“Let’s stop and rethink the definition of public education,” she said. “Today it is often defined as one type of school funded by taxpayers, controlled by government. But, if every student is part of the public, then every way and every place a student learns is ultimately of benefit to the public,” DeVos continued. “That should be the new definition of public education.” — Betsy DeVos quoted by Jesse in Detroit Free Press.
As of December 2023, twenty states have some form of school choice expansion underway in which parents can choose their child’s school beyond accepting the local district where they live. According to Betsy DeVos, former Secretary of Education and early proponent of school choice, this opportunity benefits both the child and the public. This seems like a win-win situation until you read the fine print written boldly, “if every student is part of the public”. The outworking of her new definition coalesces all education under the umbrella of government influence while purporting to free children from the government run public school system.
This effort has been underway in Tennessee for a number of years as evidenced by the money trail described in a prior essay (LINK) and is attempting to cross the tipping point with Governor Lee’s current Educational Freedom visionary proposal. Having taken root in the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement act of 2022 (TISA), when it passed limited school choice for Memphis and Nashville schools, Governor Lee hopes to include the whole of Tennessee in school choice beyond these two districts. Much concern and dismay has been publicized over the state of our public schools for years, but the post 2020 shutdown aftereffects are being used as the final straw to push our state over the threshold. While proclaiming freedom, school choice advocates are in reality enticing those already enjoying educational freedom to submit their children and their schools to government regulation. In exchange for some students escaping broken and failing schools, public money will be pumped into the private education system, radically altering it with the inevitable strings of government funding.
Promoters of school choice claim that those who could afford private school or homeschool have opportunities not open to many less fortunate children trapped in public school systems. These escapees from the system left because they saw the problems of our public schools and wanted to be free from its grasp and adverse effects. Homeschoolers particularly valued this freedom as they forsook not only the public side of education, but the paradigm of mass education solely in age segregated classrooms steeped in failing modern educational methods. We (homeschoolers) recognized that the system was broken not only in where it took place (public schools) and in who ran it (government) but in the forms and objectives of modern educational philosophies. The public schools were not only physically unsafe for many student, but intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually unsafe as they strive to now create woke global citizens rather than moral, productive, and mature men and women in community.
As Tennessee contemplates our Governor’s proposed solution for the broken public school system, we must evaluate whether such a solution actually seeks to solve the problem at the root of the brokenness or is just a band-aid that allows the deeper rottenness to continue. The proponents claim that this will give those students who currently do not have opportunities to leave the system, equal options to current private and homeschool children. They express seemingly sincere concern that such trapped children are being held back academically by deprivation of opportunity and harmed physically in unsafe school districts. They reassure everyone else that these educational savings accounts as the foundation for the Governor’s Education Freedom bill will not restrict nor hinder anyone else’s educational freedoms. They thus claim that this is pure milk chocolate, sweet as honey for all with no bitter aftertaste for anyone.
While many studies do indicate that parents of children who are enabled to leave dangerous or otherwise failing schools express higher satisfaction with the new schools, is this sufficient reason to accept the negative aspects? While some studies show a mild academic benefit for lower income children who escape the public schools, does this justify the cost and clear downsides of the system? Many conservatives will join in the calls for school choice believing that they can minimize the damage that the public schools are causing for our next generation, but again, what price are we paying and are we really diminishing the influence of the government on schooling?
In evaluating this proposal, we must take into consideration three likely negative aspects of the bill as well as its potential positive impacts. First, as with any government funding, strings will be attached to the money and thus to those who accept the money whether the parents or the schools in the program. This will be called “accountability”, but ultimately places the government in control of your child’s education. Second, we should measure the success of school choice by their promised outcomes. If they want more children to have more opportunities and better life outcomes, then we should evaluate currently active school choice programs by these measures. Third, as with any major policy enactment, we will find secondary and tertiary effects that may be unexpected and/or unwanted. Proponents may argue that such downsides are “unintended” but worth the cost, but we should count the cost and determine for ourselves if we want to pay these delayed payments in other impacted areas.
Tomorrow, Part 2, Reason #1 “Strings”
Recent Comments