Another criticism of expanded choice asserts that government schools will be left with
the poorest performing, most difficult to educate students—the intractable, the
unfocused, the "impossible" individuals. Evidence gathered from school choice
programs has not supported this assertion. In the case of the Milwaukee Choice Program,
the "skimming" of only "good" or "desirable" students has
not taken place. John Witte, who completed several evaluations of the Milwaukee Choice
Program, observed that the program seemed to provide an alternative educational
environment for students who were not succeeding in the traditional public school.
Although Witte’s review of the choice program in Milwaukee is not completely
positive, he nevertheless acknowledges that students who were not "making the
grade" could always find a place where they were welcome and free to succeed.31
Most schools participating in choice programs, whether they are private, public, or
charter schools, seem eager to convey the message long ago inscribed on the Statue of
Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breath
free . . ."32
Indeed, even The New York Times now recognizes that choice programs offered to
economically poor students help them achieve more and pressure the public school system to
improve:
Desperate to find a remedy for failing schools, several states are considering voucher
experiments that would offer low-income students private-school scholarships at public
expense. . . . A study of the longest-running experiment in Milwaukee suggests that
vouchers can improve the prospects of the poorest and least prepared students. . . . More
work needs to be done to see if the gains are sustained. But the Milwaukee data should
serve notice on the teachers’ union—and large, urban districts
everywhere—that if the schools do not improve quickly, vouchers could become
irresistible.33
