really interesting look into the school choice system that is especially applicable with the rise of vouchers in some states (looking at you Florida). I had no idea that vouchers and things like magnet schools arose from a desire to avoid integration! I do think you can skip the chapter about federal support because it feels more like a laundry list of here is what every president from LBJ to Trump did. It it interesting, but feels disjointed and would’ve been more effective if layered within each chapter for historical context. Definitely worth a read though!
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews