By David Larson
In the era of “search engine optimization” and click bait, I’m told that list-based articles (sometimes called listicles) continue to be a great way to gain the interest of a distracted populace. And considering the populace is distracted enough now that Netflix is rewriting their shows to be “more second screen,” meaning better able to be understood by people who are currently looking at their phone, I’ve got to do what I can to compete for eyeballs, or at least part of them.
Being “School Choice Week” this week, then, a Top 5 list laying out all the bad arguments frequently made against the school-choice movement is certainly apropos.
Bad argument 1: School vouchers waste public money by sending it to private schools.
When it comes to the Opportunity Scholarship Program, big-spending progressives often become budget hawks. But doing some quick back-of-the envelope math, I think I can relieve their concerns, as it appears to save, rather than waste, money. Instead of the usual per-pupil allotment in North Carolina of $13,222, only about $5,000 (give or take $2,000) is paid out for a student going to private school on an OSP scholarship.
Far from a waste of money, it seems this program accomplishes the rare win-win situation in policy, with the family getting an education they prefer and taxpayers saving around $8,000 per child.
Bad argument 2: If you accept any money for private or home schools, you’re contributing to the inevitable government takeover of non-public education.
While the vast majority of conservatives love private school vouchers and charter schools, there are a few who are skeptical. The argument tends to go something like, “If we fund these schools with tax money, then the government will eventually attach more strings. Then even more strings. And this could eventually lead to all education being basically a form of public schooling, eliminating all refuge from the progressive worldview.”
This is what’s known as a “slippery slope fallacy.” Rather than seeing a flat landscape with many potential places to end up, the person reasons that there are really only two end places based on principle — the perfect place at the top and the worst place at the bottom. Moving one step away from the place of pure principle begins an inevitable slide to the bad place (in this case, total government control of education).
In reality, pretty much every system has to make compromises, especially in a democratic system where the voters are operating from many contradictory principles. But if we do reach a place where a strong majority wants to force all children to attend government-run far-left indoctrination centers, it won’t really matter what the previous state of things were. And for many conservatives, the “good place” to end up is where parents can choose which school our tax money goes to based on what seems like the best option for our child.
Bad argument 3: School choice was created by segregationists, and, deep down, that’s still the motivation for the movement.
The first, very obvious, problem with this argument is it is almost always made by those who believe public schools can do no wrong and should be the only ones getting state funds. But it would be pretty hard to set public schools on a pedestal here, since historically they are the main offenders when it comes to racial segregation in education.
It’s true; those who wanted education to remain segregated by race used vouchers as one strategy among many, in addition to redrawing district boundaries and just plain ignoring federal law. Don’t forget, though, that their original strategy, and the one used for far longer, was the public school system.
And, as Reason Magazine points out, even if some briefly used the voucher idea, segregationists were hardly the first to think of it: “More than a century before Brown, such liberal theorists as Thomas Paine, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill sketched out precursors to the modern voucher concept. The policy’s earliest practical examples can be traced to the still-existent town tuitioning systems of rural New England, implemented in the decades after the Civil War.”
All that aside, accusing the modern school-choice movement of being a tool of racial segregation is slanderous and, frankly, laughable. Those who designed North Carolina’s Opportunity Scholarship Program set it up so low-income, often-minority students in poor-performing districts have first dibs on the funds and the largest scholarships. The movement itself is also incredibly diverse, with support from a majority of not only Republicans but Democrats and unaffiliated voters, as well as black, white and Hispanic residents in polling.
Also, a wealthy applicant will only receive about $3,000, and only after all the lower-income applicants have received their scholarships of closer to $7,000. As someone looking at schools right now, as my oldest reaches school age, $3,000 would not be of much help at many of these area private schools with a tuition of over $20,000 a year. Where it would help is at somewhere like a Catholic parochial school, which tend to have tuitions at around $7,000 and a very diverse student body.
Bad argument 4: School choice is a movement run by religious extremists who want to brainwash their kids.
This argument is simply polemical, so it doesn’t deserve a long rebuttal. One man’s religious extremist is another’s kindly church-going grandma.
The fact that many conservative people of faith would rather choose a school for their children that teaches their own worldview is hardly surprising. It’s the same motivation that causes progressive parents to dominate school boards in urban areas, often pushing curricula that makes those of different perspectives look for other options. The beauty of school choice is that it allows both families to more easily find schools that align with their worldview.
Bad argument 5: Charter schools and private schools are only options for the wealthy because they do not provide transportation and school lunches.
This point has always seemed to hold the most weight of any of the anti-school choice arguments, in my view. But from the moment charter schools were approved in North Carolina, people have been trying to find various solutions to this problem. Charter schools have been able to use federal school-lunch funds, cater meals, create ride-sharing programs, hire transportation services and find other workarounds. Private schools have tried the same, often to a lesser extent. But the fact is, this will continue to be a downside to charter and private schools for many families.
So how can I call it a bad argument then? These are schools that are one potential choice among many, and they won’t be right for everyone. Families look at each school, see their advantages and disadvantages, and make the decision that they believe will be best for the education of their child. A lot of the charter schools in my town are in neighborhoods, and the children that attend walk over with their parents and a group of friends. For some families, they don’t have that kind of time in the morning. But it’s a bad argument to say that therefore the families for whom it does work shouldn’t have it as an option.
So, there you go — the Top 5 bad arguments against school choice. I hope I was able to keep your attention all the way to the end, even if you had to take a couple Netflix breaks.