The Argument Continues: Objections from Every Side

Elena sees capitulation dressed as moderation. By accepting any voucher program, even narrowly defined, the compromise legitimizes the principle that public money should flow to unaccountable private institutions. History proves that narrow exceptions become broad ones: the “limited” voucher programs of the 1990s paved the way for universal vouchers now proliferating across red states. The nondiscrimination requirements will be watered down or unenforced, as they always are. Meanwhile, weighted funding formulas still operate within a system that treats education as a state responsibility rather than a federal right, ensuring that children in Mississippi receive a fraction of the investment available to children in Massachusetts. And the curriculum compromise – “multiple perspectives on contested questions” – is a formula for both-sidesism that treats systemic racism as a matter of opinion. When one side says slavery caused the Civil War and the other says states’ rights, presenting “multiple perspectives” is not balance; it is a lie by omission.

Marcus finds the compromise more reasonable but harbors serious concerns. Even narrowly targeted vouchers create a constituency for expansion – families who benefit will lobby for broader eligibility, and political dynamics will push toward universality. Accountability requirements for participating private schools are appropriate in theory but extremely difficult to enforce in states ideologically committed to choice. On testing, he worries that reducing assessment frequency will make it easier to hide achievement gaps. The annual testing mandate of NCLB was burdensome, but it produced the disaggregated data that made inequities visible for the first time. A sampling-based approach may provide system-level information but will not reveal whether individual students in a particular school are learning.

Sarah notes that the compromise, like most education policy, focuses too heavily on structure and not enough on instruction. The single most important thing in education is the interaction between teacher and student. Funding formulas, choice programs, and curriculum standards all matter, but primarily to the extent they improve or degrade that core interaction. Where, she asks, is the emphasis on the science of reading, on evidence-based math instruction, on the specific pedagogical practices research has proven effective?

James finds the treatment of school choice unacceptably narrow. Limiting vouchers to students in “persistently failing schools” abandons families in mediocre schools that fail to develop their children’s potential. The accountability requirements – state assessments, nondiscrimination mandates, financial transparency – will drive high-quality private and religious schools out of the program, leaving families with a voucher they cannot use. The entire point of choice is to access schools that are different from public schools. Requiring them to conform to public school standards defeats that purpose. Local control, he insists, is not something to be “balanced” – it is the default, and any departure requires justification.

Ruth dismisses the compromise as another version of the establishment consensus that has presided over decades of decline. The funding reforms amount to rewarding districts whose poor management produced the failure. The curriculum provisions – bipartisan commissions, professional librarians – are designed to insulate the educational establishment from democratic accountability. When parents object to what their children are taught, they should not be routed through a process designed to exhaust their patience. They should be able to take their children and their tax dollars elsewhere, immediately, without conditions. The refusal to address the ideological monoculture in teachers’ colleges means every reform will be implemented by people fundamentally hostile to the values of half the country.

The objections circle the same drain: everyone suspects the compromise is rigged to benefit the other side. Which may be the surest sign it occupies genuinely contested ground.