Understanding choices and why consumers make the choices they do serves as a major point of analysis in economics. Choice deals with the decisions individuals and societies make when faced with scarce resources. Not all of our desires and wants can be met since we do not have an unlimited amount of resources. Because of this scarcity, we (individuals, companies, societies) are forced to make choices about what we will choose to produce, how it should be produced, and to whom it should be produced for. Every choice we make carries an opportunity cost or the potential benefit we could have received from the alternatives we did not choose. Economists assume that each individual is a rational actor of choices, meaning they make choices based on their preferences. Their preferences are considered rational if the individual maintains a consistent preference ranking of all alternatives among which the individual can choose. If individual consumers maintain a consistent preference ranking, this makes their behavior predictable thus allowing economists a major point of analysis to formulate assumptions and trends needed in economic planning. The only problem is that we lack general claims about the content of people’s preferences. Therefore, economists can only provide generalizations about what people prefer. They argue that people are “materially self-interested, prefer more commodities to fewer, and more wealth to less wealth.” While there are exceptions to these generalizations, economists use these generalizations to explain the workings of markets in a capitalist system.

In response to the rise of totalitarianism and socialism that swept through Europe during WWII, economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek argued for governments to not interfere with the workings of the market. Individual freedom can only be protected through unhindered competition. Friedman argued that free markets cannot be shaped by an individual or government’s own will. It provides the people with what they want rather than what other people think they ought to want. It places decision making at the hands of individuals and thus secures their freedoms and liberties. Hayek concedes that

“Even in the best of worlds this freedom will be limited. Few people ever have an abundance of choice of occupation. But what matters is that we have some choice, that we are not absolutely tied to a job which has been chosen for us, and that if one position becomes intolerable, or if we set our heart on another, there is always a way for the able, at some sacrifice, to achieve his goal. Nothing makes conditions more unbearable than the knowledge that no effort of ours can change them. It may be bad to be just a cog in a machine but it is infinitely worse if we can no longer leave it, if we are tied to our place and to the superiors who have been chosen for us.”

Free markets unhindered by government regulations and planning gives us these choices. By the 1970s, government would continue to make itself subject to free markets and allow the concept of free markets to shape every sphere of life. From the 1970s to today, we have seen a decrease in the responsibility of the state to provide security and welfare to individuals and instead reposition these responsibilities on individuals and the choices they make. This can be seen as a direct outcome of the influence of neoliberalism in shaping the nature of governance in nations like the United States.

By applying economic logic to all spheres of life, neoliberalism positions individuals to model their lives as if they were entrepreneurial firms. Individuals are expected to act in ways that maximize their capital value in the present and the future by acting as self-entrepreneurs and self-investors. To encourage individuals to act in this way, government reduces its participation and responsibility for solving specific matters and problems and allows for individuals to solve these problems themselves. It uses not only direct techniques but indirect techniques or what Foucault calls “technologies of self” to make individuals see the social risks and problems they face as consequences of their own choices and abilities to care for themselves. Neoliberalism works to create a social reality where individual morality, civility, value, and success are all judged solely on economic criteria. Let’s discuss a few neoliberal concepts and their relationship with choice.

• Homo economicus (“The Economic Man”): According to Michel Foucault, homo economicus is “an entrepreneur of himself, being for himself his own capital, being for himself his own producer, being for himself the source of his earnings.” “The economic man” is a rational actor who is always pursuing his own self-interest to produce his own satisfaction. If we go back to the idea of the theory of rationality in which an individual is rational if he makes decisions according to a consistent preference ranking and combine it with the generalizations that economists make about consumer preferences, this makes the economic man highly predictable and thus easily governable. If we are always and everywhere homo economicus, this allows market criteria and analysis to be applied to all decision making in every sphere of life. The economic man becomes a “behavioristically manipulable being” and thus easily subject to the ways governments can systematically change variables of the environment to ensure maximum economic growth. Neoliberalism thus positions governments to view their primary responsibility as ensuring that the market functions how it ought to. In order to do this, governments work to actively create conditions that foster market freedom and individual entrepreneurship. While it appears that the economic man in a neoliberal government has the freedom to make his own choices in pursuit of his own self-interest, some argue that this appearance of freedom is illusionary and that he is simply a pawn to the government's goals of economic growth. In essence, we were not born to always seek our own self-interest but made to do so by a government morally conditioning its subjects to be responsible self-investors and self-providers. We are forced to align to this self-entrepreneurialism if we are to thrive in a society that always favors the health and growth of the economy.

