Photo credit: www.educationnext.org

Rethinking the Landscape of School Choice in Red States

The recent defeats in school choice referendums have sparked a wave of reflection among advocates and critics alike. Those in favor of school choice, such as Ben DeGrow from ExcelinEd, expressed concern over how opponents effectively swayed voters using persuasive rhetoric, ultimately denying students vital educational opportunities. Jim Waters, president of Kentucky’s Bluegrass Institute, also voiced his surprise over the magnitude of the losses, highlighting that rural voters often have strong emotional connections to their local public schools. He had hoped that a federal program for school choice would offer state advocates a means to circumvent the local establishment.

This scenario prompts a deeper examination of the broader implications of such responses. Historically, it has been posited that legislative attempts to pass school choice initiatives faced significant hurdles due to the influence of teachers’ unions and the fears of legislators concerned about their constituents’ perceptions. Notably, in recent years, barriers in various red and purple states have seemingly been lowered, allowing for a more vigorous debate around school choice. Given this backdrop, the return to familiar narratives of defeat in the wake of these referendums appears disconcerting. While the momentum behind school choice persists, the underlying reasons for recent setbacks deserve scrutiny.

A pivotal question arises: How have teachers’ unions managed to defeat choice initiatives in states that lean conservative, particularly in light of their candidates facing considerable challenges in other areas? While unions continue to engage actively in legislative fights against voucher programs and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), their recent success at the ballot box raises questions about the effectiveness of their strategies. Political experts often contend that interest groups typically exert their influence behind closed doors rather than in public opinion battles. So, why have unions seemingly gained an upper hand when voters enter the voting booth, despite legislative shifts in favor of school choice?

The implications of these questions are substantial. Significant victories for school choice have emerged predominantly in red states, suggesting that the political landscape may be more fragile than it appears. If voters publicly express support for school choice yet harbor deeper reservations that are not captured in polling, this disconnect could pose problems moving forward. Additionally, the recent setbacks may encourage opposition groups to amplify their efforts while simultaneously sowing doubt among proponents of choice.

Furthermore, the idea that Congress should step in to assist advocates in overcoming opposition, particularly in Kentucky, raises alarms reminiscent of past educational reforms like No Child Left Behind and the Common Core—both of which faced intense backlash and criticism. A defining strength of the school choice movement has been its grassroots foundation, cultivated through consistent community involvement rather than reliance on federal interventions.

In examining recent experiences in Kentucky and Nebraska, it seems that advocates may have lost sight of the elements that previously drove their achievements. Engaging in the challenging process of legislative negotiation has instilled a necessary discipline into the movement. Advocates have historically emphasized practical considerations, such as the limited immediate budgetary impact on public schools, while promoting the essential message of expanding options for families. In contrast, the recent referendum campaigns lacked this focused approach, veering into abstract discussions and oversimplified narratives that insulated the choice movement from its grounding in local realities. The messaging took on an confrontational tone, prompting voters to align with the narrative of “choosing sides,” which inadvertently polarized the debate.

While speculation can only go so far, it is crucial to unpack the dynamics at play. Many in the education sector may be hesitant to confront this reality due to apprehensions about fostering negative narratives or undermining morale among supporters. The instinct to maintain a positive outlook can offer temporary comfort but risks transforming short-term setbacks into a longer-term decline.

In a parallel to aviation, advice a friend of mine, a United pilot, once shared resonates here: when navigating turbulence, the best strategy is to “keep your eyes wide open.” So too must advocates for school choice maintain a clear-eyed view of the challenges ahead, fostering a spirit of candid reflection that might ultimately guide them towards more effective strategies for advancement.

Source
www.educationnext.org