When “School Choice” is a bad choice

There are two types of school choice: One type could improve a bad situation, but the other type is more likely to make everything worse. Unfortunately, it is the latter type that is currently being pushed in states across America.

The original idea of school choice now appears to be quite modest: simply allow parents to choose to enroll their children in any state-run school within a district or region and have the funding follow those students. That required giving sufficient operational freedom to principals and other school-based administrators to make a difference. The idea was that they would attract students and funds by running their schools better and, most importantly, offering better education. Although there are immediate limits to resources and facilities, the idea was to promote competition by shifting authority and incentives toward better outcomes.

Many states have already adopted some version of this simpler form of choice but, although the results might be positive at the margin, no form of choice has been a match for the changing educational philosophies and expansion of federal control and regulations over the past half-century.

The second type of school choice proposal involves some sort of voucher program or Educational Savings Account (ESA) that would credit each qualifying family with a specified number of dollars that would follow their child to whichever accredited school they might choose. This is often sold as a “market-based” solution to educational quality whereby educational funding could be shifted from a state-run school to a better performing private school. The resulting incentive structure, it is hoped, would motivate both schools to make themselves more attractive to parents of school-aged children.

All of this assumes that the incentives are sufficient, not only to motivate change, but to motivate that change in the direction of positive outcomes. This is not guaranteed, especially if the new programs expand state funding overall rather than shifting funds from the inferior schools to the preferred schools. This is one of the failings of the so-called “Education Freedom Act of 2025” currently being pushed through the Tennessee legislature. That proposal expands state funding for student “scholarships” or voucher-type accounts by more than $200 million per year – a recurring obligation that is likely to grow each year.

This detail alone destroys any claim that the Tennessee proposal is “market-based.” It does not better allocate resources; it expands state involvement into the private education industry without reducing resources expended on its own problematic school system. Thus, it fails to reduce the existing problem and is nothing more than a designer welfare program that will benefit politically favored families, many of which are already well-positioned, at the expense of those taxpayers (mostly rural) that are not able to find benefit.

Even if the new Tennessee school-choice proposal were a true zero-sum shifting of resources from inferior to better schools, there would remain the ever-present danger that the integrity of the private school system could not withstand the temptations of state funding. What will private schools be required to do to be eligible to receive the state funds that come with each student? Some of those students are already at the private school. What pressure will their parents put on the private school to comply with state requirements?

The state compliance requirements might appear to be quite simple, such as the regular administration of standardized tests. But who creates and grades the tests – and what is the implied, and therefore required, curriculum? And what is the guarantee that, once the private school is hooked on state-funded students, that the state’s regulatory strictures and burdens will not become heavier? Accreditation requirements are never benign; they reflect and impose the values and philosophical outlook of their creators.

We must also cast an eye toward the motivations of the many interest groups that have emerged to push for school choice. The creation or expansion of state programs creates a demand for more bureaucracy and third-party products and services. Who will manage the new Educational Savings Accounts and other regulatory creations, financial or otherwise?

Experience tells me that the intentions of most school choice supporters are good. But just as wishes are not horses, good intentions are not the same as good results. The current Tennessee school choice bill would be bad law. It is less likely to give parents more choice than it is to drain even more resources from taxpayers, including those parents, and reduce the truly free choices that each of us would otherwise have.

Worse, the expansion of the state into choices of private schooling not only threatens the quality and diversity of the private school environment, it does nothing to address the original problem, which is the deterioration of the state-run schools. It is just one more example of governments expanding their reach into activities for which they are neither suited nor competent, while neglecting or evading responsibility for those few core tasks that astute citizens expect them to perform.

Instead of distracting everyone with their phony pretensions of expanding choice, state legislators should focus on the one aspect of education over which they have actual control: improve the management, staffing, and philosophical environment of the local state-funded schools.

Richard J Grant is Professor of Finance and Economics at Cumberland University.