This argument essentially says that children should be trapped in failing schools to protect those schools' funding. Think about what that means: the institution matters more than the children inside it.

Wealthy families already have school choice. They choose their school by choosing their neighborhood, or they pay for private school. School choice programs — vouchers, education savings accounts, charter schools — simply extend that same freedom to families who can't afford to move or pay tuition.

The evidence supports choice. A meta-analysis by the University of Arkansas found that 17 of 18 randomized controlled studies of private school vouchers showed positive or neutral effects on participating students. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program, showed significant reading gains for participants and a 91% graduation rate, compared to 56% for D.C. public schools.

Charter schools have also demonstrated success, particularly for disadvantaged students. Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that urban charter schools provided significantly more learning in both reading and math than traditional public schools, with the largest gains for Black, Hispanic, and low-income students.

The competition argument matters too. When families can leave, schools have an incentive to improve. A study by the Friedman Foundation found that 31 of 33 studies examining the effects of school choice on traditional public schools found that competition improved outcomes at those schools as well.

Flexible education funding doesn't 'drain' schools — it follows students. Per-pupil funding was designed to educate children, not sustain buildings. When a child leaves for a charter or private school, the public school has one fewer student to educate. The money goes where the child goes.

Every parent should have the ability to choose the best education for their child. That's not a partisan issue — it's a justice issue.