Rural districts have nothing to fear from school choice

Is school choice bad for rural school districts? Joy Hofmeister certainly thinks so, going so far as to call vouchers and related programs “rural district killer[s].” In case you aren’t familiar with Ms. Hofmeister, she’s the Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Education and was recently the Democratic candidate for governor. Election night didn’t go well for her: Incumbent Gov. Kevin Stitt, who supports school choice, cruised to a 55.5-41.8 victory. Evidently, rural parents are just fine with school choice.

Texas politicians, take note: parents aren’t fooled by the false narrative on school choice anymore. School choice doesn’t hurt rural districts. If anything, it strengthens them by giving families additional options. Public education dollars should fund students, not systems.

One example of school choice is vouchers: state-provided funds can be used for tuition at a school of the family’s choice. A better example—one just implemented to great success in Arizona—is education savings accounts.

They claim school choice will hurt rural districts by depriving them of funding. Baloney. School choice isn’t about ending government schools. It’s about complementing government schools with options that can improve outcomes for underserved families.

After warning about the threat to rural districts, opponents turn around and say school choice only benefits urban students, because rural students don’t have many private schools as exit options. Well, which is it?

The Texas GOP calls for school choice in its platform. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, both Democrats, came out in support of greater educational freedom…

“There may not have been a red wave or a blue wave, but there was a nationwide school-choice wave.”

More From TPPF: