You keep using the words ‘school choice.’ I do not think it means what you think it means.

Here in Idaho, we already possess a robust right to choose from a wide assortment of education choices for our children. ESA legislation does not provide a single new educational choice, nor does it broaden any of the rights associated with such choices. It does, however, significantly alter the choices and freedom of those who choose to accept ESA funding.

ESA legislation is actually not about school choice at all! It is about school choice funding. Who should be required to pay for my choice? Proponents believe that the taxpayer should foot the bill. Rather than broadening the rights associated with these private choices, accepting the funding would limit homeschool rights and choices to those offered by the government (single-payer system.) One does not gain the benefits of choice by limiting choice! 

Parents who choose to enroll their child in a private school, or who choose to homeschool, are not forced to do so. They have chosen their education method, and they have made that choice knowing that it means they are financially responsible for the bills associated with that choice.

When a parent demands tax support what they are really asking is for someone else, essentially all of their neighbors, to pay for their choice. They are helping school districts to qualify for greater tax revenue, thereby increasing everyone’s tax burden, forcing others to pay for the bulk of their child’s “free” activities.

Increasing tax funds for schools will simply increase the funding for every ill-advised policy and questionable social goal, while doing nothing to address the increasing cost of education, the record of poor outcomes, or any of the other problems that plague public schools.