“Choice” is not only a central concept in charter school discourse but a persistent source of disinformation. Neoliberals and privatizers glorify and embrace “free market” education, usually under the banner of “school-choice.” But such a notion of “choice” intentionally confounds two disparate notions of “choice.”
“Choice” in the most basic and straightforward sense of the word is simply the act of selecting something from a list of alternatives. It is something people have been doing every day for centuries. But “choice” also has philosophical, political, economic, historical, and moral dimensions. “Choice” does not exist as an abstract freedom; it is rooted in real arrangements in a definite kind of society. “Choice,” therefore, is best viewed contextually, as existing in specific material space-time relations.
The main use of the word “choice” in contemporary charter school discourse is in its narrow, consumerist free-market sense, which is closely related to the ideology of individualism, contract theory, and private property. This point cannot be overstated. “Choice” in this sense is at the core of the “free market” dogma underpinning a major justification for the creation and expansion of privately-operated charter schools. When promoters of privately-operated charter schools talk about “choice,” they do not want people to think of “choice” in its narrow, consumerist free-market sense. They prefer to have people think of “choice” as the simple, neutral, and straightforward act of selecting something from a list of alternatives; i.e., something decontextualized, something that has nothing to do with consumerism, individualism, competition, and the “free market.” This is what makes it easy for people to support “choice” in the abstract, because who thinks people should have no “choices” in life? We all value having some “choices” in our lives. This is how such disinformation works.
In reality, charter school promoters continually fetishize parents as consumers preoccupied with making “choices.” They place parents and “parent power” at the center of their discourse and repeat the view that in the competitive marketplace of schools, parents should be able to exercise their free will and voluntarily shop for and “choose” which school to send their child to, even though it is really the charter school that chooses the parents and students, and not the other way around. This outlook pervades many national organizations that champion charter schools (e.g., Center for Education Reform, Center on Reinventing Public Education, and National Alliance for Public Charter Schools), as well as most news articles promoting charter schools. Parents, especially poor and low-income minority parents in urban communities, are considered the supreme voluntary consumers, and charter schools, according to charter school supporters, exist to liberate them. “Choice,” in other words, is not rendered as a mechanism of privatization; it is instead portrayed as a virtue and a form of empowerment, as a way for students to transcend their zip code and escape “failing” urban schools. In this way, “choice” diverts attention away from the privatization of public education so as to diminish resistance to privatization.
Only in a “free market” consumerist society that stresses individualism and the law of the jungle can “choice,” including “parental choice,” occupy such a central place. But what exactly is a consumer, and what is the relationship between consumerism, “choice,” and the “free market”?
A key thesis of the influential Austrian free-market ideologue Ludwig von Mises is that in capitalist societies the consumer is sovereign and the consumer makes “free markets” “work.” This central point, also made frequently by the prominent American “free market” economist and school-voucher supporter Milton Friedman, cannot be overstated. The consumer is considered the end-all and be-all in “free market” societies. The consumer is at the center of everything. He or she is the main point of reference because voluntary individual consumption is considered the main mode of living and identity in “free market” societies: “I consume, therefore I am.” But is this what the modern human personality should be in the 21st century? Is this the apex of virtue and human development centuries after the scientific-technical revolution?
In practice, “school choice” actually creates many problems and challenges.
An August 8, 2026, article in the Salt Lake Tribune reminds the public that “School choice only works with financial transparency.” This point is raised in the context of Utah charter school operators refusing to be publicly open, transparent, and accountable even though they are called public schools and siphon millions of dollars a year from public schools. Charter school operators and owners always invoke the “we-are-private-when-it-suits-us” line when they try to hide shady, illegal, or unethical activities, which is common.
For her part, Carol Burris, executive director of the popular Network for Public Education, points out in a July 24, 2026, article in The Progressive Magazine that “School Choice Does Not Provide Better Options for All Families. Voucher and charter school programs are taking funds that could make our public schools stronger.” It is no surprise that school privatization and disinvestment in public schools go hand in hand. Burris states that, “over the years, we have seen a ramp up in school privatization and continuous neglect of public school students and teachers.” Indeed, “The states most aggressively redirecting public funds toward private alternatives—charter schools, voucher programs, and home schools—are the same states that fund privatization at the direct expense of investment in public schools.”
It also comes as no surprise that “school-choice” policies increase school segregation. A May 6, 2024, Chalkbeat article titled “Study finds segregation increasing in large districts — and school choice is a factor,” reminds us that, “Two main factors are driving the increase [in school segregation]: the end of most court oversight that required school districts to create integrated schools, and policies that favor school choice and parental preference.”
A January 30, 2018, piece from the UCLA Civil Rights Project corroborates the finding that charter schools exacerbate school segregation. The article openly states that, “Charter Schools Are Driving Segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg [North Carolina] Schools. New UCLA Civil Rights Project study shows charter schools contribute to re-segregation.” School-choice schemes have long undermined integration and diversity.
What is needed at this time is a modern definition of the human personality and human rights, including the right to education. Parents would not have to “choose” which school to send their child to if society took up its responsibility and guaranteed fully-funded, publicly governed, world-class schools available for free in every community. This is more than possible in the U.S. Now is the time to step up the defense of public schools and the public interest. The public matters more than ever. Reject school privatization schemes. Don’t fall for clever labels, words, and phrases that hide or prettify school privatization.