ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÊÓ

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÊÓ Newsletter

School choice enjoys among the American public. But opposition within the Democratic Party and the remains among those with the most means. Higher-income and more highly educated Democrats are far more likely to oppose school choice, while Black, Hispanic and lower-income Democrats are more supportive. The divide reflects a gap between those who already enjoy access to educational options and those for whom school assignment remains largely determined by zip code.

The divide also shows up in who actually uses school choice. Charter schools — the most widespread form of publicly funded options — serve black, Hispanic and lower-income students, especially in urban areas. In many cities, the number of kids on charter school waitlists reaches into the thousands, reflecting intense demand among families seeking alternatives to the schools they are assigned.

, author of , coined the term “” to describe ideas that cost their holders nothing while imposing real burdens on others — positions that are easiest to maintain when one is insulated from their consequences. Debates over policing have often followed this pattern, with calls to enforcement carrying far in high-crime neighborhoods than in more affluent ones. 

Opposition to school choice is another clear example of this pattern. Many of the most vocal critics oppose school choice politically while enjoying it privately. Widespread school choice already exists for families with means.

Affluent parents have long exercised school choice by paying a premium to buy homes in desirable school districts or by sending their children to private schools. They have already secured the outcome that families with fewer resources are still fighting for. For them, the debate is shaped more by ideology than by the realities faced by parents without the same educational options.

For lower-income families, access to better schools through the housing market is often out of reach. Policies that expand school choice — charter schools, vouchers or open enrollment — are among the few mechanisms that allow these parents to exercise the kind of educational agency that affluent families already enjoy. The real debate over school choice is not whether it should exist, but who gets access to it.

Choice critics that the should instead be on traditional public schools. For students assigned to underperforming schools, this means waiting indefinitely for reforms that may never arrive, while viable alternatives are blocked. It also assumes that equalizing school quality is both feasible and sufficient — a concept at odds with decades of uneven reform and a large body of showing that peers and community environments shape long-term outcomes.

Another common concern is that school choice from traditional public schools. But this argument confuses institutional interests with student welfare. When a child leaves a traditional public school, the district is responsible for educating one fewer child. Funding that follows students to schools that are serving them better is not a loss to education — it is education working.

Importantly, find that expanding school choice actually leads to improvements in nearby public schools. When families have options, traditional public schools have stronger incentives to respond. 

None of this is to suggest that school choice policies are without trade-offs. Program design matters, and poorly designed systems can create real problems. But broad opposition to school choice, especially from those who have already secured educational options for their own children, rests on a position that carries little personal cost while limiting opportunities for others. 

Opposing school choice while overlooking who bears the consequences is a luxury belief that many families cannot afford to hold.

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÊÓ’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.