The Moment for Universal School Choice is Upon Us

Liberation Day

When you strip away all the noise—the bureaucratese, the political posturing, the acronyms that sound like they were created by a partial veto gone horribly wrong—public education is laying on a table in a 20th-century operating room, essentially coding out.

That was a critical situation then. It’s a fatal one now.

Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is fast updating—China calls it “jump shifting” with high technology and AI—while our education establishment aspires to equity rather than actual education. Too bad because kids need adaptability, agency, creativity, and critical thinking, all of which are sacrificed upon the altar of DEI and woke interpretations of standards. Add to that an injection of factory-era institutionalism mainlined into a government-run monopoly, and you have what we politely refer to today as “public education,” so named because the government decrees it to be.

It could also be called a mess, or a failure, or [insert tragic word here].

Just consider the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) did, and found that nearly two-thirds of Wisconsin students are below grade level for math, and seven in 10 students are not reading at grade level. The report demonstrates that the majority of Wisconsin students are wholly unprepared for the workforce, despite what the state Department of Public Instruction’s school “report cards” indicate, WMC’s associate vice president of government relations, Rachel Ver Velde, said:

“DPI’s report card metrics are almost laughable, but the state of Wisconsin’s education system is not a joke. Nearly 70 percent of Wisconsin students aren’t reading at their grade level. That’s more than a crisis—it’s a catastrophe. We must reform our state’s education system to ensure that students develop the skills needed to successfully enter the workforce.“

In this atmosphere, Wisconsin does in fact need some serious change. What we do not need, however, is another tweak, another pilot program, another layer of administrative flotsam laid over the already existing bureaucratic dross, and certainly not a 400-year tax increase to fund and protect the monopoly forever.

Instead, we need a fundamental transformation—a liberation of our families, a liberation of parents, a liberation of learning itself. That transformation begins with a simple civic premise: Parents, not government, should control their children’s education, and the public dollars dedicated to educating those children should follow them to wherever family decisions take them.

To say it another way—which I have in writing before and likely will again—what public education needs is universal school choice. Nothing less. And it needs to be pursued legislatively right away. The moment to do so is upon us.

Necessary, just not sufficient

That’s not to say that incremental reforms and resistance to the state’s resistance to change don’t represent necessary steps, even if they are not sufficient in the end. Every incremental step toward true choice is a step in the right direction.

In that regard, one of the more head-scratching developments in recent education memory—in addition to the 400-year tax increase—is Gov. Tony Evers’s refusal to sign the state onto a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs), which would then provide scholarships for students across all school types—public, private, charter, or homeschool.

The governor has said he won’t opt in to the new federal opportunity, which is itself a mind-bender since other Democrats nationally have opted in or support it, and they have done so because the federal program is the rarest thing in politics––a program that helps everyone and hurts no one.

That’s just how anti-education the so-called education governor is.

The governor’s refusal is more than a policy disagreement. It’s akin to dying on a hill when you’re the only one fighting; that is, by suicide. In his mind, the old model of “public education equals government-run schools” must be preserved at all costs, even if it’s the children who have to pay the tab in the end.

Thankfully, though they are not pursuing universal school choice (more about that later), a multitude of pro-school choice lawmakers are pushing back on the governor’s intransigence. Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) is one of many who laid out the facts plainly in her testimony at a November 5 hearing on a bill that would force the governor to opt into the program—opt-in is required—pointing out that the dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for charitable contributions to nonprofits comes at no cost to the state.

“Starting in tax year 2027, taxpayers in any state will be able to claim up to $1,700 in federal tax credits for donations made to a qualified Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) in a participating state,” Rodriguez testified. “These SGOs may provide scholarships to students from families earning up to 300 percent of the area median income (AMI). Scholarships may support students in public, private, charter, or homeschool settings, and can be used for expenses such as tutoring, transportation, or supplemental coursework.”

In other words, it is arguably the most flexible, least bureaucratic, most family-centered scholarship program ever offered by the federal government.

