With reforms to No Child Left Behind up for debate, House Republicans are wisely proposing that low-income families be allowed to take a portion of their federal funding to different public schools of their choosing. This form of school choice is known as “portable funding,” or sometimes “backpack funding” since money follows the child.
Low-income families are especially in need of school choice. The upper-class can afford private school tuition and the middle-class can afford to locate in neighborhoods with quality public schools. However, low-income families are too often left with no outlet from failing schools.
School choice is essential since every child has different needs. Each student has different priorities for what they need from a school that cannot be simplified into one test score or grade. School choice allows parents to weigh different factors and do what’s best for them. Factors such as academic success, school safety, or strength in a certain subject all matter to students in a different way.
Whether or not a school has high test scores or meets government-mandated standards should not be of great importance for government funding. If enough families choose to send enough students to a school to make it viable, then that school should be considered a success. All that counts is whether a school serves its students’ needs, whatever those needs may be.
On the left, teachers unions and progressives claim that portable federal funding of education will take resources away from poor school districts. But this approach fails to recognize the educational benefits for individual families and students who can take advantage of school choice. It also perpetuates the falsehood that bad schools just need more taxpayer money to improve. Customized education helps all students individually, whereas pouring more money into failing education systems has failed to produce nationwide gains.
Importantly, education legislation expected to be voted on by the House this week would only give states the option of making low-income federal education funding portable. States would not be required to expand school choice if public support is lacking.
Some conservative groups, such as Heritage Action, have come out in opposition to the House GOP legislation, partially because it only allows federal funding to go to traditional public or charter schools. This opposition is letting perfection get in the way of progress. Portable funding to other public schools already has questionable odds of passing the Senate. Allowing federal dollars to leave the public school system would kill the legislation in the Senate, where strong opposition from teachers unions would sway Democrats against helping Republicans reach 60 votes.
Although most school choice programs occur at the state and local level, portable funding is one of the few things the federal government can do to expand school choice. Portable federal funding would help show that having a menu of educational options helps all students.
Parents know best what type of education will be most effective for their child. Expanding school choice to as many students and schools as possible should be the highest priority of those seeking to improve the education system.
