The pros and cons of school choice have recently been under discussion. Yet, all these arguments seem to have been based on the dubious premise that school choice equals to market principles. Under the current situations in various countries where school choice systems have been implemented, rather than criticizing the system itself, determining how the system is positioned should be more important.
Following the analysis of major school choice theories that have been proposed so far, this paper examines the positioning of the school choice system in such theories and the school reform designs that have been implemented under such systems.
These theories have been categorized into the following three theoretical frameworks:
1)the “panacea" model, as uncontrolled market, as represented by Milton Friedman's school voucher scheme;
2)the “specific remedy” model, as controlled market, as represented by Christopher Jencks' controlled voucher plan and John E. Coons' voucher plan; and
3)the “catalyst" model, as check and balance principles, as proposed by Mary Ann Raywid and Isao Kurosaki.
This categorization of the school reforms under each model has then revealed entirely different realities.
Most importantly, regarding the positioning of the school choice system, as the system is subject to designs for the system and other educational reforms, it is essential for educational administrative officials to continue evolving the system design, considering the three models of theoretical types as frame works.