• Human Capital and Constant Competition: Human capital refers to the intangible assets, qualities, and skills acquired from an individual’s investments in nutrition, education, training, etc.⁽¹¹⁾ If we are always entrepreneurs responsibly and rationally acting in our own self-interests, then we must make these investments to increase our personal value and make ourselves competitive in all spheres of life. Therefore, we must constantly make choices in regards to the best ways to invest in ourselves. Rendering all human beings as human capital for themselves and the companies, states, and nations they belong to makes precarity, inequality, competition, and individualism normal qualities of the societies in which we live. Neoliberalism thus promotes a democracy composed of winners and losers. The winners are thus seen as those who made the best choices to increase their value and competitiveness while the losers are seen as those who made the worst choices and are suffering the consequences of those choices. This neoliberal mentality easily ignores systemic consequences of racism, sexism, classism, etc. that have contributed to certain groups of people being generalized as losers. It instead establishes a colorblind/gender-blind rhetoric suggesting that if you simply work hard and make the right choices you will be successful (a.k.a. “The American Dream”). However, the question becomes who determines what is the “right” choice? Is what is “right” determined equally for everyone? And more importantly if there is a blanketed “right” choice, does everyone have equal access in making that choice?

• Privatization: A neoliberal state believes strongly in the powers of deregulation and privatization as a way to increase efficiency and production and improve quality. Since the 1970s, we have seen a plethora of private enterprises taking over public spheres and thus infinitely expanding the choices available for individuals and families. While the expansion of choices appears to be a good thing, the increase of choices can intensify feelings of anxiety, uncertainty, and regret thus decreasing the well-being of individuals. With so many choices, people must spend lots of time collecting adequate and complete information about available options, and they may have continual feelings of blame and regret when they choose an option that does not benefit them the most. For many consumers the right to choose has now become an obligation to choose thus intensifying the pressures of making the “right” choice.

Choice or the expansion of choices has been widely favored as a progressive tool in addressing inequalities within the education system. If free market logic (increased privatization, deregulation, competition, and commercialization) works to expand consumer choices and thus their individual liberties, then it is assumed that applying this logic to education will increase the quality of education everyone receives. This market logic situates parents and their children as consumers who make choices within the educational market for personal gain. Education becomes less of a public good. It rather becomes more or less a private good that benefits the degree holder much more the society as a whole. Let’s examine some of the ways in which choice is utilized in the education system.

Unpacking the Economic History Regarding Choice

• School Choice and Voucher Systems: School choice involves children and parents being able to decide to enroll in alternatives other than traditional public schools. This includes magnet schools, charter, private, and homeschooling. With the proliferation of charter schools and the growing support for school choice programs, education is now being seen not as a collective good but as a competitive investment subject to individual choices. Let’s consider the potential benefits, consequences, and constraints of school choice initiatives:

  • • • Possible Benefits: school choice and voucher programs are also considered equal opportunity initiatives. Voucher programs such as those promoted by the Trump Administration’s “Educational Freedom and Scholarship Opportunity Act” give access to students who could not afford to attend high performing private schools. Charter schools provide students who attend underperforming public schools an opportunity to receive an education tailored more towards their needs.

      • Proponents of charter schools see them as providing environments dedicated to high standards of achievement, allowing teachers to play a more central role in designing curriculum, and creating better connections between the school and the community.

      • Consequences: School choice initiatives reduce student enrollment numbers in public schools thus decreasing public education funding and support. This creates further disparities in the quality of public education for children who have to attend these schools.

