Middle Class And Poor Deserve To Control Their Kids’ Education

As the school choice movement notches major wins and the Department of Education begins winding down, there is no doubt that the government’s future role in education will be very different than the role it has played in the past.

With this sea change comes new questions about what the education system ought to look like when the federal top-down model finally ends. An emerging group of advocates believes the government should not be involved in schools at all.

The ultra-libertarian position contends that no tax dollars should be used for schooling and all schools should be private schools. Every child’s academic pathway would be up to his parents to design and fund.

While this might sound great to some, the fact remains that many families lack the ability to pay for their children’s education. They would still lack that ability even if tax rates were cut to account for privatizing education, since those at the bottom of the income scale pay no federal income tax. Millions of children would be unable to access a quality education because their parents cannot afford it.

If that outcome sounds familiar, it may be because it’s so close to our current government schooling system: Children whose families have the means can receive a great education, but those from low-income families are stuck with a school experience so terrible it can hardly be called an education at all. Only 17 percent of public school eighth graders from low-income families are proficient readers, according to the latest Nation’s Report Card.  

These devastating results are not the result of a lack of funding. To the contrary, the U.S. public schools spend $17,227 to educate one student for one year. That’s more than nearly any other country. Still, our test scores continue to fall in the international rankings. Our Nation’s Report Card scores, revealing rampant illiteracy and innumeracy, are a national embarrassment.

In an ideal educational system, parents would have control over the tax dollars allocated for each child’s schooling. The money would follow the child to wherever he or she learns best, whether that is a public school, a private school, or even the family’s kitchen table.

Right now, homeschool families pay for education twice: First, with their tax dollars, which are sent to schools their children never set foot in. Second, with the sacrifice of one parent’s income, plus the cost of materials, including curricula, textbooks, and other supplies.  

Private school families pay twice, too: First, again, with their tax dollars, and secondly with tuition. Access to a good public school costs a great deal, too: A family that buys a house near a top-rated public elementary school will pay 78.6 percent more than if they bought a typical house in the surrounding area, according to Realtor.com.

Anyone who is avoiding failing government schools right now is paying a pretty penny to do so. It doesn’t have to be this way. Homeschool families and private school families should be allowed to send their child’s education dollars to the place that’s educating their child. If the money could follow the student, more families could afford to send their child to a school where they learn best. Schools would have to compete for students, raising the bar across the board instead of relying on a geographic monopoly.

Some advocates oppose school choice out of concern that accepting school choice dollars means inviting the government into private schools or even into their homes. The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) avoids this problem by ensuring school choice dollars never flow through the government at all: Under the proposed legislation, individuals and corporations would receive a federal tax credit for donations to scholarship-granting organizations. Taxpayers could contribute up to $5,000 or 10 percent of their adjusted gross income, whichever is greater, and receive an equivalent tax credit.  A maximum of $10 billion could be contributed nationwide, and nongovernment scholarship-granting organizations would be required to distribute the money to qualifying families.

Parents could use ECCA dollars to pay for private school tuition, tutoring, dual enrollment, and college admissions testing fees, among other expenses. Families of students with disabilities could use the money for specialized therapies. Homeschool families could put the money toward learning resources or a licensed teacher, though they may not pay a relative of their child to teach.

The only string that ought to be attached to education funding is that it must be used for educational purposes. ECCA represents a huge step toward that goal.

Without allowing education funding to follow the child, only parents who can afford to pay a premium are permitted to direct their child’s education. Every parent deserves this freedom. Granting it to them would facilitate better stewardship of education taxpayer dollars, and most importantly, better outcomes for students.

Angela Morabito is the spokeswoman at the Defense of Freedom Institute, a former U.S. Department of Education press secretary, and a visiting fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum.