It’s an exciting time in American K-12 education. Families now have many more choices about where, what, how, and with whom their children learn. Founders are embracing an entrepreneurial spirit when building new schools and the kind of educational spaces that families increasingly want. School-choice policies that enable education funding to follow students continue to expand nationwide, with 33 states now offering some form of private school choice.
These school-choice wins should be applauded, as they enable more families to exit a mandatory district-school assignment for other settings if they wish.
What shouldn’t be applauded, however, are federal school-choice policies—or federal education policies in general.
Let’s remember that there is no constitutional role for the federal government in education, which is why the US Department of Education should be eliminated. The only areas in which the federal government could arguably have any influence in K-12 education are in the District of Columbia, and in schools overseen by the US Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Education. Everything else, constitutionally, should be left to the states. Linda McMahon, President Trump’s pick to lead, and possibly to dismantle, the US Department of Education, asserted this in her recent confirmation hearing, explaining that she intends to help President Trump “return education to the states where it belongs.”
The key is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government’s role in education—not to enlarge it. Even when we support certain programs or policies—such as school choice—we should speak out against the implementation of these policies at the federal level, including President Trump’s recent school-choice executive order. The Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey wrote a great piece on this topic, stating that “even though expanding freedom for families is highly desirable, the Constitution must come first.”
Trump’s other recent education executive order on “ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling” is similarly problematic. By activating the US Departments of Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services, this order aims to end federal funding for schools that promote “anti-American, subversive, harmful, and false ideologies on our Nation’s children,” specifically related to race and gender. As with school-choice policies, K-12 curriculum and content decisions should be a state issue—not a federal one. Federal funding for K-12 education is less than 15% of the roughly $900 billion that American taxpayers spend each year on K-12 public schooling. That spending should be dramatically reduced at the federal level across the board, but emboldening Washington, DC, to chime in on specific K-12 curriculum decisions sets a dangerous precedent.
Just prior to the 2020 presidential election, I wrote an article here at FEE: “If You Don’t Want a Biden ‘1619 Commission,’ You Should Oppose Trump’s ‘1776 Commission.’” I argued then, as I do now, that the federal government should not be in the curriculum business and that—constitutionally—states are the ones to grapple with these issues. Yet, in this new executive order, Trump is resurrecting the 1776 Commission and pushing for obligatory “patriotic education”—which frankly sounds like something out of North Korea.
Some could argue that the federal government is currently entangled in education policy—even if it shouldn’t be—and therefore influence on K-12 curriculum is appropriate. But a primary objective for those who believe in the decentralization of government power should be to weaken the federal role in education and let states manage K-12 schooling. The current administration has promised to shutter, or at least shrink, the US Department of Education, but these recent executive orders only serve to expand the federal government’s unconstitutional role in education, giving it even more control over what and how children learn. That may be okay with some parents while President Trump and the Republicans are in power, but what about when the political winds inevitably shift and the Democrats are again in charge?
We should direct our energies and enthusiasms to advocating state-based school-choice policies that enable families to exit an assigned district school for other options that may be more aligned with their personal values and their children’s needs. I spend most of my time interviewing and writing about the entrepreneurial parents and teachers who have created innovative, low-cost schools and related learning models, and the families who benefit from them. I have interviewed parents who left public schools for other options because they didn’t like certain conversations and curriculum around gender and sexuality that they thought were inappropriate for their young children. Similarly, I have talked with parents in states that have passed bans on “critical race theory” and related content in public schools who felt that they weren’t able to have open and honest discussions about race and ethnicity, and their important intersection with history and culture. They, too, left the public schools for other education options that were more aligned with their values and viewpoints.
Freedom of exit and choice are fundamental to a free society. We don’t force our neighbors to eat at the restaurants or shop at the stores that we prefer. We recognize that a free market for goods and services is characterized by variety, choice, and abundance—allowing us to satisfy our individual preferences in myriad ways. We are finally starting to enjoy this variety, choice, and abundance in K-12 education.
At the state level, we should push for expanded school-choice policies that enable more families to select an educational option that reflects their individual needs and preferences. At the national level, we should push for a constrained federal government that doesn’t control our lives or those of our children.
For more content like this, sign up here for Kerry’s weekly LiberatED email newsletter.
