Few things in life are as consistent as death, taxes, and political disagreements on Twitter.
Still, Twitter occasionally shines a light on a public policy where everyone can find common ground. For example, during a recent argument between school choice advocates and Nikole Hannah-Jones (author of the “1619 Project“), both sides found common ground regarding the merits of public school choice.
Indeed, in an attempt to criticize “school choice advocates,” Hannah-Jones tweeted out, “Why do ‘school choice’ advocates never advocate eliminating school district boundaries/funding schools by local property tax and allowing poor, Black students to attend white, wealthy schools in neighboring municipalities? They don’t really want choice, just privatization.”
However, school choice proponents quickly pointed out that Hannah-Jones was mistaken. In reality, eliminating school district boundaries is a staple of the school choice movement.
The Reason Foundation, for example, has recently published many white papers and op-eds on the need for open enrollment policies in public schools. Likewise, the Heritage Foundation has also promoted open enrollment policies in their work. Ostensibly, wherever you look, school choice advocates agree with Hannah-Jones that eliminating school district boundaries that segregate children into inequitably funded public schools must be done to advance student educational prospects.
Moreover, in an attempt to “dunk on” school choice advocates, Hannah-Jones likely advanced the cause of school choice advocates by introducing many of her over-600,000 Twitter followers to the need for public school choice policies such as open enrollment!
Open enrollment is a common-ground solution both school choice advocates and Hannah-Jones can agree on. It makes attendance zones a relic of the past. Open enrollment accomplishes this goal by empowering families with children in the public school system to attend any public school that works best for them.
Nonetheless, only nine states currently have unfettered open enrollment policies. Furthermore, only an additional 18 states practice semi-open enrollment for children who need it most, like those attending underperforming schools or assigned to schools too far from their homes.
Every other state takes parents completely out of the equation by letting the district or school decide if a child can access a better public school — or, even worse, allows no form of public school choice, leaving children permanently stuck in the school they’re assigned.
The vast majority of states lacking unfettered open enrollment policies rob children of their chance to have a good education. In addition, these states criminalize parents who attempt to send their children to any public school outside of the assigned one. In fact, many parents have faced jail time or have been charged hefty fines after forging their street address so their child could attend a better school located in a different attendance zone.
Hannah-Jones is right: Public school choice is needed.
Using a child’s home address as the deciding factor in receiving a good education is unfair. Instead of trying to “own” one another on social media, Hannah-Jones and school choice advocates would be much more productive if they worked together to find a solution.
Cooper Conway is a contributor at Young Voices and a Frank Church Scholar at the Boise State University Honors College, where he studies political science. Follow him on Twitter @CooperConway1.
