☆ Bridging the gap: School choice policies would empower CA's lower-income families

Austrian economist and Libertarian Party presidential hopeful Mike ter Maat doesn't understand why CA's lawmakers (such as the Senate when shutting the door on a recent ESA proposal) are so afraid of two straightforward words: “school choice.” In this Opp Now exclusive, ter Maat breaks down the free market rationale behind tuition stipends, and their benefits for families across the Golden State.

Competition will eventually make all schools better. There's no logical or economic reason to privilege public schools over private or home schools—much less create a virtual monopoly by excluding private schools from access to publicly raised funds for the purpose of education. In the long run (think: the end of the century), I’m guessing the vast majority of public schools will no longer exist; many will no longer be able to compete with private sector schools.

Florida is becoming the fourth American state with a fairly broad and universal school choice program. The bad news is that it only provides parents with $8,000/year, which isn't what public school districts receive annually per pupil. Nevertheless, it's better than nothing. California's also at the higher end of the spectrum regarding per-pupil spending. If the state had a program that allowed families access even to $8,000, that would go a long way toward allowing private-sector alternatives to compete with public schools. That would create a real market for education. And I expect many more private schools would be founded in California, changing the instructional landscape completely.

The irony of it all is that while the left is protective against school choice, such programs would predominantly benefit communities at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Those neighborhoods currently without private school opportunities are in the most desperate need of new educational options because their government-run zip code schools are so often failing to teach their children effectively. It's clear that expanding school choice has little to do with wealthy kids. If you can afford $20,000 tuition for your fourth grader, you can probably afford, say, $28,000. But the family that can’t afford $8,000/year, who must send their kids to a monopolized free school, they're the ones that need a tuition stipend.

Naturally, these families would remain at a disadvantage compared to wealthy families. Thus, if California enacts an ESA-type program, we need the stipends to reflect the full amount districts receive per student.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity