Why Settle for "School Choice" When Education Liberty is a Superior Alternative?

Don't ask for permission, demand your rights.

School Choice is a hot topic. Politicians and pundits, especially on the political right, are calling it “the Civil Rights issue of our time.” Candidates who support initiatives like vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) are polling well and winning primaries, and several states have already passed legislation creating programs to deliver both. 

A year ago, I might have been celebrating. Like many people, I was frustrated with the way government schools were failing America’s kids, and I too thought it was a good idea to support laws that would “fund students, not systems.”

In the intervening time period, I learned, or began to more clearly see, everything I'm about to tell you, and I changed my mind.

Choosing Your Child’s School is Not Like Choosing Your Streaming Service

Recently, I read the following piece comparing School Choice vouchers and ESAs to Netflix. According to the article’s author,

[ESAs and vouchers] are doing for education what Netflix did for television—allowing individuals to make the choices that work for them.

While Netflix does offer its customers a greater number of options, available on-demand to suit their “individual” needs, School Choice wouldn’t do the same for education because education and entertainment don’t function the same way at all. The analogy is so flawed in fact, it only serves to highlight what’s wrong with School Choice as a solution to our education woes.

First of all, Netflix doesn’t have to compete with network television for a fixed number of dollars collected (by force of law) from everyone, even those who don’t own televisions. There is no such thing as “public entertainment dollars,” nor does the government compel people who own televisions to watch them, never mind for x number of hours per day, y number of days per year, for z number of years total. 

For the analogy to work, not only would government have to add a provision to state constitutions that “standard basic television entertainment” was an entitlement, they’d levy taxes to pay for it, and then Netflix would arrive on the scene for those people who wanted to pay more to avoid watching the standard basic version they’d already paid for. Then “Entertainment Choice” activists would have to show up and demand that government permit people to take their “entertainment dollars” to Netflix instead.

Luckily, there is no “Department of Entertainment,” no “standard basic television entertainment,” and no “entertainment taxes.” We aren’t compelled to watch TV, or to force our kids to watch, never mind for a set number of days per year, between the ages of 6-16. Substitute the word “education” for “entertainment” though, and we aren’t so lucky, because that’s exactly how education works in America.

Parents are compelled to “school” their children, all taxpayers are forced to pay for “standard basic education” with property and other taxes, and when parents don’t think the government option meets their children’s needs, they have to choose private or home-based school, paying extra out-of-pocket for the privilege. 

More Isn’t Necessarily Better, Sometimes it’s Just More

The Netflix analogy implies that having more options is, all by itself, an improvement. But is that true? What if the options give you more of the same, or something even worse? What if you end up (as I often do) sitting in front of your TV, flipping through hundreds of options, complaining there’s still nothing good to watch? More is not necessarily better, especially considering “good schools” are harder to come by than “good” television shows. 

Failed analogy aside, it’s easy to understand why School Choice would sound appealing:

• Who would want to pay extra for something that meets their needs, when they’ve already paid for something that doesn’t? 

• Who wouldn’t be frustrated being compelled to use something that doesn’t meet their needs?

• Who wouldn’t want their money “back” to spend as they saw fit?

• Who wouldn’t want more options to spend it on?

The answer is obviously “no one.” 

We already have some “School Choice,” even without vouchers and ESAs. We may choose charters and private schools where available, or we may choose to homeschool. What we may not do is keep our “education dollars” in our own pockets, and that’s why vouchers and ESAs sound so appealing; they don’t allow us to keep our money, but they do give us permission to use it in more places. When you feel as trapped as most parents do right now, that “more” seems like an improvement.

Maybe School Choice will result in a Netflix-level array of choices, but maybe it won’t. Maybe the new choices will be better than the ones we have now, but maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll even be worse. We have no idea, so implying that more choices alone will allow “individuals to make the choices that work for them” is misleading, at best.

The Government Won’t Give Up it’s Power Over Education Without a Fight

As I mentioned above, the main reason education isn’t like entertainment is it’s compulsory, and the government monopolizes the dollars we would otherwise use to buy it in the free market. School Choice promoters want us to accept compulsory government education as a “reality.” They claim their programs are a “starting point,” to “incrementally” dismantle the government education monopoly over time. 

