Miguel Cardona’s school choice hypocrisy
Jack Elbaum
Video Embed
Anti-school choice activists are on the defensive. How do I know? Aside from the many, many polls indicating it, they have also resorted to using the rhetoric of those who are in favor of school choice as a way of distracting the public from their actual positions.
The latest example comes from Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, who tweeted this weekend, “Parents, I am on your side. As a parent and an educator, my goal is to ensure your children have access to a school where they can get a quality education and be themselves.”
LACKS THE VOTES, HAS THE JOB: BIDEN KEEPING JULIE SU AS ACTING LABOR SECRETARY INDEFINITELY
That’s the kind of statement that could come straight from a Republican politician or a libertarian think tank. It’s a nice idea. And it would be a boon to both parents and students if he actually meant it. But, unfortunately, he doesn’t.
We can start with his own words, which make it clear that he is an opponent of school choice. In response to popular school choice bills being passed across the country, he said, “There are efforts to take dollars, the limited dollars that exist for public education, and provide vouchers to private institutions — weakening the local public school.” He tried to caveat his position by saying, “I’m not against choice,” but then proceeded with more of the standard teachers union talking points: “I don’t want privatization at the expense of the local school. The neighborhood school should be fully funded; it should have great resources so that students who go there have a top-tier education.”
There is a reason why Randi Weingarten was so excited when Cardona was nominated for the position: He holds the same anti-school choice positions as her.
The issue here is obvious, though. One cannot simultaneously claim his “goal is to ensure your children have access to a school where they can get a quality education and be themselves” and also be a fierce opponent of school choice who garners praise from Weingarten.
The reason is that maintaining the traditional public school monopoly requires forcing children to go to particular schools on no other basis than their ZIP code. This remains true whether the school is excellent, failing, a good fit for the individual student, or a terrible fit. In short, it demands conformity — parental or student needs be damned. How does this square with Cardona’s espoused beliefs of being on the side of parents and ensuring access to quality schools? The answer is fairly clear: It doesn’t.
Cardona, just like so many others, opts to eschew the reality of what he is defending and instead rely on emotional resonance with the claim that the alternative is public schools “losing funding.” But this is akin to a grocery store owner who runs a monopolistic firm lamenting the fact he will “lose profits” if competition is allowed. The truth is that vouchers only “take dollars” from public schools insofar as students decide a different school would serve their needs better, and, either way, inflation-adjusted education funding has already risen by 245% since 1970, suggesting the problem here is not actually funding. It is power.
The purpose of education policy is to achieve the best outcomes for students — in whatever way that may be — not to maintain a given market structure just because it is beneficial to incumbents (i.e., the traditional public school monopoly). And because the data show school choice works, the fact it may mean traditional public schools will have to adapt ought not serve as a veto on its expansion.
Cardona disagrees, of course. But that precisely illustrates my point. Using the rhetoric of educational choice while supporting policy directly contrary to it is not just a cheap political tactic. It is blatant hypocrisy. He should own what he believes — namely, that the traditional public school monopoly should be maintained even though it limits the choice of students and parents — rather than misleading the public. It is a good thing the public and state legislatures across the country can see right through it.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Jack Elbaum is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.