“[Opting in] would allow donors to support Wisconsin students, while receiving a federal tax benefit,” she testified. “Opting in ensures that these charitable dollars stay in Wisconsin and directly benefit Wisconsin kids. This is a chance to bring more resources into our classrooms—public, private, rural, and urban alike—and help students succeed.”

If Wisconsin chooses not to participate, Rodriguez stressed, state residents could still donate to SGOs in other states and claim the credit; however, no Wisconsin student would benefit. In sum, Wisconsin taxpayers will receive the federal tax break either way; however, if Wisconsin refuses to participate, every dollar will go to students in other states. Every penny invested by Wisconsin taxpayers will leave Wisconsin.

That would be policy malpractice. Evers is so hostile to school choice in any form or program, so committed to preventing even private dollars from going to a non-government school, that he cannot see the harm he is doing to the children of his own state. He’s like a surgeon who decides to operate blindfolded, so confident he is that he knows the way. How’s that going to work out?

At the hearing, Kyle Koenen of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty drove the point home, pointing out that opting in has no impact on the state budget, requires SGOs to serve more than one school, ensures that scholarships can supplement existing dollars, and, most important, keeps Wisconsin from losing out on the benefits of the program.

Koenen noted that even Democratic Governor Josh Stein of North Carolina and former Obama secretary of education Arne Duncan support participation. Koenen went so far as to quote Duncan in The Washington Post: “Opting in doesn’t take a single dollar from state education budgets. It simply opens the door to new, private donations, at no cost to taxpayers, that can support students in public and nonpublic settings alike. That’s why opting in isn’t just defensible, it’s a no-brainer.”

That’s right: Wisconsin’s Democratic governor is standing to the left of Barack Obama’s education secretary.

If Wisconsin opts out, every other state becomes a magnet for the charitable giving of Wisconsin residents. The program turns into a vacuum cleaner sucking educational resources out of the state. No responsible governor should let that happen, but I suppose that makes the whole point.

Beyond malfeasance

Those who routinely observe Evers’s governance know well that policy malfeasance is near and dear to his heart. The governor lets no actual person stand in the way of his ideological agenda. This is especially true in education.

However, it is also true that pro-school choice advocates need to take the extra step, beyond merely resisting the governor’s harmful policies and beyond piecemeal attempts to expand school choice in the state or slowly chip away at the government’s education monopoly.

Sure, a step is a step, and that’s exactly what another bill in the legislature tries to accomplish by extending the “once in always in” school choice provision to include siblings and other dependents. Under current law, once a child enrolls in a school choice voucher program, they cannot be removed because their family later exceeds income limits. That bill would extend the protection to include siblings and other dependents, allowing families to stay together.

So there are multiple attempts to chip away for choice, and that’s perfectly reasonable with a Democratic governor who loathes any kind of choice when it actually helps people. Still, there are risks involved in putting universal choice on the shelf until a pro-education choice governor is elected.

The first is that a pro-education governor might not get elected without a sound parental rights platform. It certainly risks putting those voters on the sidelines, and they are not insignificant. Virtually every poll shows school choice to be popular with voters, and motivates them to vote. It doesn’t matter that the governor would not sign a universal choice bill; just putting it on the table as a strong contrast would give voters a compelling menu to choose from.

Piecemeal legislation nibbles at the edges of why parental choice is important, but it never squarely targets the true culprit: the government monopoly itself. Only by debating and exposing that foundational danger, rather than the various negative manifestations of it, will voters be able to embrace the true solution—the end of the monopoly once and for all through true universal choice.

Second, pushing and passing a universal choice bill would resurrect the potency of the parental rights issue in a way that resonates beyond the nation’s culture wars. Parental rights in education have become a pressing issue around the country, but cultural issues, ranging from critical race theory to boys competing in girls’ sports, will only take us so far. Universal school choice as the ultimate parental rights issue speaks to every family and to the whole child.

It’s a winning issue, and Evers knows it. That’s why he’s so opposed to every choice program or opportunity, no matter what. He knows that piecemeal cracks will accumulate until one day they will bring the entire government education scheme crashing down, like a big new Chinese bridge plunging into a river.