I’ve asked how they think that would work, tactically-speaking, and I’ve never gotten an answer. Is the assumption that the government will let us have access to the money to spend exclusively on Unwoke forms of education, without any oversight or strings attached, and our children will all magically grow up to be libertarians who’ll vote to end compulsory education in America?

I’m actually not trying to be snarky, I’m genuinely confused. Aside from my belief that you can’t launch a moral cause from an immoral starting point, there’s the “reality” School Choice promoters conveniently ignore: government at every level has enormous power over education. They are unlikely to give it up without a fight.

All states have constitutional provisions requiring them to fund and provide “public education” for all children of school age living in the state. The same state governments define what a “school” may or must be, and how much funding it will get per pupil. State Departments of Education (or Public Instruction) decide what subjects and topics within each subject (“state standards”) must be covered for every class, every year..

Each state also defines standards for teacher-training courses, as well as the requirements to obtain degrees and licenses. The majority of government school teachers in America are licensed and degreed, but even those who aren’t are required to complete a government-mandated number of “continuing education” credit hours each year to remain employed. This means the government controls what a public school teacher is, who can be one, and what they must know or be willing to do to continue to be one.

Government authority varies by type of school, based on how it’s funded. Standard public schools are the most highly regulated because they receive all their funding from the state and federal government.

Charter schools have far fewer regulations than standard public schools, but they don’t get as much public funding. Government exerts its control over them differently: states grant and rescind charters, cap numbers of charters, and limit the number of students each charter can accept. Charters can operate as they see fit, but parents are still not at liberty to take their “education dollars” to a different school if the charter closes, is shut down by the government for some reason, or fails to meet their child’s needs. Parents’ only options then are to return to their assigned public school, pay extra or apply for financial aid for a private school, or homeschool.

Private schools are subject to fewer government regulations than charters, but still some. The state still has authority to decide what does and does not qualify as an “independent school.” Each state also decides individually whether it will or will not provide any state tax support to private schools, but federal dollars are allocated to the child who qualifies for Title I-IV funding. 

”Private schools do not receive federal funds; they receive services through public school districts. It’s the service provider (whether the district or a private provider) who must comply with federal rules regarding the use of funds.

and:

“Even if a school doesn’t serve low-income students who qualify for federal funds, all private schools receive an equitable share of professional development funding.”

That means private school teachers probably complete at least some of the same professional development training courses as their public school counterparts. 

Teacher training matters because public, charter, and private schools all hire from the same teacher candidate pipeline. Their hiring standards may vary, but odds are, the training received was at least influenced by, if not defined by government mandated specifications. 

Like charters, private schools are free to design or choose their own curriculum, but most submit themselves to private accreditation standards, which then act as a form of private “governance” over them, and by extension, the parents and students choosing them.

Homeschooling is currently the school choice offering parents the highest degree of education liberty, and yet most states still dictate who may operate a home-based school, and what rules they must follow regarding attendance, curriculum standards, testing and record-keeping. 

This is just a quick primer. It would take hundreds of pages, and multiple chapters to explain in detail how all the layers of government power work in American Education. Teachers Unions would have their own chapter, as would the federal Department of Education. Teacher Education could be its own separate volume!

Suffice it to say, the most expensive, expansive, powerful, and terrifying institution in America is our Government Education system. To paraphrase my friend Mark Ousley:

“They don’t need our guns if they’ve got our kids.”

“You’re making the perfect the enemy of the good!”

If only I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this argument!

No, I’m making the good the enemy of the unprincipled, and naive. To be “good” School Choice would have to at least provide better than parents have now, right? Most parents assume private schools, especially religious ones, will offer an “Unwoke” or “academically better” education for their kids, and I don’t hear School Choice proponents disabusing them of that notion, and that’s a problem, because it’s false.

We don’t even have a large minority of people involved with private education who want to buck the destructive trends dominant in public schools. If we did, we would have heard from them by now, and we haven’t. Instead, we’ve heard story after story about private schools that are even more “woke” than their public school counterparts! 

