Making it possible for all parents to exercise their constitutional right to determine how and where their children will be educated is a legitimate concern. How best to structure a program to meet that concern deserves serious consideration and thoughtful review. There is no single approach or "model legislation," though various models have been suggested. Just as no two states have the same school code, or the same charter school law, it is neither necessary nor likely that they will adopt identical school choice laws.

Among both proponents and opponents of school choice there are those who, in good conscience, bring forth questions or concerns that can usually be resolved when all parties act in good faith.

But there are also those who raise objections with no intention of seeing them met or arriving at a workable compromise. They shift ground as necessary and often attack a school choice proposal that meets an earlier objection of theirs.

Is it legitimate to insist upon limiting legislative proposals and then cry crocodile tears for the students left behind because of those same limitations?
These opponents fight furiously against any school choice legislation. They seek to cripple such legislation, to make it unworkable, or, failing that, to limit it to the fewest dollars for the fewest students. Is it legitimate to insist upon limiting legislative proposals and then cry crocodile tears for the students left behind because of those same limitations?

No matter what plan is offered, however, the establishment objects. If it is a general program, largely available to everyone, they oppose it as too large, too expensive, too this and too that. If the proposal is limited, Catch-22 opponents then condemn it as helping too few with too few dollars and leaving others behind.

If opponents were sincere, the solution is to make school choice available to every student, and provide funding at the per-pupil level currently being spent in the public schools. This has been done successfully for generations in many Vermont communities. Grants may equal the statewide average per pupil spending, no one is left behind, and there are a wide variety of options. Students have attended schools in Paris and Finland with the tuition (not the travel expenses) paid by their local Vermont government. If local citizens agree in a town meeting, the grant can be increased beyond the state average.

Another common objection is that there is no research showing that school choice works. They couldn't be more wrong. There is a growing body of research, by John Chubb, Jay Greene, Caroline Hoxby, Terry Moe and Paul Peterson, just to name a few. There is also the practical experience of the various GI Bills, Pell grants and other scholarships, both public and private, in higher education. Based on personal choice, postsecondary education is generally hailed as the best in the world. Although not perfect it works better than the K-12 system and 80% of the students are enrolled in public institutions.

Assume that there isn't adequate research plus practical experience. The obvious answer would be to conduct research and learn the facts. But the establishment opposes every effort to do this as well. American Federation of Teachers (AFT) staffer Bella Rosenberg, an Assistant to then AFT President Al Shanker, dismissed Paul Peterson's findings on the grounds that he has never found a school choice program that hasn't had positive effects. She fails to point out that she has never found one that does, a conclusion she has reached without doing any research, which Peterson has. As someone once said, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

It is sometimes argued that most students won't be able to make choices because there won't be enough options available. Yet, when the Cleveland voucher program began in 1996, a Cleveland teacher, speaking for the local teacher's union, complained that schools had been created solely to take advantage of the vouchers. He also testified at a public hearing in one of those schools that the program was a failure. That was the first time he, or anyone from the union had been in the school. His bias was so obvious that, on two separate occasions, he was the only testifier who was asked no questions when he completed his presentation.

Another objection is that voucher proposals are "divisive." Yet what makes them so are the objections of those who complain they are divisive. They are the ones who want to tell others what to do, not those who are seeking to enable everyone to exercise their constitutional right to school choice.

[H]undreds of different school choice proposals have been introduced at the state and national levels. The public school establishment ... have objected to every single one.

Nationally, hundreds of different school choice proposals have been introduced at the state and national levels. The public school establishment, especially teacher unions, who have the most political power, have objected to every single one, without exception. These are not serious people. They are hypocritical obstructionists. Increasingly they are being recognized as such. As school choice moves forward they will be left by the wayside.

Most tragically, these defenders of the status quo don't have their own children where most students drop out, or where violence is a daily occurrence, schools which they insist other people's children must attend.

If a school is not good enough for their children, it is not good enough for other children.

This material is printed with permission from David W. Kirkpatrick, Senior Education Fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Freedom Foundation.