
Show Notes
William Mattox
December 7, 2022
Some Florida families have yet to benefit directly from school choice.
More than 20 years ago, Florida adopted an A+ Plan for K-12 Education, under the leadership of Gov. Jeb Bush. This ambitious initiative, which included Florida’s first K-12 scholarship program, proved to be an extraordinary success. It helped establish Florida as a national leader in student outcomes.
And it inspired many other states to adopt similar reforms.
While the impact of that original A+ Plan has been incredibly far-reaching, some Florida families have yet to benefit directly from school choice — or to benefit fully from all that a skillfully-crafted education choice policy could bring.
Consider:
— Some students remain ineligible for scholarships, even though their parents pay taxes and the state will fund their education if they attend a public school.
— Some families have education choices only in theory. They qualify for scholarships, but this doesn’t have much practical benefit because current vouchers can only be used for school tuition — and they live in a sparsely-populated area that does not have any alternative schools.
— Some scholarship recipients living in disadvantaged communities continue to suffer from what Harvard scholar Raj Chetty calls a dearth of “positive neighborhood effects.” For these students, the primary challenge isn’t access to meaningful school choice — it is overcoming the residual effects of assigned school policies on neighborhood composition.
Thus, a New A+ Plan is needed — and it should be designed to provide universal coverage for all students, real choices for families that lack them, and new opportunities for those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Specifically, Florida’s New A+ Plan for K-12 Education should offer flexible-use scholarships to all Florida families (that’s the A) with weighted funding for special populations, including those living in Title I neighborhoods that need revitalization (that’s the Plus).
Such a policy would be especially well-suited for today’s post-COVID “new normal,” in which many parents are exploring new ways to educate their children. Indeed, scholar Kerry McDonald reports that small, highly-personalized learning communities — such as micro-schools, learning pods and hybrid home-schools — continue to draw considerable interest from young families.
This interest in “micro” education offers promise to sparsely populated areas in particular. “In many smaller communities, the absence of good K-12 schooling options is a major problem,” reports real estate professor Bart Danielsen of North Carolina State University. “It not only hinders economic development and job growth, but it also adversely affects things like rural hospitals’ ability to attract and retain good doctors.”
Danielsen says household migration studies show that “families prefer to live in locations where school choice programs are offered, and they will move to these places” as circumstances allow. Perhaps the best example of this comes from rural Vermont, where families with school-aged children often opt to live in “tuitioning districts” (offering school choice scholarships) over districts with assigned public schools.
Danielsen’s research points to an often-overlooked benefit of school choice — it can help localities attract and/or retain upwardly-mobile residents that significantly contribute to the life of the community. And the long-term effects of such policies could be even more powerful if state policymakers were to make scholarship programs more flexible.
Indeed, universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) allow families to patch together educational offerings from multiple providers (including online courses and highly innovative immersive technology programs) rather than relying on a single school to meet all their child’s learning needs. As such, ESAs are particularly beneficial to families in geographic areas that lack (large) school options.
“School cho
More from Spill The Tea
On the latest episode of Spill the Tea, Dr. Bob McClure sits down with JMI’s Director of the Center for Technology and Innovation, Edward Longe, to do a deep dive on tech issues data privacy, cryptocurrency, Tik Tok, and other topics.
December 25, 2022
Roslyn Layton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
When Lina M. Kahn, Associate Professor of Law at Columbia University, was sworn in as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), she pledged to “protect the public from corporate abuse.” Unfortunately, in fulfilling this promise, the FTC has turned an increasingly skeptical eye toward mergers and acquisitions, arguing they hurt competitors, the marketplace, and consumers. Aside from the fact that antitrust law has traditionally focused on consumer harm, this increased hostility at the FTC over mergers and acquisitions will disrupt the innovative technology ecosystem that generates significant benefits for American consumers. In disrupting this ecosystem, Chair Kahn’s FTC has declared war on innovation, American consumers, and the competitive marketplace that rewards success.