      • Expansion of school choice initiatives also creates more direct threats to public schools to not underperform but does not provide them with the tools, funding, and support to do so.

      • School choice initiatives also can lead to more segregated schools along racial and class lines.

      • School choice initiatives make a marketplace of education positioning schools against other schools. Because of the pressures to prove their worth, charter and private schools may deny admission to students who struggle behaviorally and academically as it may lower their rankings and value. This creates the idea that supposedly “bad” students attend public schools and “good” students attend charter or private schools. These ideas continue to increase educational inequities.

      • Because students within failing school zones are given priority in lotteries for private school vouchers and charter schools, there is evidence to suggest that this potentially increases the attractiveness of living in these zones thus causing gentrification.

      • The cost of private schooling can increase because if private schools have more access to public money (vouchers), they will raise tuition.

      • Due to increased competition for enrollment, many charter schools push scripted forms of curriculum dedicated to helping students improve on state tests. This further decreases emphasis on ethics and citizenship in school curriculums.

      • Alternative options of schooling do not always show increases in student achievement, and on average, students in charter schools perform at about the same level as those in traditional public schools. See details of the 2019 NCES Report. 

Constraints:

If we consider the generalizations economists make about consumers’ rational choices and the push to always increase their human capital value, then the logical assumption is that parents will choose schools that provide the best education for their children. This creates an underlying message that if a parent does not get their children into certain schools, then they have failed. Parents are forced to not only choose a school that is right for their child but that is also considered a “good school.” However, this choice is never as simple as it seems since choices differ depending on particular social contexts. Thus the ways working class parents make choices about education may differ than middle class parents. Let’s consider the following constraints on parents’ educational choices for their children:

• Ability to gather information necessary to compare schools on performance and to understand the application process and its deadlines. According to educational theorist Stephen J. Ball, middle class parents are more advantaged in navigating the market of school options compared to working class parents.

• Parental history and experiences with education

• Ability to pay any additional fees regarding informal tuition (uniforms, extracurricular activities)

• Location and access to transportation to attend charter, magnet, or private schools that may not provide bussing.

• Fear of the child fitting in or being at a school where they are the minority.

Alternative Teacher Certification Programs

Since the 1980s, alternative teacher certification programs have been growing across all 50 states. Alternative teacher certification programs began as a way to address teacher shortages specifically in low-income areas. These programs (state run or non profits such as Teach For America) provide those who have at least a bachelor degree a path towards becoming a classroom teacher if they fulfill the program’s training requirements. In essence, individuals now have different choices for teacher certification.

• • • • Possible Benefits: Prevents those with bachelor degrees seeking the opportunity to teach from having to put their life on hold and go back to school.

      • Expands the cultural, racial, and professional makeup of our nation’s teacher population.

      • Depending on the program, teacher training remains continuous and extensive during alternatively certified teachers beginning years in the classroom.

      • Alternatively certified teachers are still required to meet state standards and licensing requirements.

      • Prevents teacher shortages in school districts who may struggle in recruiting traditionally certified teachers.

      • Programs like Teach For America train teachers to utilize social justice and culturally relevant pedagogies in their classrooms.

      • Possible Consequences: Programs such as Teach For America only require two-year commitments within the teaching profession. While some may stay longer than their two-year commitment, many core members utilize the experience as a resume builder to further their careers outside of education. Therefore, Teach for America only serves as a temporary fix to continual issues of teacher vacancies and high teacher turnover in these districts.

      • Teacher training prepares teachers to teach for state-mandated tests thus neglecting to position education as a vital tool to create civic engagement, shared human connection, and empowerment. Programs like Teach for America rely strongly on student achievement data from state mandated tests to justify their existence and need. Therefore, the program sees educational equity initiatives to be grounded in preparing students for greater success on these tests. Scripted curriculums, standards based grading practices, and more of a focus on writing and reading for state tests thus replace teaching practices that empower students, connect to their communities and culture, push them to critically think and connect what they are doing in the classroom to their real world experiences, and foster a love of learning. Likewise TFA positions culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy only as a tool to increase student test scores rather than fostering student empowerment and love for learning.

