To the Editor:
Re “Democrats, This Is Why You Haven’t Fixed Schools Yet,” by Jorge Elorza (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Feb. 17):
Mr. Elorza frames today’s challenges in K-12 education as evidence that public schools are beyond repair and argues for market-based proposals rather than investing in the public good. Most families are not trying to leave behind public education, but rather to find quality, safety and opportunity close to home.
Roughly three-quarters of parents say they are satisfied with their oldest child’s education. The problem is not a lack of choice, but unequal access to high-quality options that reflects longstanding policy decisions tied to race, income and ZIP code.
Mr. Elorza argues that routing public dollars through private markets has worked elsewhere, pointing to Pell Grants, housing vouchers and health insurance exchanges. But housing remains unaffordable for millions, health care is still inaccessible in many communities, and higher education continues to price families out. These programs show the limits of choice without sufficient supply, oversight and public investment. They are not models for replacing public systems.
Public education resources are finite. Diverting them weakens the neighborhood schools that educate most children. Real school choice means strengthening public schools so families can find quality opportunities in their communities.
Choice without equity and accountability isn’t innovation. It’s abandonment.
Kayla Patrick Washington The writer is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a former policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Education.
To the Editor:
It is singularly unhelpful for Jorge Elorza to pathologize K-12 schools en masse and then prescribe the wrong medicine.
Yes, many students are struggling academically and emotionally, and teacher recruitment and retention are increasingly difficult. These are challenges we ignore at our peril. But not all schools are at the “institutional breaking point” and in need of a “new educational operating system.” If that were the case, three out of every four parents would not, as they have done consistently in Gallup polling for the past 26 years, report satisfaction with the education their own children are receiving.
We will not “reimagine” K-12 education by further draining public schools of funds and transferring them to private (mostly religious) schools. These schools are a welcome option for some children and families, but are not free and open to all.
Private schools are also exempt from nearly every law governing public schools related to accessibility, accountability, curriculum standards, teacher qualifications, student achievement and civil rights. Such pesky legal and policy considerations are very likely among the “bureaucratic” obstacles in education that Mr. Elorza bemoans.
The evidence is clear: School vouchers and other mechanisms supporting private education do not improve student success. If the current preoccupation with privatizing education in the name of school choice continues, then public schooling will cease to be a viable choice for millions of children. That will be a stunning misstep for the world’s richest and most powerful nation.
Robert Kim Newark The writer is the executive director of the Education Law Center.
To the Editor:
Jorge Elorza is correct when he writes that America’s education crisis demands a new operating system — one that puts families in the driver’s seat. But an open marketplace transforms outcomes only if every family can actually navigate it. Right now, too many can’t.
School choice, as currently designed, too often works best for families with the time, resources and networks to choose well, while those without those advantages are left with whatever is closest or most familiar.
Choice without real access isn’t choice.
Building the system the author envisions means investing in the infrastructure families need — independent counselors, transparent school quality data and community-based outreach in every language. The best models don’t just fund diverse schools — they fund the support that helps families find them.
Alissa Jacques Saint-Pierre New York The writer is the navigation partnerships manager at the National School Choice Awareness Foundation.
To the Editor:
Jorge Elorza’s suggestion that Democrats embrace school vouchers certainly puts a sheen on a problematic solution. I live in one of the school choice capitals of America here in Arizona. Vouchers here were originally intended only for students with special needs who could not get the needed services in public schools. Advocates attempted to make vouchers universal here in 2018 with a ballot proposal. More than 60 percent voted against it.
In 2022, our Republican governor at the time, Doug Ducey, pushed a universal voucher through the Republican Legislature. At the time, Republicans said the program would cost about $300 million a year.
Today, the cost has ballooned to almost $1 billion. Most voucher students are from wealthier neighborhoods, with few private schools in poorer or rural areas. Microschools pop up, then suddenly close.
We taxpayers have no clue how well voucher students perform in private schools, microschools or home-school settings because our Republicans don’t require academic accountability.
Anecdotal academic success is hardly proof that vouchers work. Maybe Mr. Elorza should come out here and see how the choice he so admires actually works.
Mike McClellan Gilbert, Ariz.
To the Editor:
Jorge Elorza seems unaware that school choice is not a viable option for students with disabilities. Charter and private schools in most cases do not accept these children, often claiming that they lack the resources to accommodate them. Public schools must accept them and create learning programs that recognize their disability.
I saw this with my hearing-impaired daughter and now with a grandson who has A.D.H.D. Private schools in our area would not accept either one. What is Mr. Elorza’s solution for these children who have no choice?
Susan Danielson New Orleans
The post What Does School Choice Really Mean? appeared first on New York Times.
