The Washington Times | by Sam Sorbo – January 29, 2025
When government funding is involved, stifling regulations follow
OPINION:
Let’s be honest — our public education system, an experiment that’s been in place for about 100 years, is struggling. Academic performance has steadily declined over the generations, and the outlook for the future isn’t encouraging. For instance, in Oregon, a new law allows students to graduate from high school without knowing how to read or do basic math. In New Jersey, teachers are no longer required to pass a basic proficiency test to prove they know enough to teach. These developments only highlight how much our education system is failing our children.
Amidst this, there’s growing support for “school choice,” a concept that promises to improve education by allowing parents to choose between public and private schools using government (taxpayer) money. The lobbyists who promote school choice have even dedicated a week to convincing taxpayers and parents that choice is the best path forward. And while government-funded school choice encompasses numerous different variants, from education savings accounts to vouchers, the reality of school choice may not be as straightforward as it seems.
Many advocates of school choice argue that allowing parents to select schools — whether public or private — will help fix the system by funneling the all-important tax dollars to the better-performing schools. But here’s the catch: Most so-called private schools that accept government funding are still heavily influenced by government regulations. And wherever government money flows, bureaucracy and inefficiency often follow. The idea of school choice sounds good in theory, but when government funding is involved, stifling regulations follow. While initially moving children from public to alternative schools may goose the system, ultimately government dollars mean government schooling, wherever they flow. In practice, “school choice” will offer only a slight variation or counterfeit of the same old system, not the true freedom for parents to make meaningful decisions for their children.
Another catch is that, for obscure reasons, the money that “follows the child” is never the amount that records show an average student in that state costs the state, meaning about half of the money disappears into the ether. In Florida, each student was eligible for about $8,000 the first year, while the average student costs the state about $16,000/year. Who keeps the other $8,000?
The core problem may not even be the structure of the schools themselves or the faulty funding calculations but the extent of government involvement. Studies consistently show that the most significant predictor of academic success for children is not government policy. (Common Core and Race to the Top are examples of enormous, expensive government failures.) The best indicator of a child’s scholastic aptitude is parental involvement — and that’s regardless of the parent’s level of schooling.
One might imagine the government would know this and seek to involve parents as much as possible, yet, over time, schools have increasingly excluded parents from meaningful participation in their children’s education. Many schools have eliminated anything resembling parent-teacher conferences and moved materials online and away from parents’ supervision, and parents are often kept out of key decisions, even on sensitive issues like gender identity, where school policies may conflict with family values. These developments, considered together with notable internet moments showing school boards refusing to allow parents to speak in meetings, reveals a systemic contempt for parental involvement. This is a troubling trend that only further erodes trust in the system.
Instead of focusing solely on expanding school choice through government-funded options, we should look for ways to empower parents and local communities. One practical solution is to decentralize school management. Instead of county-level school boards, which are often disconnected from the needs of local families, we should create school boards that are specific to each school. These boards should consist mainly of parents from that school, ensuring that decisions are made by those most invested in the success of the students. While this wouldn’t be a full return to the one-room schoolhouse, it would be a step in the right direction, giving parents more control over how schools are run.
This approach also taps into the power of competition. Just as states in the U.S. serve as “laboratories of democracy,” individual schools could become competitive hubs for educational innovation. Healthy competition fosters excellence, and while it may result in some schools declining, competition pushes everyone to do better.
Of course, homeschooling represents the ideal form of education for many families, and it’s worth noting that homeschooled students tend to score 15% to 25% higher on standardized tests than their public school peers. The best explanation for that is parental involvement in the daily education of those children.
As so many parents feel incapable or are simply unwilling to homeschool, localizing our schools is a step in the right direction. It offers a solution to the threatening encroachment into the nation’s school that school choice promises while offering parents more direct influence over their schools and greater involvement with their own children. If we can withdraw federal and county-level control to allow schools to operate more independently, driven by their communities instead of obscure bureaucracies, we could see real improvement. A shift toward local control would create a more responsive, accountable system that truly serves the needs of students and families.
In summary, school choice, as it’s often presented, is not the panacea it’s made out to be. Instead, true, successful educational reform requires greater parental involvement, more localized control and a shift away from government oversight. By empowering parents and communities, we can build a system that works for everyone and make America smarter.
• Sam Sorbo is a multifaceted talent and a leading advocate for parental freedom and the protection of children. She studied biomedical engineering at Duke University before pursuing a career as an international fashion model and award-winning Hollywood actress. While filming in New Zealand, she met her husband, Kevin Sorbo, star of “Hercules,” and they married soon afterward. The Sorbos have home-educated three children.