School Choice Is Not Entitlement, It’s Entitlement Reform

Elon Musk has 12 children, and despite being one of the wealthiest people on the planet, every one of his children is, or was, eligible for an entitlement subsidy of roughly $18,000 per year. That’s the amount we spend per pupil on public school students. Critics of school choice programs, like vouchers or education savings accounts, often argue that these programs are simply welfare for the wealthy.

But the problem with this argument is that Musk, along with every other wealthy parent, is already entitled to taxpayer-funded education for their children. In fact, the cost of the public education wealthy families receive is typically more than what is spent on the average public school student and is much more than is spent on private school choice programs.

Take the Scarsdale Union Free School District in New York as an example. The average household income there was reportedly $466,343 in 2022. Yet, every child in that district, regardless of household wealth, is eligible for free public education. In fact, Scarsdale Union students are entitled to a public education worth more than $32,000. In comparison, Ohio’s Educational Choice Scholarship provides just $6,166 for K-8 students and $8,408 for high school students.

The issue isn’t that school choice expands entitlements—the current system already gives public education entitlements to everyone, wealthy or not—it’s that school choice reforms this entitlement by allowing parents to use the funds they’re entitled to in a way that best suits their child’s needs.

This argument against school choice, however, has gained traction, not only from the usual left-leaning education establishment but also from a growing group of critics on the right. While speaking in Kentucky about the state’s proposed constitutional amendment, which could open the door to private school choice programs, Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations, a Christian homeschool curriculum provider, made this very point.

While the left complains about welfare for the wealthy and the right complains about entitlements, the truth is that every single child in the United States is entitled to a taxpayer-funded education. This is true even if your last name is Bortins or Musk or if you live in Scarsdale. However, if a parent chooses to send their child to a private school, whether they are wealthy or not, they lose access to this taxpayer-funded entitlement.

Limiting public funds to only publicly-run schools isn’t about protecting the public or limiting entitlements, it’s about control. Public education advocates essentially say, “You can have the entitlement, but only if you subject your children to the curriculum and standards we deem necessary.” Suppose that content violates a parent’s conscience or doesn’t align with their values; tough luck—the entitlement doesn’t extend to alternative options.

A lack of public options for wealthy parents may not be a significant problem, but it is a disaster for poor families. Father Virgil Blum highlighted this harsh reality, “The greatest degradation of poverty is the unavailability of choice. Most poor parents in America are suffering that degradation. In the education of their children, they have no choice of religious and moral values, no choice of educational environment, no choice of dedicated and committed teachers, no choice of personal involvement in the education of their children...The net result is that parental rights remain only theoretical for most poor people.”

The irony in this new right-wing opposition is that critics like Bortins believe public education is inferior to private or home-based alternatives. They argue that students receive a better education, grounded in the right principles, when educated outside of the public system. Yet, by opposing school choice, they’re essentially saying those who can’t afford private options should remain stuck in what they believe is an inferior public system. Imagine if we limited where Medicaid recipients could receive care based on residential assignment or if individuals could only use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to purchase processed foods at a government-run grocery store. Allowing for choice in these programs is not expanding the entitlement, it is simply expanding freedom in using these benefits.

The critics are right about one thing—education is an entitlement in America. But school choice isn’t expanding that entitlement; it’s fixing it by ensuring families have control over the education their children receive, regardless of their income level. The goal is not to diminish public education but to give all families, rich or poor, access to a high-quality education that best fits their children’s needs.

The choice is between maintaining a rigid system that prioritizes institutions over families or creating one that empowers parents and promotes educational equity.

School choice is the path to entitlement reform, not expansion.