Celebrating Traditional K-12 Public Education
The Cost of Choice in K-12 Education
It’s often said that life is a series of choices. The decisions we make, big or small, ultimately shape our paths, define who we are, and influence the goals we achieve or fail to meet. The concept of choice assumes a thoughtful weighing of pros and cons. The final decision typically comes when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
However, making choices also means accepting responsibility for the consequences. Every choice involves sacrifice, giving up something to gain something else. That’s the cost of making a choice.
In public education, the idea of parental choice has existed since the earliest days of the American school system. As Curt Cardine has pointed out, the real debate isn’t whether choice exists, it always has, but who foots the bill for it. Historically, families who chose private schools understood that the financial responsibility came with that decision. 1 Today, the framework of universal choice allows for publicly funded alternatives to traditional K-12 schools throughout the country. Yet, ironically, traditional K–12 public schools are still expected to fill in the gaps when these choices fall short.
This week’s newsletter examines the current movement for parental choice and its associated challenges, specifically addressing the problematic "have your cake and eat it too" mentality that has emerged around universal choice. In many ways universal choice actually highlights and celebrates the comprehensive nature of traditional K-12 public schools.
In the opening lines of the education section of Project 2025, a policy blueprint utilized by the current administration, the following statement appears:
“When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government. In our pluralistic society, families and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs.” 2
This may sound reasonable on the surface. However, a contradiction emerges when examining recent policy directives. While Project 2025 and the current administration's education agenda consistently champion parental choice and assert that parents know what's best for their children, the implementation reveals a different expectation. As demonstrated by the "Dear Colleague" letter sent by the U.S. Department of Education to Chief State School Officers in all fifty states on March 31st, traditional K-12 public education is inexplicably expected to provide for services that private schools, homeschools, and other alternatives cannot provide.
The “Dear Colleague” letter provides guidance to states regarding direct student services. The letter states, “One important flexibility to support parents is section 1003A of the ESEA (Elementary Secondary Education Act), which provides a State the flexibility to reserve three percent of its Title I allocation to provide funds to LEAs (Local Education Agency) for direct student services that allow parents to exercise meaningful choice for their child’s education.” 3
The letter further states, “In order to receive funds, ESEA section 1003A(d) requires an LEA to describe how it will provide adequate outreach, time and information to parents to ensure they can exercise a meaningful choice of direct student services for their child’s education. Further, the LEA must describe how it will select providers of direct student services, which may include LEAs, community colleges or other institutions of higher education, non-public entities including private schools, and community-based organizations.” 3
In essence, the recent “Dear Colleague” letter directs states to require traditional K-12 public schools to inform parents about educational services that may be available in other institutions in order to receive Title I funding from this allocation. Let that sink in: public schools, already held to high standards of accountability and transparency, must now help advertise their competitors just to access the federal support intended for the students they serve.
The economic theory behind school choice traces back to Milton Friedman, who argued that market competition would drive better educational outcomes. But the modern application of this theory raises a critical question: Why is the “consumer”, in this case, the parent, not expected to take full responsibility for researching and supporting their own educational choices?
Imagine applying this logic to the private sector. Would we ever expect McDonald’s to inform its customers about deals at Burger King, Wendy’s, or Pizza Hut? Of course not. No sound economic model demands that a business promote its competitors. In this version of “choice,” public schools are expected not only to meet rigorous standards but also to promote alternatives, many of which are not held to the same level of transparency or accountability.
This contradiction is further evident in the letter’s guidance for activities that LEAs should consider if they receive these funds. One specific bullet point is that the money can be used for those schools under the comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) program to transport students to other public schools, including public charter schools to receive services. 3
This creates another unreasonable expectation: not only must traditional schools inform parents about alternative programs, but in some cases, they're expected to transport students to these other schools. Again, in what economic model would McDonald's be expected to drive their customers to Pizza Hut because McDonald's doesn't serve pizza? Choice inherently comes with responsibility, but that responsibility should rest with parents to determine the best option by understanding the benefits and limitations of their choice.
This expectation for the traditional K-12 public education system to make up for all the deficiencies with the choice of private school, homeschooling or microschooling is inherent throughout the choice model. Extracurricular activities, a hallmark of the traditional K-12 public school experience, are another area where universal choice policy creates imbalance. Currently, homeschooled students across the country may participate on sports teams at their local public schools.
A recent proposed bill in the Arizona Legislature (HB1693) 4 would take this even further by requiring public schools to allow voucher students from private schools with fewer than 100 students to try out for extracurriculars. Moreover, districts would be prohibited from charging these students more than what they charge their enrolled students.
