Kerby Anderson

The ongoing debate about school vouchers suffers because both opponents and proponents often do a poor job of explaining what they are and what they would accomplish. First, let’s look at what opponents are saying. Randi Weingarten is the president of the American Federation of Teachers. In a recent speech, she talked about the racist roots of the school-choice movement. She even compared Education Secretary Betsy DeVoss to Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. The comparison is historically inaccurate. A seminal essay by economist Milton Friedman back in 1955 is considered the beginning of the school choice movement. His concern was that government school monopoly prevented innovation by retarding competition. Many of the first state laws allowing school choice were proposed by progressives who wanted to help poor kids get a better education. You could actually turn the illustration around and say that the teachers’ union is the one blocking the door of these private schools by preventing school choice. Proponents of school choice haven’t always done their best in arguing for this policy. In order to gain a hearing, proponents often use the language of fairness to get a hearing. School choice, they say, is about fairness to kids who come from lower-income backgrounds. Unfortunately, by focusing on the fairness argument, proponents have abandoned the ideological foundation of school choice and make school choice more like another form of social welfare. The argument by Milton Friedman was that educational success would be achieved by competition. Public education is a monopoly and much less likely to innovate. He argued that parents, regardless of their income level, should be allowed to choose the best education for their children. Schools would be forced to compete for all students no matter their financial status. Proponents should abandon the fairness argument. But they also need to appeal to voters on the basis of liberty and competition.