Who should direct educational funds, Tennessee? Parents or state bureaucrats?
A case for school choice in Tennessee
The state legislature has convened a special session to discuss expanding school choice across the state. As a homeschooling father of seven in Hamilton County, Tennessee I am interested in the outcome of this bill. There is a significant lack of accurate information about school choice, especially concerning its impact on homeschooling families. Many homeschoolers view school choice as a threat, associating it with increased government regulation and the erosion of parental rights. I’d like to address these concerns and, in particular, respond to Gary Humble’s publication, Strings Attached, which critiques the current school choice bill under consideration.
At its core, the question before the General Assembly is this: who should direct educational funds — parents or state bureaucrats? Currently, state and local taxes fund public education, but parents have no direct control over these funds unless they enroll their children in public schools. I believe that parents, who have the most vested interest in their children’s success, are best positioned to make educational decisions. If a child fails to achieve financial independence, it is the parents, not lawmakers or school boards, who bear the consequences. Parents have the most to lose when education fails and the most to gain when it succeeds.
Today, public schools monopolize these funds, forcing parents to either accept what the public system offers or pay out of pocket for alternatives. This system may have been adequate in a more homogenous society 50 or 100 years ago, but our nation has grown increasingly diverse in values and needs. Public schools have become battlegrounds for conflicting ideologies, leaving many parents feeling alienated and powerless. Worse, the bureaucratic layers within the public education system have made it unresponsive to the concerns of parents. Consequently, many families are leaving public schools for private schools or homeschooling. This exodus highlights a glaring issue: public schools retain tax dollars allocated for these children even though they no longer bear the responsibility of educating them.
Public schools are failing to deliver. Academic proficiency rates have steadily declined, and news reports frequently highlight alarming issues within schools, from bullying and sexual misconduct to ideological indoctrination. Public schools, subject to capture by special interests, often expose children to materials and ideologies that conflict with their families' values, without parental knowledge or consent. Instead of uniting communities, public schools have become sources of division and conflict.
Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs) offer a transformative solution by allowing parents to direct existing educational funds. ESAs empower parents to choose the best educational options for their children, whether that’s private school, micro-schools, co-ops, or homeschooling. By shifting control from bureaucrats to parents, ESAs diffuse the political tension surrounding public schools and foster a marketplace of diverse educational opportunities. Parents can invest in what works best for their children, driving competition and innovation among education providers.
Gary Humble’s critique in Strings Attached misrepresents the essence of school choice. He uses alarmist language, claiming that ESAs expand government power and introduce staggering costs. In reality, ESAs do not increase government spending; they redirect existing funds, placing them under parental control. This is not an expansion of government power but a liberation of resources from bureaucratic monopolies. Parents, not bureaucrats, decide how and where to spend these funds, whether on tutoring, curriculum, extracurricular activities, or alternative schooling options.
Humble’s argument against ESAs hinges on the notion that they are a new entitlement program. However, public education funding is already an entitlement — for the public school system. ESAs simply extend this entitlement to parents, allowing them to direct funds outside of the public school system. By doing so, ESAs create accountability. Education providers must compete for students, ensuring quality and responsiveness. If parents are dissatisfied with a provider, they can withdraw their child and funding, unlike the current public school system, which retains funding regardless of performance.
Critics argue that ESAs could be overly regulated, bogging down their effectiveness. While some oversight is necessary, it must be minimal and parent-centered. The burden should rest on the state to prove misuse of funds, not on parents to navigate excessive regulations. States with ESA programs have successfully implemented mechanisms like random audits to ensure accountability without stifling parental choice. Some states even allow unused ESA funds to roll over for future educational expenses, such as college or trade school, encouraging efficient use of resources.
Gary Humble’s publication overlooks the broader vision for school choice. The current bill under consideration is a step in the right direction, but it is not without flaws. It primarily benefits families transitioning from public to private schools, leaving many homeschoolers and other families out of the equation. Ideally, school choice should include universal eligibility, allowing every student to access the funds allocated for their education. Parents should have the freedom to direct these funds toward any educational expense, from textbooks and tutoring to extracurricular activities and specialized programs. Anything deemed an educational expense by public schools should be equally accessible to families utilizing ESAs.
By empowering parents, ESAs dismantle the concentrated monopoly of the public school system and replace it with a dynamic, competitive marketplace. Special interests and ideological agendas lose their grip when parents control the funding. Providers must earn trust and deliver results to retain students. This shift incentivizes innovation and ensures that children receive a tailored, high-quality education.
In conclusion, the debate over school choice boils down to a simple question: who should control educational funding — parents or bureaucrats? ESAs represent a commonsense solution that prioritizes parental authority and individual needs over government control. By expanding educational choice, we can create a system where every child has the opportunity to thrive, and parents have the tools to make that possible.