Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Arguments about the effects of universal school choice on rural school districts
From Ballotpedia
| Impact of school choice |
|---|
|
| on rural school districts |
| • Portal page • States with universal school choice • Analysis of legislative representation • Polling • Studies and reports • State-specific case studies • Arguments • Policy and reform proposals |
| Click here to visit Ballotpedia's comprehensive portal on the impact of universal school choice on rural school districts.
|
This page presents an overview of the main arguments about the impact of school choice policies on rural schools and students. Ballotpedia has identified five arguments supporting school choice for rural school districts and four arguments opposing it.
Click an argument in the list below to learn more about it.
Arguments supporting rural school choice
- School choice works in rural districts where it has been tried
- School choice policies improve rural school districts
- School choice can help protect neighborhood schools
- Rural districts should prioritize student needs, not school finances
- Online choices can meet the needs of more rural students
- School choice enables rural students to pursue trade-focused training
Arguments opposing rural school choice
- School choice takes money away from rural public schools
- School choice undermines rural communities
- Rural students can't access school choice alternatives
- School choice harms rural taxpayers
Arguments supporting school choice in rural districts
School choice works in rural districts where it has been tried
This claim argues that successful school choice programs already exist in rural communities and have not negatively affected them.
- Ellie Rae Craig, an analyst at Bellwether Education Partners, argued, "Many schools of choice already exist in rural communities. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the National Center for Education Statistics, respectively, there are 814 rural charter schools and 7,045 rural private schools. These numbers alone demonstrate that options can be created and sustained."[1]
- Jason Bedrick (education research fellow at the Heritage Foundation) and Matthew Ladner (Arizona Center for Student Opportunity director) argued, "Rural areas have far more education options than education choice critics claim—from private schools and charter schools to microschools and virtual learning. ... States with robust education choice policies have seen a significant increase in education options in rural areas."[2]
School choice policies improve rural school districts
This claim argues school choice policies improve rural school districts through competition.
- Jason Bedrick (education research fellow at the Heritage Foundation) and Matthew Ladner (Arizona Center for Student Opportunity director) argued, "The most recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for Arizona—the state with the greatest access to education choice—do not support the claim that education choice has been harmful to the rural district schools. Indeed, the best available evidence indicates that education choice is the rising tide that lifts all boats."[2]
- Bedrick and Ladner also argued, "As for fears that the wide availability of education options would 'kill' rural schools, that hasn’t happened. Arizona, for example, has consistently ranked among the top states for education freedom and choice over the past two decades. More students exercise their school choice options in Arizona than in any other state. If choice policies harmed district schools, then Arizona’s rural schools would be falling apart. In fact, Arizona’s rural schools are improving much more than the national average. ... Far from being a 'rural school killer' education choice policies like ESAs expand educational opportunity for rural families while spurring rural district schools to improve their performance."[3]
School choice can help protect neighborhood schools
This claim argues school choice policies allow for backup options in rural districts with failing public schools.
- Ellie Rae Craig, an analyst at Bellwether Education Partners, argued, "In a number of important cases, school choice has been used to preserve schooling options that had been in jeopardy. A school-closure or -consolidation plan—with which many rural areas are familiar—can threaten to take away a community’s neighborhood school. The right policies can empower stakeholders to either protect the school through charter conversion or replace the school through a new start."[1]
Rural districts should prioritize student needs, not school finances
This claim argues that school choice policies benefit students and those benefits outweigh possible negative budgetary outcomes for public schools.
- Ellie Rae Craig, an analyst at Bellwether Education Partners, argued, "Rural America is larger and more diverse than many might assume. A “rural” area is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. An urban area contains 50,000 or more people. By those measures, about one in four U.S. students live in rural communities. These range from New England to the Deep South, from the Mississippi Delta to the Great Plains, from the Mountain West to the Desert Southwest, and from Alaska to Hawaii. Boys and girls in these areas deserve educational alternatives that meet their needs just as much as students living in urban or suburban areas."[1]
- Tom Greene, the National Legislative Director for ExcelinEd in Action, argued, "That’s why when we talk about school choice, we have to prioritize what students need over school finances. By taking steps to diversify course offerings and schooling types, a community will be better able to serve all students and ensure they are prepared for success in life and the workplace. And when it comes specifically to rural areas, we know that policies offering part-time school enrollment and ESAs to families can benefit districts by allowing funds to follow students who take individual courses or activities there."[4]
- Greene also argued, "For many families in rural America, access to high-quality education can feel out of reach. Limited school options can restrict students’ potential, hindering their ability to achieve their academic goals and pursue their dreams. It doesn’t have to be that way. Expanding choice opens doors so every student in every community has a chance to excel.[4]
- Jason Bedrick (education research fellow at the Heritage Foundation) and Matthew Ladner (Arizona Center for Student Opportunity director) argued, "No one school can meet the needs of all children who just happen to live nearby. Families in rural areas deserve more education options. By embracing education choice policies, state lawmakers can deliver on the promise of America’s education system and ensure that all children have access to the learning environment that best meets their individual needs. Policymakers who want to increase education options for rural families should enact education choice policies, such as K–12 education savings accounts, and broaden charter school laws to make it easier to open them in rural areas.[2]
Online choices can meet the needs of more rural students
This claim argues school choice policies create online schooling options for rural students, regardless of private or charter school options in their area.