      • Teacher training before full time teaching remains quick and thus does not adequately prepare teachers for dealing with classroom behavior, planning, and instruction.

      • Programs such as Teach for America support and expand the charter school movement in low income communities. Though their vision is that “one day all children will have the opportunity to receive an excellent education,” they favor charter school initiatives that not all students have access to.

      • Contributes to the idea that anyone can teach which demeans the profession. Because alternative teaching programs shorten and limit the path and requirements to obtaining teacher certification, alternatively certified teachers do not have enough time to be socialized in the profession. Expedience thus replaces experience further weakening the credibility of the profession.

      • Constraints: Costs of alternative certification programs. Some alternative certification programs require that teachers pay to take classes through local universities to complete their programs.

      • The burden of having to complete certification programs while also teaching full time.

There is no doubt that choice is a seductive word connected to our feelings of freedom, agency, and autonomy. As educators, we need to be constantly aware of the choices we make when it comes to designing curriculum and advising students on their choices regarding education. We need to constantly question and make students question what we have been told to believe is the “right choice”? Why is it the “right” choice? Who decides what is “right”? And what constraints prevent people from making the “right choice”?

List of Educational Resources & Readings: 

Books:

• Getting to Where We Meant to be: Working Toward the Educational World We Imagined by Patricia Hinchey & Pamela Konko -- This book examines the many different aspects of education and the tensions that arise from the many different actors involved in the decision making process of schools. The book looks to challenge our current assumptions about schooling, the problems that exist with these assumptions, and suggestions for ways to move forward. Each chapter provides readings, videos, and other supplemental research to further investigate topics of school choice, curriculum, citizenship education, and reform movements.

• Someone Has to Fail: The Zero Sum Game of Public Schooling by David Labaree -- This book traces the history of public education and its often contradictory goals and reforms. Labaree discusses how schools have been positioned as the solutions to all social problems and thus undergo constant reforms or changes. However, schools are typically difficult to change and perhaps one such reason is that we have come to view education in the context of market principles and self-interest. Educational consumers seek education for their own advantages and purposes thus undermining any top down initiatives to change the nature of schooling.

• A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey -- Harvey provides an expansive definition of neoliberalism and explains its historical origins, current issues, and future implications on our society and ways of thinking.

Articles & Websites:

• The Battle Over School Choice: This website provides resources and links that discuss the school choice movement in regards to the expansion of school choice and voucher programs. This webpage seeks to explain both the benefits and consequences of the movement.

• The National Coalition for Public Education: This website provides resources that explain voucher programs including the recent Education Freedom and Opportunity Act and their harmful effects on public education.

• The Promise and Peril of School Vouchers:  This NPR 2 part episode and article explores Indiana’s statewide voucher program which is one of the largest in the country. The episode discusses the program’s expansion and the possible consequences the program has had in areas of social justice and public education.

• What if America Didn’t Have Public Schools?: This article examines what our education system would look like if public education did not exist and families had the choice as to where to send their kids to school. The analysis provides different views on private schools and the ways they strengths and weaknesses highlight issues within our public education system.

• Student Petition Says Too Much Pressure to Succeed at Naperville North by Suzanne Baker: After a “student’s unexpected death,” students at high school in Chicago began a Change.org petition calling for the school to address the intense pressure placed on students by the school’s promotion of high stakes testing and academic competitiveness.

• Teaching Tolerance: This website provides an abundance of resources including articles, videos, and lesson plans to help students explore racism and classism in conjunction with schooling. Use this website to do your own research on ways to think about and discuss how education historically and currently perpetuates racial divides and class hierarchies especially regarding school choice.

• Youth Participatory Action Research: Youth Participatory Action Research is an approach to teaching based in culturally sustaining and social justice pedagogies that seeks to utilize students’ interests and various modes of expression to explore solutions to communal problems. This is a great approach to rethinking curriculum and how to work with and alongside students.