Who Should Control Education?

By Alex Tokarev, Kristin Tokarev, Mitchell Ashley. From The Independent Institute.

"President Jimmy Carter wanted the support of the government teachers’ unions. So, during his reelection campaign, he created the U.S. Department of Education, promising it would improve America’s schools.

Has it?

After more than 45 years, billions of taxpayer dollars, and endless regulations under a bloated and ever-growing education bureaucracy, American students are falling behind many of their peers around the world. Reading scores have declined. Math scores are down. Parents are frustrated. Teachers complain they’re drowning in paperwork.

If the Department of Education hasn’t solved these problems after nearly half a century, why assume giving it more power will?

President Donald Trump says it won’t. His proposal to eliminate the department and return authority to states and ultimately to parents triggered predictable outrage. Critics warn it would “destroy public education.”

That’s nonsense.

The Department of Education doesn’t run America’s schools. States and local districts already do. Closing the department wouldn’t close schools. It would simply reduce Washington’s role. Education Secretary Linda McMahon recently spoke on the necessity to return control to parents and local public servants so that they can better serve the children. And that’s how it should be. Parents know their children better than bureaucrats in Washington ever will. Local communities understand their own needs. A rural district in Wyoming faces different challenges than schools in Chicago. Yet federal rules often treat them as if they’re the same. One-size-fits-all rarely fits anyone well.

Supporters of federal oversight say Washington provides accountability. Accountability to whom? Parents can vote out ineffective school board members. They can attend meetings. They can confront local officials. They can’t fire federal bureaucrats. The farther decisions move from families, the less influence families have.

Then there’s competition. Economist Milton Friedman argued that taxpayers can fund education without having the government manage it. Instead of subsidizing school systems, fund students. Let parents choose among public, charter, private, or other options. Competition changes behavior.

Restaurants compete for patrons. Stores try their best to satisfy shoppers. Businesses that disappoint customers lose them. Most public schools don’t face that pressure. Students are assigned largely by ZIP code. If the local school performs poorly, many parents have only two options: pay private tuition or move.

That’s not much of a choice.

School choice creates incentives that bureaucracy can’t. When families can leave, schools have stronger reasons to improve. Charter schools, education savings accounts, tax-credit scholarships, and vouchers all give parents leverage they otherwise lack.

None of this guarantees success. Eliminating the Department of Education won’t magically improve schools, and states are perfectly capable of making bad decisions. The real reform isn’t simply moving power from Washington to state capitals. It’s moving power to families. Critics raise a fair concern: poorer states and communities may struggle to fund education at the same level as wealthier ones.

But Washington hasn’t solved that problem either. Despite decades of federal involvement, achievement gaps remain stubbornly wide. More bureaucracy has not produced equal outcomes. A better approach is to expand opportunity. Wealthy families already exercise school choice by buying homes in better districts or paying private tuition. Friedman’s ideas and Trump’s policies extend that freedom to families with fewer resources.

The real question isn’t whether we’re “for” or “against” public education. It’s who education is supposed to serve. If a public school offers the best service, parents will choose it. If another institution better meets a child’s needs, parents should be free to choose that instead. Students should not be assigned to schools. Schools should compete for students.

For decades, Washington promised better results. The results are in. It’s time to trust the American parents."