This week California Governor Gavin Newsom confirmed that his four children, ages 4-11, have returned to in-person learning. I assume his intent is to encourage citizens to feel comfortable returning to in-person learning, which is in the best interest of the country and our children. But in so doing, Governor Newsom accidentally became an impressive example of why President Trump is pushing so hard for school choice.
California Governor Gavin Newsom sends his 4 children to private schools
I’m happy his family has that opportunity
But why does he oppose school choice for others?🤔
— Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) October 31, 2020
Governor Newsom told the California teachers union that “we must push back against President Trump and Betsy DeVos who seek to privatize our public education system.”
Yet he sends his own children to private schools.
— Corey A. DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey) October 31, 2020
While the Newsom children are indeed returning to school, they are not attending their local Sacramento County public schools because those public schools have yet to begin phasing open under the strict Covid restrictions. Even though their geographically assigned public school is closed, Newsom’s wealth affords him the option to send his children to a private school that is open. But in an impressive display of hypocrisy, Democrats like Governor Newsom are fighting President Trump’s efforts to afford that same school choice to all Americans.
Millions of public school children in the state of California and the nation are forced to remain home, while millions of parents are forced to amend their schedules to pull double and triple duty as parent, teacher, and provider, because they can’t afford private school like the Newsoms. But their tax dollars are still being spent funding a public school that they can’t even attend right now.
So let’s talk about that for a second. When you pay your taxes, a portion of those tax dollars goes to funding your local public schools. This is how public school education is free for families who reside in each school district. If you choose private school over public school, your tax dollars are still funding the public school that you chose not to attend, so you have to pay for your private school tuition in addition to paying the taxes that fund the public school. But not everyone is financially able to pay for private school, so their only option is the public school that their tax dollars are already funding. And right now, many of those schools remain closed.
This is where the idea of “school choice” comes in. The Newsoms had the choice to send their children to a private school that was open rather than being forced to attend less-effective online public school programs during Covid. Well, President Trump wants to fund the students, not the schools, which would give ALL American children this same choice the Newsoms have. Tax dollars for educational funding would follow the individual children wherever they choose to attend school (public, private, charter, homeschool, etc.) rather than automatically funneling those tax dollars into public schools.
According to President Trump and many others who are likewise fighting for school choice,
“A child’s ZIP code in America should never determine their future, and that’s what was happening. All children deserve equal opportunity because we are all made equal by God.”
In July, President Trump signed an Executive Order to expand school choice for Hispanic students in an effort to provide increased educational and economic opportunities. President Trump continues to encourage Congress to pass school choice programs saying,
“Now, I call on Congress to give students the opportunity. Pass the Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act because no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing government school.”
Additionally, this month the Trump Administration Council of Economic Advisers put out a lengthy report called Expanding Educational Opportunity Through Choice and Competition, which outlines the administration’s argument for increased school choice.
So let’s run through an example. What if you were required to do your grocery shopping at a store designated by geographical boundaries? What if you had to move to a place where the designated grocery store was dilapidated and offered few products? If you were wealthy enough you could move somewhere with a better grocery store or you could order from somewhere else. But what of those who don’t have those options? They are resigned to shopping at the local grocery store with limited and poor products. And the store has little reason to improve their selection because they know that the people in that area have to shop there regardless of the quality of their store.
Likewise, let’s say a family moves to a new city for a job opportunity. In the current system, a child would attend the local public school designated by a geographical district boundary. But what if the school is terrible? What if the parents want to send their child to a school with better programs and opportunities? If they are wealthy enough they can move to a better school district or can choose another form of education. But what of those who can’t afford to send their child to private schools or hire tutors? They have to settle for the local public school.
Mind you, that local public school is being federally funded through taxes, and there is little incentive to improve the quality of their programs because the children who fall within those boundaries are required to attend that school, whether it has amazing programs or terrible ones. There is no reason to be competitive because parents aren’t choosing the school based on merit but because of a geographical requirement. This is a significant contributing factor to educational disparity between income brackets.
But if the federal funds followed the student, as called for in school choice plans, this would serve as an incentive for schools to improve the quality of their programs and entice families to send their children to a particular school. In this way, a child from a lower-income family would not be required to attend a failing public school while watching a child from a higher income family choosing to attend a better school. Similarly, the failing schools would be motivated to improve their programs to draw students to their school and benefit all the attending students.
11% of USA send their kids to private schools.
But, 20% of govt school teachers send their kids 2 private schools.
Baltimore 35%
Cincinnati 41%
Oakland & San Francisco 34%
Rochester NY 38%
Philadelphia 44%
So Why Can’t We?https://t.co/JXxZcGfkp0#EducationEquality https://t.co/5LwpyfTezo— WatsonSpeaking (@WatsonSpeaking) October 31, 2020
While I’m glad that Governor Newsom has chosen to send his children back to in-person learning, I wish that he and others would afford all American children the same opportunity for a quality learning experience.
The post Governor Newsom Fights School Choice, Then Chooses Private School For His Kids appeared first on Chicks On The Right.
Comments are closed.