- Ellie Rae Craig, an analyst at Bellwether Education Partners, argued, "Technology, whether through fully virtual schools or a variety of online course offerings, can expand the educational options available to rural students, better leverage existing human capital, and potentially reduce costs. Done properly, a single high-quality online program can quickly match the needs of thousands of kids."[1]
School choice enables rural students to pursue trade-focused training
This claim argues school choice policies can facilitate opportunities for trade training that would otherwise be unavailable.
- Lia Epperson of American University Washington College of Law argued, "Nonetheless, equitably constructed school choice mechanisms may be strong vehicles to create more comprehensive vocational educational opportunities. Providing different learning paradigms through school choice programs may facilitate a multi-modal distribution of technical skills that better prepare a diverse student population for both post-secondary education and employment success."
Arguments against school choice in rural districts
School choice takes money away from rural public schools
This claim argues school choice policies take money away from rural public schools that can't afford to lose it, making conditions worse for the students and teachers who are left behind.
- Erika Wright, founder of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition, argued, "These voucher schemes are just welfare programs for wealthy parents in metropolitan areas, and they are killing rural schools. ... Wealthier families are asking lower income rural Oklahomans to foot the bill to send their kids to private schools. They’re coming behind our back to suck funding out of our community schools that are already underfunded."[5]
- Jay Curtis, superintendent of Park County School District #16 in Meeteese, Wyoming, argued, “There are no private schools in our town. … The closest private schools are 30 minutes away and in the winter time it is not a 30 minute ride. I certainly wouldn’t want my children on that road. ... When you take one student out of school, and this number might shock you, as it does most people, that’s about $30,000 dollars for us. When you consider that one teacher costs between $60-70,000, we have that much less ability to pay for the teachers that we have that are putting blood, sweat, and tears into educating the youth of this district. It is a very scary proposition.”[6]
School choice undermines rural communities
This claim argues that local schools anchor rural communities, and directing students and funding away from them hurts social ties and economies.
- Karen Eppley of the Pennsylvania State University College of Education argued, "School choice is really complicated in rural areas not only because of the distance and financial constraints that many rural families have, but also because rural schools tend to function as anchors in their communities. ... Because so many families are so heavily involved in their community schools and have these social ties, the decision to withdraw their children and take them elsewhere—whether to a charter or a private school—has effects beyond just the daily school attendance."[7]
- Samuel Abrams, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, argued, "[T]he impact [of vouchers] on rural schools and their communities could be grim. As the mayor of Woodbine, Iowa, told me several years ago, ‘If you lose your school, you lose your town.’"[5]
Private schools offer fewer services that are important to rural students than public schools with the same funding
This claim argues public schools provide transportation, lunches, and other services beyond education that are important for rural students, while private schools with the same public funding through vouchers do not.
- Brayden Love, a pre-law student at the University of Oklahoma, argued, "Make no mistake, school vouchers would disproportionately affect rural schools like the one from which I graduated, as well as negatively affect Oklahoma’s public education system as a whole. For a $3,600 voucher, will private schools provide bus routes miles into the countryside? Will they provide free and reduced meals for students who might very well be receiving their only meals of the day at their school? Since they accept public tax dollars, will they ensure accommodation to students with disabilities or those that require individual education plans?"[8]
Rural students can't access school choice alternatives
This claim argues that most private schools and other alternatives are not accessible to rural students, so they can't benefit from school choice policies.
- Senator Patty Murray (D-Wa.) argued, "In many rural areas, there are no, or very few, private school options. Students in rural areas often have to travel very far to attend the nearest school. Without taxpayer funded transportation, arranging private transportation would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming for many families in rural areas. For these students and families, their public school is the only real option and claims to the contrary only amount to 'false choice.'"[6]
School choice harms rural taxpayers
This claim argues that school choice programs force increased taxes in rural areas to make up for public school budget gaps.
- Tim Walker, senior writer for NEA Today, argued, "The prospect of raising local levies and bonds to pay for programs and educators lost due to declining enrollments has hardened resistance. When vouchers reached rural counties in Wisconsin, local property taxpayers had to pick up the tab when programs began to disappear."[5]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 EdChoice, "Six Reasons Rural Families Should (and Can) Have School Choice," accessed December 12, 2024
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Heritage Foundation, "Rustic Renaissance: Education Choice in Rural America," accessed December 12, 2024
- ↑ Heritage Foundation, "Why Rural Students Need School Choice," accessed December 12, 2024
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Excel in Ed in Action, "How School Choice Benefits Students in Rural Communities," accessed December 12, 2024
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 NEA Today, "‘Lose Your School, You Lose Your Town’: Educators in Rural States Mobilize Against School Vouchers," accessed December 13, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 NEA Today, "Murray Privatization Caucus Memo," accessed December 13, 2024
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Can School Choice Work in Rural Areas?" accessed December 13, 2024
- ↑ Oklahoman, "Viewpoint: Public school vouchers are bad for rural schools, and bad for Oklahoma," accessed December 16, 2024
