Both Sides are Wrong in the School Choice Debate
When non-arguments replace arguments, everyone loses, especially the kids.
I just read the following exchange on X. It perfectly captures, in one image, the kind of rhetoric that contributes to the intractability of the problems we desperately need to solve: the non-argument argument
Reich’s Non-Arguments AGAINST School Choice:
School choice defunds public schools.
So what? What if it does? Shouldn’t the funding be directly correlated with how many kids the schools need to serve? If parents leave, and take SOME, not all mind you, of the tax dollars government has allocated for the “education” of each child in that district with them, shouldn’t the teachers and administrators in that building have more time (and money) to use teaching fewer kids? Aren’t we always hearing about teacher shortages, and the need to reduce class size?
Yes, I’m aware the teachers’ salaries have to be paid, and the administrators’ too, but school choice only pulls a percentage of the funds out; the district will still get the rest, even though the child won’t be there! How is this a net-negative financially? I’m sincere, please explain this logic to me.
Then there’s the “so what” that grants Reich his argument (in case I’m doing my math wrong, which is certainly possible): what if the schools don’t deserve to be funded? What if they’re awful? What if they’re objectively stealing from taxpayers, and delivering nothing but anxiety, suffering, and mediocre (and sometimes unsafe) daycare to their students? What if teachers in that school are overpaid, and underworked? What if a “school” isn’t the magical land of “heroes” people like Reich would have us believe it is? In that case, shouldn’t we WANT to defund them, yesterday?
Defunding is a non-argument because it’s not a given that government schools should be funded, morally, ethically, and I would argue, even legally (according to my reading of the Constitution), especially since it’s not a given that defunding does any harm whatsoever to students, even at schools that can justify their continued existence based on something of tangible value to those students, (e.g., academic achievement, not just compliance with state constitutional mandate).
School choice funnels money to “private, for-profit schools that don’t have to accept all students, etc…”
I grant you, he’s not wrong about the “funneling” to private interests. I say that because — by the school choice lobby’s own admission — the money “follows” the child, it doesn’t arrive in his lunchbox or back-pocket. It comes from government coffers, and only after his parents jump through administrative hoops to obtain government’s approval to use those funds to pay for one of a range of choices the government allows.
There are plenty of problems with this arrangement, not least of which is the potential for corruption and cronyism, but Reich isn’t concerned about those. Instead he’s lamenting the loss of government control that comes from allowing parents to (attempt to) choose pedagogies, peers, and philosophies that challenge the authority of that government.
In other words, Reich’s non-argument is that government has the authority to decide where YOUR tax money is spent, and what your children should THINK and FEEL, and BELIEVE after it’s spent. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of “How dare you use your money to raise your own kids?!
Corey DeAngelis isn’t doing much better. His arguments are almost worse than Reich’s because unlike Reich, Corey claims to represent the interests of parents and their kids. Reich makes no secret of his support for government control over your money, and he’s honest about why! He believes the government is the best arbiter of what your kids should learn, and who their peers should be!
Corey just spits non-arguments at Reich, and fails to make any case for real “choice” in the process.
DeAngelis’ Non-Arguments FOR School Choice:
”Why would giving parents a choice “defund” government schools?”
It’s a fair question, but shouldn’t the answer be “Because they don't deserve to keep the money if a kid leaves?” Why would Corey want the parents he appeals to, who are furious with the system for taking their money all these years — even long before they became parents — to believe public schools will still remain fully funded?
How could the public schools not be at least somewhat “defunded?” There are only two ways I can think of, and I have to wonder if Corey is hinting at one or both of them himself, without realizing it…
1. government never allows itself to shrink; the teachers’ unions and their elected stooges will propose bond measure after bond measure, tax hike after tax hike, to make up the shortfall so no one has to be downsized if enrollments drop, and public schools — no matter how awful — can stay open, even for fewer students;
2. private schools will gradually become indistinguishable from public entities, complete with Title IX and other regulations governing their policies, and state and federal IDEA and ESSA funds accessible to bribe them into complying with state and federal curriculum standards. They’ll be getting so much funding from voucher and ESA programs, they’ll be exposed to the same demands for “oversight” and “regulation” that public schools face, and with good reason. Even I don't relish the notion of my tax dollars funding a private school dedicated (for example) to the proposition that America, capitalism, the enlightenment, and all things Western are evil.
In the likely event that one or both of these scenarios play out as described, many, if not most, private schools will end up being “public” in every way that matters. In other words, Corey isn’t arguing for or against school choice here. Instead, he seems to be claiming there’s a net-zero financial impact to the public system, even if the allegedly fixed-pot of taxpayer “school funding” is redistributed to private schools.
The money doesn’t belong to the government schools.
Well it kinda does, Corey. It didn’t start as theirs, I’ll grant you that, but for all intents and purposes, it’s theirs since they’re the ones who get to run the school choice “programs.” Government agencies and employees define the funding approval process: who can apply, who is eligible to receive, how much money they can get, and where they can take it. Please explain how there’s a meaningful difference between this reality and "ownership” of the money? Until we ask for it back, to use as we see fit, without all that red tape, it’s not ours, ergo, it’s theirs. I’m all ears if anyone in the school choice lobby would like to propose a way to wrest it free from government clutches for once and for all.
You sent your kid to a private school.
This is the worst non-argument of them all, especially from a “choice” advocate. How is pointing out that every taxpayer currently has a “choice” to send their children to a school other than their assigned public school — politicians included — an argument in favor of a new government bureaucracy that redistributes taxpayer funds? Even though I disagree, I understand there’s nothing inherently contradictory about simultaneously supporting the existence (and taxpayer support) of public schools, and the existence of (and continued independence) of private and home-based schools.
Choice is choice, and while it’s expensive now, people have it, so this non-argument exposes the reality that school choice at its core is a redistributionist scheme, not a step towards “liberty and justice for all.”