In her op-ed “Finish the work for public school students” (Aug. 30, TribLive) Susan Spicka, executive director of Education Voters of PA, argues that supporting educational choice amounts to abandoning Pennsylvania’s public schools. As someone who attended public school and teaches in a private school, I reject that false choice.
Education Voters of PA does not represent all Pennsylvania voters who care about education. By its own description, its mission is to advance a “pro-public education agenda.” It is entitled to pursue that mission, but it should be transparent about the constituency and educational system it advocates for.
Pennsylvanians who choose private, religious or home education also are education voters. Their voices should not be treated as less legitimate simply because they believe a traditional public school is not the best setting for every child.
Spicka also repeatedly uses the politically charged word “vouchers” to describe programs that are not vouchers. That terminology is not a minor semantic disagreement. “Voucher” polls poorly and is frequently used to suggest the government is simply taking money from a public school and handing it to a private school.
That is not how Pennsylvania’s Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) programs operate. Nor is it an accurate description of the new federal Education Freedom Tax Credit (EFTC), a program Gov. Josh Shapiro must decide whether or not to opt into by the end of the year.
As Pennsylvania Families for Education Choice explains, programs like EFTC are scholarship tax-credit programs. Businesses and individuals make private donations to qualified scholarship organizations and receive tax credits in return. Those organizations then award scholarships to eligible families.
A traditional voucher operates differently: Government appropriates public education dollars and directs a portion of that funding toward a student’s private-school tuition.
Spicka also claims private schools “answer to no one.” As a private-school teacher, I find that description difficult to recognize.
Private schools are accountable first and foremost to families. The schools live and die based on outcomes. Parents entrust us with the education, development and safety of their children. Only the best and most responsive private schools will remain.
When a private school fails to fulfill its promises, families can (and do) leave. That is not an absence of accountability. It is, perhaps, the highest form of accountability.
The deeper problem with Spicka’s argument is the assumption that supporting education outside the government-operated system means opposing education.
The 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat identified this mistake long ago: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education.”
One need not accept every aspect of Bastiat’s political philosophy to recognize the distinction he draws.
Society is larger than government. Education is larger than the public-school system.
Educational choice is good and healthy. Different schools can learn from one another, serve different students and strengthen the wider educational landscape. Public schools will remain the right choice for many families. Private schools will be the right choice for others.
Private schools are not enemies of public education. They are partners in the larger work of educating Pennsylvania’s children. If we genuinely want every student to reach his or her full potential, we should stop protecting one system at the expense of every other option and empower families to make the right educational choice for their children.
