Now that Donald Trump is officially president again, much has already been speculated about what he’s going to do (or try to do) regarding public education. The big issue is whether he’s going to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. That’s not going to happen. Established in 1979 by the late Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan pledged to abolish the national department in his first term. That effort brings up one my favorite Reagan quotes: “(A) government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” The federal Department of Education is now nearing its half-century of existence, and it’s alive and well. Well, alive anyway.
That aside, the other topic that has popped up is the idea of a nation-wide school choice program. This is an issue that has grabbed the attention of those both on the right and the left. Of course, many on the right are excited at the possibility of more families having greater control over their children’s education. Those on the left are concerned (whining) that a national choice program would be a threat to the bureaucratic power that the education establishment enjoys virtually unbridled.
Although you would be hard-pressed to find someone more pro-school choice than me, I’m going on the record as being opposed to a national school choice program.
It’s a bad idea.
In a pragmatic sense, I don’t understand how a national school choice would be operational sans further expansion of the federal government in the field of education. Historically, educating our kids has been a state and local function. And as a reminder, the word ‘education’ appears nowhere in the U.S. constitution.
Most people who like to talk about school choice, both pro and con, simply don’t understand that the federal government provides only about 10% of all education funding. Yes, there is a federal education law, currently known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which was passed during the dusk days of the Obama administration. How obtrusive the law is depends on one’s perspective. It survived both the first Trump and Biden administrations virtually unscathed.
Let’s take a look at how one emerging school choice option might work under a national program: the ESA. ESAs have become popular in the past few years with about a dozen states now offering some form of an ESA to their citizens. They have been passed exclusively by Republican-dominated states and ESAs are starting to stall because states with Democrats in charge are not keen on the ESA concept. As a quick reminder, ESA rules differ from state to state, but the basic tenant of an ESA is that families get money directly from the state to spend on educationally related expenses for private schools, tutors, homeschool, curriculum, etc.
If the feds tried to invoke, for instance, a national ESA program, how could they do it without the heavy hand that would surely accompany? Being national, of course, it would have to be universally the same. So, an ESA program in Hawaii would be same as one in Maine? Naturally, the great equalizer would be what? Money. And what would come with money? Regulations, and a LOT of regulations. The idea of bad regulations creeping into non-public education exists at the state level too, but the state-level nature of things at least keeps it closer to the end-users (i.e., families) and offers federalism-induced democratic protections.
It’s bad enough to imagine how a choice-friendly administration would run a national ESA program, let alone the idea of somewhere down the road a new administration unfriendly to school choice, just like the Biden administration. Look at how the current governor of Arizona is attempting to sabotage the school choice efforts – already in law – in the Grand Canyon State.
If this isn’t enough to increase one’s apprehension over the ever-increasing heavy handedness of the feds, I’ve got two words for you: Common Core. A national curriculum, which was the goal of Common Core, was the feds latest attempt to get entirely inside the tent of K-12 education. Fortunately, the resistance and fervor from parents and other rational thinking people put Common Core in the rearview mirror.
Although I find unacceptable a federally funded and regulated (sort of a ‘carrot’ approach), there might be room for a ‘stick’-type national school choice initiative. How about this? If states do not allow parental choice for their children’s education, the feds withhold funding. That would get their attention. After all, money is their raison d’etre.
Title I would be a great place to start. Title I, which is a fully federally funded program targeted for low-income students (similar, but not the same as the Kansas at-risk program) doled out more than $18 billion across the states in 2023. The Kansas portion of that was about $120 million.
A significant threat to that kind of money might make the Kanas education establishment a little more receptive to say, an ESA, a better public charter school law, or some other choice mechanism.
It is well established that the Kansas Department of Education and the Kansas State Board of Education, under the direction of Randy Watson, have lost their way. Student achievement in terms of outcomes is not a priority, no matter what kind of rhetoric is put forth. Accountability is in the toilet. They are much more concerned with process than product.
But federal intervention is not the answer, even if it appears noble on its face.
After all, government is government. I have a personal aversion to the phrase ‘less is more’ (there’s a great line in Frasier mocking that saying), but in this case, it works. Things are bad enough now, let’s not make them worse.
