Realizing Milton Friedman's vision of a ‘competitive private educational market’
After more than three decades of incremental victories, the tide has turned in the battle for parental choice in education. Since 2020, twelve states — Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia — have expanded eligibility to participate in parental-choice programs to all or nearly all families. Most of these states embraced education-savings accounts (ESAs), an innovative model of choice that empowers parents to spend a portion of the public funding allocated for their children’s education on a range of qualified education expenses including (but not limited to) tuition at a private school. Indiana and Ohio expanded eligibility for school-voucher programs to all or most students. Oklahoma adopted a program of universal refundable tax credits for private-school tuition and homeschooling expenses. Several other states adopted targeted-choice programs benefiting low- and moderate-income students, students in failing school districts, or disabled students. All told, over 30 states now have one or more programs that allow some or all parents to put public funds toward educational options other than public schools.
While these developments are cause for celebration, in the fight for greater parental control over where, what, and how American children are taught, important battles lie ahead. If parental choice is to achieve its potential of transforming American education, school-choice supporters must be prepared for what’s coming.
Continue reading the entire piece here at the National Review (paywall)
______________________
Nicole Stelle Garnett is the John P. Murphy Foundation professor of law at University of Notre Dame and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Photo by Valerii Apetroaiei/Getty Images