The Hidden Dangers of Federal School Choice Programs

The recent victory in Texas marked a significant milestone in the school choice movement. President Trump's push for school choice has led to the largest expansion in U. S. history. However, there are concerns about the potential pitfalls of federal involvement in education. Some proposals, like the Educational Choice for Children Act, could inadvertently strengthen federal control over private schools. This act offers tax credits for donations to scholarship-granting organizations, which then fund private school tuition. Critics worry that this could give the federal government a foothold to exert more control over private education, similar to how it has influenced public schools. The core argument for this act is that it is not a federal program but a tax bill. This distinction is crucial because it limits the Department of Education's role. However, history shows that what starts as a tax bill can evolve into something much more. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is a prime example. Initially framed as a tax bill, it eventually became a massive federal program. This precedent raises concerns about the potential for the Educational Choice for Children Act to follow a similar path. The urgency for expanding school choice is undeniable. In just a few years, states have made significant strides in providing educational options for families. The success stories from states like Texas, Florida, and Virginia demonstrate that school choice can work. However, federal involvement could complicate this progress. Instead of empowering the federal government, Congress should focus on supporting state-level initiatives. This approach would align with the constitutional principles of federalism and avoid the risks associated with federal overreach. The Educational Choice for Children Act has safeguards to prevent federal meddling. Yet, these protections could be easily altered by future administrations. For instance, qualification criteria for scholarship-granting organizations and eligible schools could be changed to include leftist controls. This could lead to requirements for "qualified" teachers, adherence to CDC guidelines, or compliance with gender identity policies. Such changes would undermine the autonomy of private schools and perpetuate the problems seen in public education. The Internal Revenue Service, with its vast resources and history of ideological bias, could pose a greater threat than the Department of Education. The IRS's past actions against conservative groups highlight the risks of entrusting it with educational funding. Instead of expanding federal control, Congress should prioritize reducing the federal government's role in education. This would protect the gains made in school choice and prevent the federal government from dictating educational policies.