Pro (School) Choice

Contributed by Charles B. Bratton II

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

America’s legal tradition has long recognized parents’ dominant role in shaping their children’s futures. The educational path of a child, after all, matters to both the child and the family whose legacy they embody. In the landmark case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Supreme Court affirmed that “the child is not the mere creature of the state” and acknowledged parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing, including their education (268 U.S. 510). In this view, families are the primary building blocks of society, and parents, not government institutions, are best positioned to understand their children’s needs, inculcate values, and guide aspirations.

As the modern American education system devolves into a web of bureaucratic mandates, district lines, and polarizing initiatives, it becomes increasingly important to rediscover this vision for the education of youth. There is one obvious solution: school choice. Regarding academics, school choice recognizes that assigning students to schools by geography rather than educational needs cannot be the best fit for every child—or nearly any child. Such reasoning also applies to divergent moral attitudes: for many families, education is a means of engendering moral virtue in their children—an endeavor that often clashes with the secular mandate of public schools. School choice allows these families to select educational institutions that reflect their beliefs and values. It upholds America’s pluralistic tradition by reflecting a diversity of beliefs and educational needs.

School choice also introduces economic efficiency into the education system, as it aligns funding with performance rather than geographic boundaries. In the traditional funding model, money flows into schools based on district lines rather than student needs or performance, often allowing inferior institutions to receive funding despite consistently poor results. In a choice-based system, however, funding follows the student, incentivizing schools to allocate resources effectively and efficiently and to perform at academic levels appealing to parents. Milton and Rose Friedman argued for such an approach in Free to Choose, positing that introducing market principles to education would lead to a more responsible use of funds.¹ Indeed, a recent analysis by EdChoice estimated that school choice programs saved American taxpayers $6.2 billion from 1990 to 2018.² School choice models promote economic efficiency that benefits students and taxpayers by fostering competition and aligning resources with demand.

Competition compels schools to innovate and address shortcomings at the risk of being replaced: no such incentive exists if enrollment is guaranteed based on geography. Making schools accountable for their results by empowering families raises the standards for everyone. Consider Milwaukee, where students in the school choice program consistently outperform their public-school counterparts in both math and reading proficiency.³ Similarly, participants in Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which allows families to choose private schooling options, boast higher college attendance and graduation rates than students in the state’s public schools.⁴ Compellingly, a study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that students in charter schools perform better, and the results are most pronounced among those from low-income backgrounds.⁵

School choice is uniquely positioned to address entrenched inequalities in public education. Currently, students’ educational experiences are largely determined by their zip codes, with those in affluent areas receiving better resources, facilities, and teachers than those in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Low-income and minority families bear the brunt of this geographic determinism, forced to accept subpar schooling based solely on where they live. School choice, however, offers these families a way out, granting them the power to access better educational environments. For instance, Washington, D.C.’s Opportunity Scholarship Program provides vouchers to low-income families, enabling them to choose private schooling options: students in the program have a graduation rate of 91%, compared to just 56% for their peers in traditional D.C. public schools.⁶ By providing families in disadvantaged areas with options, school choice bridges the opportunity gap and empowers families to pursue an education that aligns with their children’s ambitions.

Some fear that despite its many benefits, school choice risks draining funds from public schools and thereby harming the students left behind. Yet, the effect of competition is universal. By creating a competitive environment, school choice forces public schools to adapt, improve, and address inefficiencies to retain enrollment. Far from undermining public education, school choice strengthens it by setting higher standards and rewarding excellence. Additionally, critics often claim that school choice programs lack accountability. Choice-based models, however, are directly accountable to newly empowered parents. Traditional public schools, on the other hand, are often bound by bureaucratic constraints—they are accountable to the wrong parties. A choice-based system compels schools to meet families’ expectations if they wish to retain enrollment and funding, creating a direct line of accountability that improves student outcomes.

The argument for school choice is fundamentally about restoring parental authority, respecting individual liberty, and creating a system that prioritizes educational quality. Parents are in the best position to decide the kind of education their children need, and empowering them to make these choices benefits everyone. School choice is not an attack on public education; it is a call to enhance education through responsiveness to the unique needs of students and families. The right to pursue a better life begins with the right to seek the best education possible for one’s children, and that right should rest firmly with parents—the individuals who know and love their children best.

HIPPOCRATES

A version of this article originally appeared in Forever Young, the December 2024 print issue of the Salient.

1. “Free To Choose,” 1980

2. “Fiscal Effects of School Choice,” EdChoice

3. Greene, Jay P., et al. “Effectiveness of School Choice: The Milwaukee Experiment.” Education and Urban Society, Jan. 1999

4. "Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program." Urban Institute, 2019

5. "National Charter School Study." Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2013.

6. Wolf, Patrick J., et al. "Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program." U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2019