In both cases, the expectation is for parental choice, but if that choice leads to a small private school, homeschool, or microschool that cannot provide certain opportunities, the public school, previously deemed "not good enough", suddenly becomes acceptable. This paradox actually celebrates traditional K-12 public education's comprehensive approach to educating all students. The traditional K-12 public education system continuously evolves to meet the diverse needs of all students.
As I have written before, the same issue also applies to students in special education. Under federal law, public schools must allocate a proportional share of special education funding for students who leave the system with vouchers. Yet, private schools accepting those vouchers are not legally required to test students for disabilities or provide comparable services. Public schools, then, are left to provide testing, evaluations, and in many cases, support services, even for students who no longer attend them.
When parents choose alternatives to local traditional K-12 public schools, they gain the ability to educate their children according to their preferences but inevitably sacrifice certain opportunities. If families opt out of the public system, they must also accept that some services may no longer be available to them. Otherwise, the definition of choice becomes meaningless.
A common argument in favor of allowing choice students access to public school services is that their families still pay taxes. However, as Curt Cardine points out, this reasoning doesn’t hold when applied to other public services. For example, residents can’t choose to redirect their tax dollars away from the local police or fire department in favor of private alternatives. 5
The flaw in this logic becomes evident in real-world scenarios, such as during recent wildfires in Los Angeles, when some wealthy individuals hired private fire crews to protect their homes. This raised serious ethical concerns about public safety becoming a service available only to those who can afford it. The same concern applies to education: when public dollars are diverted to individual choices without oversight or accountability, the integrity and equity of the system designed to serve all students is undermined.
An issue with universal choice is also heightened in Arizona by the state Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) parent handbook. Recently, the Arizona State Board of Education declined to approve proposed changes to the ESA handbook. 6 Much of the opposition came from parents who rejected increased accountability for how ESA funds are used.
Given this lack of oversight, how can state officials determine whether service deficiencies result from parents spending voucher money on services that don't meet their children's needs? If this possibility exists, why should traditional K-12 public schools bear responsibility for providing these services? A strength of traditional public education is its accountability; it shouldn't be forced to compensate for services not provided by voucher-funded alternatives, especially when there's limited accountability for how vouchers are used.
Life indeed consists of choices. As the push for universal choice in education continues, and as parents select alternative options, these choices must come with both benefits and limitations. The central question remains: Why should traditional K-12 public schools be responsible for providing services that choice options fail to deliver?
In a world growing more complex and competitive, traditional K–12 public education remains a cornerstone of opportunity. Public schools provide a wide array of services: regular education, special education, English language learning, advanced placement programs, career and technical education, and a robust menu of extracurricular activities.
They don’t pick and choose who to serve. They evolve, adapt, and meet the needs of every student who walks through the door.
In many states, laws currently allow families to choose a different educational path, whether private, homeschool, or microschool. As a result they are entitled to that decision, but they should not expect the traditional K-12 public school system to provide everything their chosen model lacks.
The inclusivity of traditional public education and its capacity to serve the needs of all students represent its greatest strengths. This is the promise you receive when enrolling your child in a traditional K-12 public school. Rather than being used as a backup system for choice alternatives, this comprehensive educational approach deserves recognition and celebration for all it offers to every student.
Traditional K-12 public education should be celebrated and upheld as a model of inclusivity, innovation, and service. This promise of traditional K–12 public education is worth celebrating and defending.
Notes:
1 Curtis Cardine. Horace’s Hope, Friedman’s Folly: The Purpose and Promise of Public Common Schools (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers) Lanham, Maryland April 16, 2024 Pg. 140.
2 Dear Colleague Letter, Washington, D.C. (United States Department of Education) March 31, 2025.
3 Lindsey M. Burke Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project. (The Heritage Foundation), Washington, DC. 2022. Pg 319.
4 Senator John Kavanagh HB1693. (Fifty-seventh Arizona Legislature), Phoenix, Az. First Regular Session 2025. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/1R/proposed/S.1693FARNSWORTH.1.PDF
5 Curtis Cardine. Horace’s Hope, Friedman’s Folly: The Purpose and Promise of Public Common Schools (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers) Lanham, Maryland April 16, 2024 Pg. 88.
6 Kiera Riley. Parent criticism sends new ESA handbook back to the drawing Board. (Arizona Capitol Times) Phoenix, AZ March 25, 2025. https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2025/03/25/parent-criticism-sends-new-esa-handbook-back-to-the-drawing-board/