Framing the school choice debate

Old ideas, new ideas

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

---

My pet peeve about the school choice debate is that private school voucher proponents will sometimes level irrational attacks against the public school system. I’ve made some of these points before, but I will repeat them again before sharing three new thoughts on this never-ending debate.

Arizona has had public school choice since the 1990s. For almost 30 years, parents have been able to send their kids to a tuition-free charter school instead of their local district school. In addition, parents can enroll their kids in any district school regardless of location.¹

That’s a good amount of choice. But there is a desire for even more choice. Some parents want to send their kids to private schools. Some parents want to homeschool. Other parents want to send their kids to a microschool. 

Here’s the question: 

Should families in Arizona be able to get a tax-funded school voucher (technically correct name: education savings accounts or ESAs) to pay for private schools or homeschooling resources? If so, what restrictions should be placed on the taxpayer money allocated to these ESAs?

This debate, always simmering, is now boiling as we reach state budget season and political campaign season.

Arizona passed a law in 2022 allowing all families to get ESAs, but opponents want to curtail the program.

To advocate in favor of ESAs, activists and politicians could make a positive argument. And sometimes they do: “This is the new frontier in school choice. By maximizing parental options, we can fulfill needs for every unique circumstance. If a family can get per-pupil funds at a public school, why not allow those funds to be applied to a more personalized (and even private) school setting?”

This positive argument doesn’t bother me, because it recognizes the compatibility of the public school system. We can still sustain a well-funded public school system if we enact an ESA program, and we can still work to improve the public school system.

I take issue with the negative argument: “Students need to escape from these failing public schools that are doing nothing but indoctrinating people with left-wing propaganda.” 

In what ways are Arizona’s public schools failing? 

ESA proponents claim that parents, if given a choice, will send their kids to a school that works for them. Student attendance = school success. If this is true, then the fact that students are attending a public school is a sign of its success. Remember, in Arizona, nobody is required to attend any particular public school, and every family has access to ESAs. 

But the implied argument is that parents who use ESAs are making a choice, while parents who send their kids to their local district school are trapped in a failing school. This negative argument ignores the many reasons why parents might prefer a public district school over a private microschool that puts kids in front of a digital curriculum. 

Are the public schools failing because students are getting bad scores on state tests? Well, ESA students don’t have to take state tests at all … so let’s please sideline this argument until we can make a proper comparison. There is no evidence that ESA students would do better on state tests than public school students, and it is telling that private schools and ESA vendors want nothing to do with administering state tests.²

Finally, I reject the argument that Arizona’s public schools are left-wing indoctrination factories. We have a variety of different types of schools and curriculums. Want to go to a STEM school? We’ve got that. Want to go to a district magnet program? Got it. Want a school that specializes in the classic “Great Books” that were written long before our modern culture wars? Yep, got it. The existence of public school choice is already a buffer against the threat of a systematic indoctrination effort.

I understand there is a partisan battle over the school choice issue. I find it unfortunate that our public school system — which is already infused with the benefits of school choice — has become a target of attack and condescension. 

On that note, here are three new thoughts moving forward: 

School funding as a win-win

ESA proponents are on the defensive about the costs of ESAs. They want to present the program as cost-efficient because each voucher is less expensive than the per-pupil cost of public school attendance. But a lot of students are getting vouchers who wouldn’t have gone to public schools in the first place. So the program brings extra costs.

If proponents stick with positive arguments, maybe they could frame the additional ESA costs as bringing additional benefits:

We are increasing education funding! Isn't that a good thing?

Average teacher salaries in Arizona are still “below proficient” compared to other states? Let’s increase those too!

More education funding for everyone! Hooray!

This kind of argument shouldn’t be a problem for a “populist” Republican Party. 

Republicans should compromise on accountability 

ESA opponents protested at the state Capitol last week by putting up displays of kayaks and pianos — things that have supposedly been purchased by ESA account holders — to demonstrate that the laws are too lax about how these funds can be spent. 

Gov. Hobbs has ideas for accountability measures, which include the following: manual approval of items over $500; requiring educators at private vendors to get background checks; and requiring private schools to offer special education services according to the legal requirements for students with learning disabilities.

Republicans are saying that no changes are needed. But this stance is probably doomed in the long run. Universal ESAs are brand new. Legislative changes are going to happen eventually. 

ESA proponents make a strong “fairness” argument by pointing out that the cost of the voucher, at $7,000, is less than the per-pupil amount spent at a public district school. If anyone can attend a public school no matter how wealthy, anyone should be able to get an ESA to pay for educational expenses.

But we’re still talking about taxpayer dollars. These are not privately-funded scholarships.

The public, via the legislature, has the right to place restrictions on how public money is spent. 

The Democrats are the only party with ideas about new restrictions on ESA money. It is possible they will flip the state legislature next year, allowing them to enact ideas without Republican input.

Republicans should negotiate compromises now while they have a legislative majority. Maybe Democrats would curtail the program even further if they control the legislature next year, but a compromise now would create a sense that issues with the program are resolved, and with terms more favorable to ESA proponents. 

Democrats should embrace charter schools 

Republican attacks on public schools forget that, even before universal ESAs, we already had a robust system of public school choice in Arizona. 

In the past, Democrats have criticized public charters for lack of financial accountability, similar to how progressives are now attacking ESAs for lack of accountability.³ 

Democrats should shift gears in their rhetoric on charter schools.

A quick explainer for the uninitiated: Public charter schools are tuition-free, taxpayer-funded schools that are operated by private entities or non-profits. Although charter schools have more leeway than a district school when it comes to certain laws (for example, charter teachers don’t have to be state certified), they still abide by a plethora of public school laws. Charters abide by the state curriculum standards, they administer state tests, they offer special education services, etc. 

Democrats shouldn’t be the party of “no school choice.”

We’re not going back to the days where students are assigned to a district school by home address. Nobody wants to go back to those days. About 20% of Arizona public school students attend charter schools. 

Obviously, Democrats are going to advocate more restrictions on ESAs. Opponents of the program are part of their coalition.

While doing so, Democrats should find ways to embrace charter schools. Become the champions for all public schools. Become the party of “responsible school choice.”

One example would be to help reform the school funding formula so that charter schools receive more overall per-pupil funding. Right now, even though charters receive more per-pupil dollars than districts from the state fund, charters operate on less overall per-pupil funding than districts. This is because districts can get money from public bonds and local taxes, while charters rely exclusively on state and federal funds.

There’s no reason why support for public charter schools can’t become a Democratic talking point.

It would be smart politics heading into campaign season 2024.

---

1. One noteworthy exception is that students with learning disabilities have had problems accessing the open-enrollment system because many district schools say they cannot accept people outside of the district due to limited resources.

2. My policy preference would be to eliminate the federal requirement for a state testing system, or reform the law to a) allow much simpler state tests, or b) allow schools to choose from a “menu of assessments” based on their chosen curriculum.

3. We could probably improve financial accountability across the board, including in the district schools. One of the legitimate criticisms of the public school system is that teacher pay hasn’t kept up, proportionally, with increases in school funding, suggesting bureaucratic inefficiencies. But in fairness to public schools, our politicians have created mountains of rules and regulations, and public schools do need to spend money to keep track of everything.