objective have their doubts about implementation. Theyncomplain, for instance, that contemporary public highnschools are like “shopping malls,” containing a hodge-podgenof course offerings with little central coherence in their totalnprogram. And because, in practice, the public schools resistnattempts at homogenization, a student in one school districtnmight well receive an entirely different set of “commonnvalues” than his counterpart in another school district closenby.nWith respect to the alleged need to provide a “commonnexperience,” the assumption seems to be that children inneach public school are drawn from a fully representativenpopulation. Public schools, however, do not contain antypical cross-section of people. The main reason is thenexistence of residential stratification according to income.nThe mere fact, too, that religious and private education isnallowed and exists under the U.S. Constitution precludesnthe full representation of the population in public schoolsneven in the absence of residential stratification.nConcerning the objectives of equity and equal access, it isnarguable indeed that public provision is counterproductive.nThe system produces heterogeneous qualities of education,nwith the worst offerings appearing in large-city ghettonschools in which low-income families find themselvesntrapped. Many of the middle class and the rich obtain anbetter deal for several reasons. Because public schools wantnto try and maximize the number of their students, but face anfixed amount of resources to do it, and since wealthy parentsnare more likely to move their children to private schools ifnthere is a reduction in the quality of public schools, thisnsituation will most likely require making the public schoolsnin wealthy areas of a higher quality. In any case, the superiorndegree of mobility that middle-class parents enjoy enablesnthem to search out and secure the superior services withinnthe educational system.nFor all of these reasons, not everybody will agree with thenconclusion of some that educahon vouchers could bringngreater benefits to wealthier families than to low-incomenfamilies. Milton and Rose Friedman insist on the oppositenview, that their voucher system would promote equity just asnmuch as efficiency. Their reasoning appears in the followingnquotation from their book Free to Choose (1980):nAre the supermarkets available to differentneconomic groups anything like so divergent innquality as the schools? Vouchers would improve thenquality of the public schooling available to the richnhardly at all; to the middle class, moderately, to thenlower-income class, enormously.nA recent Callup poll indicated that neady half of thosenwho are now sending their children to public schools wouldnchoose private schools if the latter were made tuition-free.nThose parents who selected the private schools over thenpublic schools were then asked to explain their choice. Thenreason offered most often was that private schools have then”highest standard of education.” Better “discipline” camennext, followed by “individual attention,” “smaller classnsize,” “better curriculum,” and “better quality of teachers.”nTnhe concern about discipline is longstanding, fii mynopening paragraph, I referred to public schools inter­nfering with people’s education. The most conspicuousnexample of this is the failure of many public schools tonmaintain order in the classroom. In assessing the incidencenof student disruptive behavior in 1987, 19 percent of thenpublic school teachers surveyed by the U.S. Department ofnEducation reported that there was “much more” of it inntheir school than five years before; another 25 percentnindicated that there was “somewhat more” now. Almostnone-third of the teachers surveyed stated they had seriouslynconsidered leaving teaching because of student misbehavior.nIn the context of such a poor record on discipline, thenargument that the need for social indoctrination justifies anpublic school system looks particularly weak. Clearly, ifneducation is being disrupted by unruly behavior there can benno successful instruction in “common values” or anythingnelse. And when disruptive behavior is coupled with violence,ntheft, and drug abuse, it is legitimate to question the kind ofn”common values” that are being inculcated.nEducation legislation can be viewednas part of a comprehensive systemnof child abuse laws.nIn a report to the Congress in 1977, the NationalnInstitute of Education revealed that about 2.4 millionnsecondary school students (11 percent) had somethingnstolen from them in a typical month. About 1.3 percent ofnthe students reported being attacked in a month. The mostnarresting finding was that young teenagers in cities ran angreater risk of violence in school than outside of school.nThe same report concluded that the single most importantndifference between safe schools and violent schools wasnfound to be a strong, dedicated principal who served as anrole model for both students and teachers and who institutedna firm, fair, and consistent system of discipline. The troublenis that neither the National Institute of Education norngovernments appear to be able to guarantee that each publicnschool will have the dedicated type of principal just described.nPrincipals who fall short of these qualities arendifficult to dislodge because of the usual terms of unionnegotiatedncontracts of employment. Here indeed is anothernexample of the way in which the structure of the publicnschool system can interfere with children’s education. ThenNIE report revealed that 4 percent of students stayed homenfrom school because they were afraid, and that aroundn600,000 secondary students reported they were afraid mostnof the time. Twenty-two percent of all secondary studentsnreported avoiding some restrooms at school because of fear,nand 20 percent said they were afraid of being hurt ornbothered at school at least sometimes.nThe NIE study found that academic competition insidenschools reduced the risk of violence. “The data suggests thatnviolent students are more likely to be those that have givennup on school, do not care about grades, find the coursesnirrelevant, and feel nothing they do makes any difference.”nThis finding is relevant to the public/private debate. In then”progressive” atmosphere of modern school teaching, grad-nnnOCTOBER 1990/19n