So he’s petty, and does petty things, which are pretty much like trying to repair the flawed structural integrity of a bridge with duct tape. We must leave Evers’s lame duck hijinks behind us and push for fundamental transformation of the system before our children go down with the system in its avalanche of failures.

There is another issue that begs for immediate remedy. A long time ago, the school choice movement, primarily anchored in the right, made a significant political mistake. We allowed the left, early on, to successfully brand “public education” as a synonym for “government-run education.” They soldered the two concepts so tightly together that many conservatives use them interchangeably even today.

The result is a logical posse of imposters that has rousted and arrested reasonable policy for decades. If public education means government-run schools, then to oppose government-run schools is to oppose public education, just as the Democrats say we do.

But we don’t, and it doesn’t. Public money does not magically become “private” because it flows to parents rather than to schools and administrators. A community school chosen by families is no less public education than an inner city government bunker masquerading as an educational facility. Every tax dollar spent educating a Wisconsin student—no matter what school that student attends—is a public investment in the civic, economic, and democratic future of the state, not to mention in the life of the child.

Education doesn’t get any more “public” than that. Parochial school, private school, homeschool, government school, a commune in the agri-hood—all that meet the minimum standards of a school qualify as public education if they receive public dollars, no matter the conveyor belt used to deliver the money, whether government aid, tax credit, or parental voucher.

To that end, we must never forget that government is not the embodiment of the public. It is not Lord and master but our creation and servant. The public good resides in the people and, in education, in the child. Once that is understood, everything changes.

Moving to Europe—Oh wait!

Progressives love to tell Americans to “be more like Europe”—heck, they even move there—so they should take their own advice on the education issue. Because if the U.S. had adopted the European approach, there would be no government-school monopoly.

According to a January 2024 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) report, in Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands, private schools are not only widespread but heavily supported by public funding. In Sweden, 99 percent of private schools are classified as “government-dependent private schools,” meaning they receive the majority of their funding from the state. In Finland, the figure is 97 percent.

“Private schools are mostly state funded, with government funding accounting for 58 percent of total funding on average in upper secondary education,” the OECD reported. “…Private schools enjoy greater autonomy and suffer fewer shortages of teachers and educational material than public schools. They were generally better in responding flexibly to the Covid-19 pandemic.”

The OECD notes significant variation across countries, but the broad trend is unmistakable: public funding of private schools is deeply embraced across OECD nations in ways that are virtually unknown in the United States. As the OECD put it in a 2017 report, “the distinction between public and private education is often blurred.”

Indeed, privately managed schools may be fully publicly funded, and only 42 percent of funding at the upper secondary level comes from private sources. As Charles Glenn, one of the most respected scholars of comparative education, puts it bluntly: “Governments in most Western democracies provide partial or full funding for nongovernment schools… the United States is the great exception.”

I certainly believe in American exceptionalism, but perhaps in this case we should reconsider. That’s because it’s not a cultural or religious exception; it’s a purely political one.

Europe has historically subsidized private education to reduce conflict, preserve secular government schools while protecting religious freedom, and maintain social peace by avoiding endless culture wars. For example, in France, the state has long enforced strict secularism in its government-run schools, while simultaneously subsidizing private and religious schools as part of the public education system.

The bargain was simple: if you want secularism in state schools, you must provide pluralism everywhere else. Europe ameliorated religious and cultural diversity in part with choice education. Choice was the price of civic peace.

Much of Europe adopted this model of educational pluralism over a century ago. America still hasn’t. And we haven’t because progressives do not want cultural and religious pluralism. They want government culture, period.

The loss of critical thinking

I came across an essay the other day on Substack known as “The Forgotten Side of Medicine” by a researcher who goes by the name of “A Midwestern Doctor,” entitled “The Importance of Balanced Intelligence.”

Some would call the piece conspiratorial. I might even myself. But that’s really beside the point. In it, the writer posits that our culturally conformist education system owes its origins to efforts by John D. Rockefeller’s General Education Board and Andrew Carnegie to invest billions in schools with the intent of transforming them from locally managed enterprises to centrally controlled factory lines.

