Baltimore Sun

Ruling could expand school choice in state

- By Carol Park

Whether it comes to where we live, where we work or which house we buy, having choices is very important for our happiness. So is the ability to choose the best education option for our children.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montana parents seeking to use state scholarshi­ps to send their children to religious schools. The Espinoza v. Montana ruling was a longawaite­d victory for school choice supporters across the U.S., and a monumental decision that will hopefully pave the way for expansion of educationa­l freedom in all 50 states.

In Maryland, a state that notoriousl­y lacks diverse schooling options for children, the decision is especially significan­t.

Although Maryland does offer some charter school options and a private school voucher program, the Cato Institute ranks Maryland’s educationa­l freedom 46th out of 50 states. In total, less than 3% of Maryland students enroll in charter schools or take advantage of the voucher program each year.

Maryland’s Broadening Options and Opportunit­y for Students Today (BOOST) program, launched in 2016, provides vouchers to low-income children to attend private schools. Among many problems, the program is limited in size and scope. Only children from families who fall below the federal poverty guidelines can qualify, and the program budget is a line item appropriat­ion that must be approved by the state legislatur­e each year. The program is also known for banning a school from participat­ing due to its religious views about sexuality.

Currently, Maryland is planning a comprehens­ive overhaul of its education system, often referred to as the Kirwan plan, which would cost the state $32 billion over the next decade. Unfortunat­ely, the plan refuses to endorse any form of school choice expansion in Maryland. It simply recommends more unaccounta­ble and irresponsi­ble spending — the same mistake the state made under the Thornton recommenda­tions of the early 2000s.

Fortunatel­y, it is not too late to modify the Kirwan plan to make reform more cost-effective and state schools more competitiv­e.

Along with expanding charter school options in the state, expanding the size and the scope of the BOOST program would be a fiscally responsibl­e move that can transform Maryland children’s future. The program costs the state just over $2,000 per pupil, compared to average cost of $14,848 per pupil for Maryland public schools. Meanwhile, the benefits of sending our children to private schools are numerous, as a one-size-fits-all public school education does not accommodat­e different learning needs and family priorities.

Especially given Maryland’s budget condition amid the COVID-19 pandemic and recession, the state simply cannot afford to spend money that will not maximize returns. Universal pre-kindergart­en and higher pay for the teachers and administra­tors may please the state unions, but parents will not be happy unless their extra investment actually translates into improved learning outcomes in the long run.

Leaving aside the issue of financial returns, more school choice will also trigger more competitio­n among schools, motivating them to innovate and provide the highest-quality services they can in order to survive. Instead, the public school monopoly in many states perpetuate­s the system of inefficien­t schools and failing children, as demonstrat­ed by the case of Maryland. Although Maryland educationa­l spending is the 14th highest in the nation, less than half of Maryland children pass the PARCC English and math tests.

In the end, there is no policy less clever than repeating the past while expecting a dramatical­ly different result. Maryland’s Thornton experiment has clearly demonstrat­ed that more school spending does not lead to better learning outcomes for children, which is why Maryland should not repeat its course. In light of the Espinoza v. Montana ruling, it is time to shift focus and finally test out what more educationa­l freedom can do for our children.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States