It’s time to get progressive about education

Requis Sherby’s recent Inquirer op-ed about escaping public school bullying as a nonbinary and bisexual student resonates with me. I was bullied, too, albeit for different reasons. My bullies were verbally and physically abusive, and it got so bad my father pulled me out in the middle of the academic year and enrolled me in a new school.

Like me, Sherby had a choice. Now enrolled at a charter school, Sherby feels safe. Thriving academically and socially, Sherby wrote, “I’m … in a place where I am seen and heard.” Both of us were lucky. I wish the same could be said for the 40,000 children currently stuck on charter school waiting lists in the Philadelphia area. I wonder how many of them are facing relentless bullying, too?

Feeling safe and supported at your school shouldn’t be a matter of luck. It should be mandatory as part of our nation’s social contract to educate all children. On this, we can all agree. Why then are progressives, who fashion themselves the arbiters of protecting people like Sherby and other vulnerable children, so against education policies that allow state money to fund the child, rather than the system?

The public education progressives push for today is a relic of 19th-century factory-model classrooms that prepared children for industrial work. Their one-school-fits-all approach doesn’t fit the makeup of American students with diverse backgrounds, cultures, lifestyles, and learning needs.

Restricting access by zip code has also trapped generations of low-income children and students of color in failing public schools — a disservice to the progress this nation has made fighting racial and socioeconomic segregation. It certainly does not pass any diversity, equity, and inclusion test — something progressives claim to believe in.

» READ MORE: Why it may be easier than ever for Trump to be elected by Pa. voters

If progressives think we can reform education from within these segregated district lines, they should consider this: 80% of students who attend Pennsylvania’s bottom 15% of public district schools are students of color and low-income children. Pennsylvania school districts are some of the most segregated by socioeconomic status in the country. As a result, neighboring districts have radically different levels of academic achievement. Is this the utopia progressives dream about?

Progressives should stop patting themselves on the back for their supposedly good intentions and instead focus on their (lack of) results.

Here’s one way to start. The Pennsylvania Senate is now considering a House-passed bill that would allow state education funding to directly follow students to the school of their choice. Originally sponsored by Republican State Reps. Clint Owlett and Martina White, the Lifeline Scholarship Program would give students in low-achieving public schools access to restricted-use education accounts for tuition, tutoring, or other educational needs. Progressives should join with conservatives to demand the Senate pass the bill by June 30.

Who could be against helping low-income families in this way? Progressives have been great at acknowledging injustice, but not so great when forced to recognize that the government-run system that is supposed to redistribute our wealth to create more equal opportunities has been an abject failure. Pouring more money into this failed model creates more, not less, inequality between children of different races and economic statuses.

» READ MORE: Nursing shortage can be fixed by speeding up the licensing process

Critics who argue that district-school-for-all is more equitable overlook that wealthy families already have school choice. Affluent families not satisfied with their neighborhood schools have endless alternatives, from high-ranking prep academies to overseas exchange programs. No one argues that these students shouldn’t have choice. Yet, private tuition rises make alternative schools increasingly reserved for the wealthy elite.

Why not give the same opportunities to all students?

Pennsylvania’s school choice programs are making strides to empower marginalized students. Charter schools serve a higher percentage of low-income children and students of color than traditional schools. They’re helping kids like Sherby. Tax credit scholarships support students through organizations like the Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia. Children’s Scholarship Fund recipients have an average household income of $36,000 (for a family of four), but a 98% graduation rate — almost 30 percentage points more than the Philadelphia School District.

These programs are successful but inadequate. In the 2019-20 school year, arbitrary government caps denied over 75,000 scholarship applications. Why?

Injustice’s true roots stem from a lack of freedom, not a lack of funding. Low-income families deserve the freedom to choose the school that best fits their child’s needs. Progressives need to remedy their antiquated views on education. Supporting the Lifeline Scholarship bill is a good start.

Jennifer Stefano is the executive vice president of the Commonwealth Foundation and a fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. @jenniferstefano