I've seen quite a bit of opposition towards giving parents and children the ability to choose what school they want to attend. It confuses me since the whole point is just to help disadvantaged kids have the same choice as rich kids who can afford to attend a private school.
Even politicians who oppose school choice send their children to prestigious private schools. They have the money to afford it. Talk about hypocrisy.
Religious Conspiracy
One of the funniest counter-arguments I've seen is that school choice is an excuse to allow religion to be taught in schools. It's simply a program to allow parents to be given a voucher to allow them to send their children to the school they want. Those vouchers would be worth around $12,000 annually given the current federal spending on education.
Of course some idiot parents might send their children to a school that teaches Intelligent Design in a biology course. Well-off parents can already do that if they have money to send their children to some religious brainwashing school.
That's allowed with this system, but national tests don't test children on questions related to the Old Testament. Any sensible parent would avoid such schools which produce poor test results like the plague if they want their children to excel academically.
Republican
Another funny thing is that the school choice movement has become associated as a republican/conservative movement. If anything, this is a very liberal idea since the people that benefit most from it are the poor. Wealthy people are already sending their children to private schools. They can afford it.
There's also a deep history here which some people may not be aware about. The push for school vouchers began in the 1950s. Milton Friedman, a non-partisan economist, was one of the first to really push for the idea. Afterwards, parents and educators began to promote the idea.
Any sane person who looks at the data and compares performance between public schools and every other type of school (private, charter, magnet, etc) would most likely avoid public schools if they could afford it. The only schools that perform nearly as bad as public schools are religious schools.
Segregation
An interesting argument is that this could lead towards some type of voluntary segregation. Certain social groups might favor a certain type of school, while another social group favors another type of school, even if both groups could afford the same schools.
That may or may not happen, but is it a bad thing? If, for example, Native Americans open up a school that is popular among Native Americans and produces great SAT results among their Native American students, would that be a bad thing as opposed to forcing them to go to a public school without any choice?
What about a school that is catered towards immigrants who speak poor English initially but has astounding results in producing fluent children who excel verbally? Would that be a bad thing as opposed to forcing such children to attend a public school?
It might even be that schools oriented towards male students might produce better results for male students, while schools catered towards female students might produce better results among females. Who knows? The market forces will establish the best, most competitive types of schools for a variety of demographics based on what actually works the best for different groups of people.
As far as I see it, that's just freedom expressing itself voluntarily. This is not very politically correct, but it might be that schools that are popular among Native Americans do a better job of tailoring their teaching towards Native American children. It might be that having a school for people with English as their second language might do a better job of teaching such children. It might be that schools popular among male students are better tailored towards producing successful male students.
The precise opposite could also happen. With more people free to choose what schools they want to attend, we might see less segregation instead of more and we might see a greater diversity than ever before. It could go either way. The market forces will just tend to favor what works best when parents are no longer basing their choices based on what they can and can't afford. When people are no longer economically constrained by their choices, price becomes less of a factor and the perception of quality becomes more of a factor.
Given whatever type of school produces the best results for a particular type of child, I'd like to see the child given the opportunity and privilege of attending that school. It's not some conspiracy, just a desire to see more and more children excel academically in America.
If we compare, iPhones are favored among wealthy, educated people in managerial positions. Meanwhile Android phones tend to be favored more among drunk people without as much money.
This is an interesting case of market forces segregating people voluntarily but should we force everyone to buy an Android or an iPhone and deprive them of the freedom of choice? Maybe iPhones suit one type of people better while Android phones suit other people better.
The most optimal products for a wide range of people are probably not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. Some products may be better suited for one group of people, while other products might be better suited for other groups of people.
In any case, these people are freely choosing what they want. Why deprive them of that choice?
For the Teachers
I can understand why teachers would be concerned with this movement. It's about introducing competition among schools and among teachers. It could very well reduce job security since nonpublic schools aren't under strict regulations that prevent them from being able to fire teachers.
Yet at the same time, with $12,000+ yearly attached to each student, a teacher could potentially earn far more money. The average teacher salary is something like $48,000 a year. Most of the money is going towards administrators and bureaucrats. Teachers only get a very small chunk.
That figure could easily be doubled for motivated, skillful teachers working in nonpublic schools while also giving them much greater freedom and motivation to teach their class as they see fit. It is a gamble and a challenge but for the good teachers out there, you end up having more opportunities to find yourself in an inspiring position with a much bigger salary.
Those opportunities will likely expand and expand with a nation-wide voucher system in place, since it would most likely lead to more and more nonpublic schools opening up.
Even for teachers who favor public schools, public schools might start paying their teachers more with the voucher system implemented nation-wide since they have to offer competitive salaries to keep their teachers from leaving to work in a nonpublic school.
Aside from that, teaching might begin to be seen as a more respectful and prestigious position. Right now, teachers aren't always seen in the best light. When teachers gain higher income mobility and are rewarded for creative, skillful teaching, the way society perceives teachers will likely change.
Resources
Here are some resources for people interested in the subject. Most of all, I wanted to make a case that this isn't some crazy conspiracy let alone a new idea.
Most Helpful Opinions