Abstract
In this paper I discuss the theory projected by John E. Chubb and Terry Moe. Their book, Politics, Markets, and America's School has caused a popular debate. In this book they found that school organization is the most significant variable affecting student achievement. Chubb and Moe's central argument is that an effective school is characterized by an academic focus, a strong leader, shared decision-making, a high level of professionalism and cooperation among teachers, and respect for discipline among students. Following these findings, Chubb and Moe concluded that the best way to improve education in the United States is to establish school autonomy in every school. This requires every school to be free on bureaucratic control. Since the bureaucracy has been developed under the direct democratic control of education, both democratic control and the bureaucracy should be denied. In place of them there should be introduced one kind of market control of education. This is their theoretical argument supporting school of choice. Their argument is persuasive. One reason is that public education in the United States has been criticized but has not produced good results. The other reason is that it seemed to assure parents' rights to the education of their children. But there remain some serious problems. One is that the authors intentionally denied the aim and content of public common education. This is a very difficult but unescapable problem in a democratic society. The other point is that they put common interests in the education of people as exterior to education, thus losing a vital force in education. We should search for the way to strengthen the voice of parents and the community in education. Under these conditions the parents' choice of school programs is to be realized. In this context, too, a "controlled choice" plan should be investigated.