In March of 2021, Bari Weiss wrote a long-form exposé about private schools “gone woke.” In April that same year, math teacher Paul Rossi made national headlines when he resigned from Grace Church Academy in New York. He penned an essay blowing the whistle on the prestigious private school for discriminating against white students, and teaching critical race ideology. Then the  Undercover Mothers delivered the bombshell: the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS), which accredits over 1,900 private schools, has essentially mandated they go woke or get out. 

It’s actually surprising to me how few people who support School Choice seem to know about woke private schooling. It would seem like a good idea to research the viability of your “choices” if you’re assuming they’re going to solve your problems. 

One could argue there will be other choices once School Choice funds become available. I suppose it is possible, even likely in some locations, that private interests will build new private schools, but does it follow that they will be Unwoke? What if the private interests most likely to build them are the same ones currently pushing woke curriculum materials, and data-mining our kids, in public schools? 

We are talking about people like Bill Gates and Chan Zuckerberg here; mission-driven billionaires with deep pockets who might decide it would be easier to achieve their missions if they opened their own schools. 

I don’t doubt they’re happy to work through the public system right now, but School Choice would create an instant “demand” for private schools they are well-positioned to meet. They might even hire unionized, certified teachers because it would align well with their left-wing values to do so. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see Randi Weingarten show up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony someday!

School Choice programs are open to all students after all, even those with woke parents. They might want a change from their overcrowded, violent, or “underperforming” assigned schools. If they could choose something like Chan Zuckerberg Academy of Social Justice instead, why wouldn’t they? 

I can picture it now: sustainably-sourced furniture and school supplies in every classroom, Drag Queen Story Hour in the library, “protest” march outings every week, and organic bug-burgers for lunch in the cafeteria!

Laugh all you want, but it’s possible, even probable, and parents fleeing woke education in public schools wouldn’t be able to complain. Who would even listen? Private schools can do what they want, and the government that benefits from collectivist Neo-Marxism is unlikely to interfere with “public-private partnerships” that help them indoctrinate more students, more efficiently! 

In contrast, private schools and homeschooling families who receive funds, but don’t toe the preferred ideological line, could face scrutiny and punishment. They might be prohibited from receiving funds in the first place. All it would take is for the government to decide to add ideological criteria to funding qualifications.

If you’re wondering whether states can do that, the answer is yes, of course they can! That’s the beauty of a Government monopoly. The government controls the dollars, so the government decides who gets the dollars, especially when the recipients are private entities. Why, in this hyper-partisan climate, would one assume politicians wouldn’t try to impose self-serving ideological restrictions on recipients of School Choice funds? It seems obvious to me that they would.

Consider this realistic potential scenario: a private school wants to accept School Choice vouchers and ESA funds, but they refuse to change their admission criteria to eliminate standardized tests. The state Board of Ed decides that constitutes “racial discrimination,” and forces them to choose: take the money, and change the standards, or keep the standards, and lose the money. 

The program doesn’t have to start out working this way. It could happen in a year or two, perhaps when a new administration decides to leave its mark, or fulfill a campaign promise to public school unions. As long as there isn’t a provision in the School Choice law that can’t be easily worked around or rewritten, they could change the rules then. 

This same scenario could play out in other states, with other criteria. As soon as I realized this several months ago, I contacted some prominent School Choice promoters to ask if there was a plan to protect parents, and private schools from government strings being attached to their programs. You know what they told me? Nothing. They told me nothing, and ignored me outright.

I’ll leave it to you to infer why that might be.

“School Choice” is a Compromise with Tyranny

If that sounds “extreme,” ask yourself this question:

“Why does the government control how we educate, but not how we feed our kids? Food is arguably more important to the survival and well-being of the child, right?”

Naturally, and therein lies the answer. Government controls how we educate because education is more important to the survival and well-being of the government. 

Compulsory government education is inherently political. It’s a conflict of interest no taxpayer, and certainly no parent should accept, least of all as a “starting point” to pursue parental rights! 

School Choice not only compromises with tyranny, it validates it, and I refuse to do that. The “reality” I start with is that parents have an inalienable right to parent their children without government oversight or interference. This is not the same thing as saying we can do whatever we want to or with our children; it’s just saying we shouldn’t lose our due process rights just because we are responsible for the life of a child. Yet that’s precisely what happens. 