In this worldview, creativity and critical thinking were replaced with a rigid framework designed to integrate children seamlessly into the workforce as compliant cogs.

Whether the timeline, the actors, or the intent are accurate, I do not know. But that is essentially what happened. I’ve written before about the Founders’ aversion to government schools, particularly Jefferson, but here we are. The cherry on top of the federalization and centralization of education was the creation of the Department of Education under Jimmy Carter, followed by a rapid decline in educational standards as the system was nationalized.

Above all else, critical thinking has been replaced with conformity. That helps explain why so many seemingly intelligent people, from scientists to doctors, continue to fall for government propaganda, even after its flaws are exposed. It does seem that the higher you are up the educational food chain ladder, the more your skills are dulled away and replaced by the manifestos of the experts. With each rung, the educated class climbs higher into an echo chamber in which they see and hear only themselves and others like them.

They not only parrot establishment narratives to advance or preserve their careers; they actually believe them, and at the very same time that so many less educated souls see right through the gaslighting. As John Lennon said, living life with eyes closed is misunderstanding all you see.

The same goes for closed minds.

Incidentally, it’s not an accident that innovation in education almost always comes from small schools, charter networks, homeschool communities, private academies, micro-schools, hybrid models, or entrepreneurial educator-founders—not large bureaucracies. School choice opens those closed eyes.

There are counterarguments, of course. But critics of school choice always say the same things, and just this month, Cato’s Colleen Hroncich dismantled a Brookings Institution commentary attacking school choice, dismantling its points one after another. Her argument was devastating precisely because she used public schools’ own history as the rebuttal.

Among other things, in her “A Double Standard on School Choice,” she pointed out that public schools were segregated by law and that they resisted integration for years.

“Let’s start with segregation,” she wrote. “Yes, vouchers were used to resist integration in the South, and that history is shameful. But public schools themselves were segregated by law for decades.”

The entire reason Brown v. Board of Education happened was because public school systems enforced racial segregation, Hroncich wrote: “Public schools didn’t integrate because they were morally superior—they integrated because courts forced them to, often with communities fighting it tooth and nail. If we’re using historical segregation as evidence that an education system is fundamentally flawed, then public schools fail that test.”

Hroncich also took issue with critics who say voucher schools have expanded despite little evidence that they are effective.

“Seriously?” she wrote.

Public school advocates, Hroncich wrote, demand evidence of voucher “success” without evidence that their definition of success is the one that matters.

“For many families—especially those in communities where public schools haven’t delivered—the question isn’t whether vouchers are perfect,” she wrote. “It’s whether they might offer something better than a status quo that has consistently let their kids down. And the fact that choice itself has value, allowing families to find educational environments where their children can actually thrive, shouldn’t be dismissed just because it doesn’t show up neatly in test score data.”

Back to Wisconsin, Evers’s denials of the federal scholarship opportunity program are just the latest handiwork of a small-minded and petulant man, a leafleteer in the field way above his pay grade who would sacrifice every child in Wisconsin if it were necessary to make an unpopular ideological point.

It’s as idiotic a move as Chuck Schumer’s Democratic shutdown to make a point, and Evers should face the same ridicule and scorn.

But if the governor is thinking small and only about his comrades, it’s a perfect opportunity for choice advocates to think big and do what is needed for all the children of the state. Take whatever piecemeal steps are necessary now, but put universal school choice on the table as well and serve it hot to all who oppose it next year. Force them to tell parents that they believe that, in no uncertain terms, the government and not the parents must control their children’s lives.

Wisconsin needs universal school choice not because the system is broken, though it is, and not because kids deserve better, though they do, but because, in a just world, parents must have the right to raise and educate their children, not hand them over to government handlers. For if the people must relinquish control of the most elemental unit of society, its most critical building block—the family—to government, then no other social organization, from civic centers to workplaces to churches and synagogues, can escape the government master.