PROS AND CONS OF SCHOOL CHOICE DEBATED: YES

ADAM URBANSKI, an expert on educational reform, is vice-president of the American Federation of Teachers. He is also president of the Rochester, N.Y., Teachers Association.

The system of free public education has served as a cornerstone of our society since 1647. For millions of Americans, it has been the principal vehicle for opportunity and upward mobility.

Yet, for too many students from economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, our schools are failing. Public schools can, and should be, more effective.

To achieve this, we'll need fundamental reforms.

Letting parents choose the right public school for their children no matter where the family lives would make all of public education more responsive to the needs of today's world.

Giving parents a choice of public schools is predicated on two pillars of American society: equal opportunity and open-market competition.

Institutions that have to compete for students are less likely to become complacent and more apt to improve what they have to offer. It is possible that a unique accountability would result from a well-designed choice plan: Unsuccessful schools would be compelled to change.

Schools that must compete are more likely to develop a cohesiveness and sense of mutual purpose. With their very survival at stake, teachers couldn't afford to leave everything to the principal they would have to become involved in all decisions.

Yes, teachers and administrators would be challenged more than ever before. But the built-in system of incentives and disincentives would reward some schools while sending a strong message to others.

Today, because of ~geography or other arbitrary guidelines, neither parents nor students have much choice in education. This significantly limits their ability to affect the school, heightens their sense of frustration and often leads to resignation and apathy. It's a tragic cycle that can, and should, be broken.

For choice to be real, however, there must be real differences among schools. We should also alter current school dynamics.

Today's schools were designed nearly a century ago when the factory system was the organizational model. This assembly-line approach to education resulted in too many "recalls," and it is unsuitable to the changing needs of a complex society. It promotes the kind of bland uniformity that makes choice for parents, students and teachers difficult, at best. If all schools offer the same curriculum, all classrooms are arranged with desks in straight aisles and all teachers cover prescribed items in a prescribed manner through prescribed methods, what's left to choose?

But extending parental choice to private schools through public funding would be unfair. Private schools are not obligated by the same rules, regulations and responsibilities as public schools.

Yet to oppose all choice plans is not tenable.

In fact, the issue of choice in public education should not be framed as an either-or proposition. The question need not be "should we have choice," but "could we offer to all more choices than they now have?"

Unlike tuition tax credits and voucher proposals for private schools, the public school-only choice option would not undermine public schools nor drain resources from them. Instead, it would stimulate parental involvement and reinforce equity. The current willingness to improve the educational environment makes now the right time to try this idea. It should be approached with caution, and it requires careful planning and competent implementation.

Obviously, no choice plan is acceptable if it leads to re-segregation or other unfair results. And by itself, choice is not enough.

But good ideas are no less in short supply than money, and it would be a sin of omission~ not to try this one.