As soon as we obtain a birth certificate for our baby, the clock starts ticking. When that child reaches the age of compulsion in the state where we live, we must notify the government of our plans, or face legal consequences. We could explain why we haven’t shown up, or signed up, or that we plan to homeschool, but if the state doesn’t want to accept our explanation, or refuses to grant us permission to establish that homeschool, we could be punished, even if our child is perfectly happy and well.

Parents and taxpayers have dutifully followed this compulsory attendance law for well over a century. We have peacefully paid Trillions in school taxes so the government could pay its school employees and partisan union lobbyists (but I repeat myself). In exchange, they “provided” us with a system that delivers substandard academic instruction, dismal student achievement outcomes, violence, trauma, and mental illness.

According to my research, here’s what our compromise with tyranny has bought us so far:

• woke/Neo-Marxist Activism dominating teacher, school administrator, school counselor, school librarian, and social worker training and continuing education programs;

• woke/Neo-Marxist Activism dominating approved, widely available, adopted, and often FREE curriculum materials;

• woke/Neo-Marxist Activist titles dominating school library collections.

Massive increases in the following:

• administrative hiring and spending, including the hiring of DEI Directors and Consultants who wield power over teachers and other education professionals';

• teachers Union involvement in R&D, marketing, support, and delivery of all of the above;

• federal Department of Education spending, allegedly to address Covid “learning loss” and mental health trauma, as well as to provide “civil rights protection” for newly defined “marginalized groups” (e.g., LGBTQIA+);

• data-mining and surveillance of students and parents by private corporations, as well as state and federal governments, usually through Social Emotional Learning curricula and surveys (e.g., CASEL, Second Step, DESSA)

• political and cultural power for private social justice activist organizations like BLM, the Trevor Project, GLSEN, HRC and others through sponsorship by well-funded non-profits like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Ford Foundation, and others;

• the number of inappropriate personal relationships between school employees and officials with minor children (teachers soliciting sexual secrets, with promises of privacy from parents, or suggesting parents wouldn’t approve of lessons and conversations, thus triangulating with minor children against their parents);

• violations of parental rights, specifically the refusal to notify parents about mental health “diagnoses” (even those self-diagnosed by the child) such as gender dysphoria, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, and refusal to notify parents about treatment and support plans designed by non-clinical, unlicensed school officials and employees;

• schools hiring, and defending teachers and other school personnel who are willing and eager to discuss sex, sexuality, and gender with children;

• schools persecuting, discriminating against, and even firing teachers who speak out on behalf of parental rights and political neutrality in the classroom;

• the threat of physical violence and bullying in schools, as well as cyber-bullying outside of school instigated and/or egged on at school.

Worst of all? Government isn’t even trying to hide their disgust and disdain for the end-users of this “system.” Parents are being bullied and demonized, described by School Boards as “Domestic Terrorists,” placed on FBI watch lists, and barred from entering their own children’s schools. 

Government officials and employees of this system don't even try to pretend to take responsibility for poor academic outcomes either. Those are just evidence of the “social injustice” “social justice” curricula are designed to address!

Gaslighting is the standard response these days, and we’ve reached the we know, that they know, that we know that they are lying stage of it. That’s why I think there’s no way School Choice would be a winning issue in states where the sitting government hadn’t already figured out how to benefit from it.

You might call me cynical, but I prefer to think of myself as principled in a cynical world. People pushing School Choice right now seem like the cynical ones to me. They’ve given up on our liberty and are willing to accept the government school monopoly, even when that same government has done nothing but trample, rather than protect our rights. 

I haven’t given up on parental rights. I am committed to the abolition of the government school monopoly, and I refuse to compromise with tyranny. Therefore, I don’t want “School Choice,” I want “Education Liberty.”

What is “Education Liberty?”

• The freedom to say “no” to compulsory attendance, curriculum regulations, and state standards;

• The freedom to opt-out of paying for schooling you don’t want or don’t need, so you can use your money as you see fit;

• The freedom to educate your children according to your own values, lifestyle, and budget.

I won’t settle for “School Choice” when Education Liberty is the superior alternative, and neither should you.