The Dependency Trap: Why School Choice Is a False Promise

“School choice” is a powerful rallying cry for education reformers. The promise of empowering parents to choose the best educational options for their children is undoubtedly appealing. While the goal of expanding educational opportunities is admirable, evidence suggests that government funding of private education creates structural risks to educational independence and choice. We should be wary of this Trojan horse that hides the threat of expanding government control and making private education vulnerable to political whims. Even though my family’s company, Classical Conversations, would stand to financially benefit if these programs were widely adopted, our conservative limited government worldview demands that we vigorously oppose them.

Let's examine three evidence-based reasons why government-funded school choice is a path to dependency, not freedom:

1. Government-funded school choice erodes true independence in education.

Pre-Covid, about 13% of K-12 students in the U.S. attended private schools or homeschool without government funding. These truly independent educational options serve as a crucial alternative to the public system, free from government control. After COVID-19, even without government-funded school choice, enrollment in private institutions rose. We can see that government funding is not a prerequisite for parental choice.

This erosion of independence is about more than just funding. As a UNESCO report notes, schools receiving public funds are typically “not exempt from complying with centrally defined curricula, learning standards or student admissions criteria, among other public regulations.” In other words, with the shekels, come the shackles. This increased regulation eventually makes private education indistinguishable from its public counterparts, defeating the purpose of choice.

The experience of Sweden, often touted as a model for school choice, provides a stark warning.  Swedish education expert Martin Book explains, “But generally speaking, all schools are public schools in Sweden. In theory, there are free schools and religious schools. They are, however, heavily regulated. That means that Christian schools cannot teach Christian morals nor speak freely on sexuality.” This level of government control effectively negates any meaningful choice. Long before today’s “school choice” movement, Dr. Charles Glenn’s (2000) research explained that faith-based schools taking tax dollars “…leads to a loss of nerve, a ‘pre-emptive capitulation’ that surrenders to the world [its values] even before its demand is made (p. 246).

2. Government-funded school choice makes private education reliant on political favor.

When private schools and homeschooling families become dependent on government funding, they tie their fate to political winds. New administrations come and go and with them their priorities. It is a common practice to manipulate funding requirements to match their political will. Schools that have grown dependent on these funds would be forced to compromise their beliefs or shut down.

Sweden's school choice journey serves as a warning: After passing sweeping education reforms by a conservative government, it was just 19 years later when a leftist regime mandated a state curriculum for all independent schools and banned homeschooling. This pattern of freedoms granted and then stripped repeats across Europe and Canada - initial school choice leads to eventual government control. Then no choices remain.

3. Government-funded school choice undermines parental responsibilities.

School choice programs normalize the idea that education is primarily a government responsibility rather than a parental one. This shift in mindset will have far-reaching consequences. Generations would grow up thinking the only way to fund education is through tax schemes and handouts, not hard work and sacrifice. As families become accustomed to receiving government aid for education, they will become more accepting of expanded government entitlement programs and intervention into markets.

Author James Lindsey tweeted this about school choice, “Speaking historically, school choice arose from Marxist ed policy theorists at UC Berkeley in the 70s, and the initial movement was from what was called the ‘Voucher Left.’ The goal was to get state money, thus control, over private schools.”

Dependency creates a powerful tool for social engineering. As education activist Lisa Logan warns, introducing public money into private education and homeschooling would give “entities like UNESCO full access to all avenues of education to push their programming.” This includes initiatives aimed at promoting progressive values such as ESG, and DEI.

Other Considerations

Proponents of school choice often argue that it will improve educational outcomes through competition. The evidence for this is inconclusive. Sweden has seen a significant decline in student performance since implementing a universal voucher system. According to a PBS report, Sweden went from “well-above average” PISA scores in 2000 to “below average in math, reading, and science” by 2012.

Another common claim is that school choice policies will primarily benefit disadvantaged students. However, universal school choice policies primarily benefit existing private school families by shifting their costs to taxpayers, rather than expanding access for disadvantaged students. Early data shows thousands of previously self-funded students joining government programs. Schools then raise tuition to capture these new government funds, creating education inflation. The end result? Higher taxes to sustain growing entitlements, while failing to achieve the promise of helping underprivileged students access better education.

In conclusion, while the goal of expanding educational options is admirable, government-funded school choice is not the answer. It creates a dangerous dependency that makes schools vulnerable to political changes, erodes true educational independence, and normalizes government control over all forms of education.

We should focus on reforms that truly empower parents and educators. This includes reducing regulatory barriers to new school start-ups, expanding homeschooling freedoms, and reducing the tax burden so that families can keep more of their own money to invest in their families’ needs and can be generous in helping others. This is in stark contrast to the redistribution of wealth championed by school choice proponents.

When schools accept government funding, their independence inevitably erodes. The strings attached to state aid will gradually compromise both their autonomy and their ability to freely express their convictions. True educational freedom requires financial independence. Scholar Glenn (2000) confirms this fact. The experience of Sweden and others confirms this as well. Let’s heed their experience and reject the siren song of government-funded school choice. Choose independence, not entitlements.