View this post on the web at [link removed]

Now that everyone has rage-clicked into this and is already halfway to the comments section or my inbox, let me explain what I actually mean when I say I support the school voucher idea/ethos.
Because what I am arguing for is not what either side usually thinks it is.
First, let’s be clear about what school vouchers are.
School vouchers, sometimes branded as “school choice,” allow parents to send their children to a school other than their assigned public school. The tax dollars that would normally go to that public school instead follow the child to a private school. The pitch has always been the same. Escape poorly run districts. Increase competition. Improve outcomes.
In practice, what vouchers really do is take a pool of public money meant for communal goods and redirect it to private institutions. Sometimes nonprofit. Sometimes explicitly for-profit.
That alone should already tell you something important.
I do not support sending public money to private institutions. Taxpayer dollars should fund communal services that benefit everyone. If a service does not benefit the public broadly, it should not be publicly funded.
Yes, there are exceptions. Research grants. Gap-filling nonprofits. Specific, measurable public benefit. Those should be evaluated individually, with accountability and transparency.
And yes, I have a problem with nonprofit executives making half a million dollars a year off taxpayer-adjacent funding. That is not charity. That is rent-seeking with better branding.
So no, my support for vouchers is not about privatizing education.
The Problem Is School Boundaries
Here is the part people refuse to talk about honestly.
School boundaries function as one of the most powerful and quiet forms of gatekeeping in this country.
If you are born into a bad school district, or your parents cannot afford to move, that is it. That decision is made for you. Your zip code becomes destiny.
That is insane.
If your child is strong in STEM but your assigned school has a good football program, why is that child locked out of a public school across town with a top science program?
If your child is a gifted athlete and your district does not invest in that sport, why is there no pathway to a public school that does?
We already accept competition everywhere else in education. Colleges compete. Students apply. Programs differentiate. Resources follow talent and demand.
Why do we treat K-12 education like a static utility instead of a dynamic system?
Let me be clear about something people keep misunderstanding.
I do not support opting out of paying for public schools. Schools are a public good and it is about contributing to communities and sharing the common good.
If you have all-electric appliances, should you ask why you are paying for gas lines? If you are blind, should you ask why you are paying for filling potholes in roads you can’t drive on? If you hate technology, should you ask why we are laying fiber optic cable?
Schools draw more heat because they are expensive and because not everyone has kids in the system at the same time. I understand that instinct.
But schools are not just classrooms.
They raise property values. They anchor communities. They host elections. They serve seniors. They create stability that benefits everyone, whether you have kids or not.
So no, this is not an argument to stop paying for public education.
The real problem is worse.
We force everyone to pay in, and then we lock kids into school boundaries that decide their future based on zip code. You cannot opt out, and you cannot meaningfully opt into something better either.
Public Schools Should Compete With Other Public Schools
What I support is competition within the public school system.
Tax dollars should follow students between public schools. Not private schools. And before you start yelling, “this is open enrollment,” open enrollment is completely voluntary from district to district, with different enrollment windows. Almost all districts in my area don’t even have open enrollment. If you DO want to call this open enrollment, then open enrollment should be mandatory.
I think it should go like this.
If a public school can educate two thousand students safely and responsibly but only has fourteen hundred enrolled, those six hundred empty seats should be opened up. Obviously priority to the kids in the school district. But after they are enrolled the remainder of the seats opens up.
Those unused seats are public capacity.
Those seats represent revenue. Resources. Opportunity. The redistribution of your tax dollars.
Schools should be allowed to specialize. Arts. Trades. STEM. Literature. Athletics. They should compete to be excellent at something instead of mediocre at everything.
Students should apply. Not just enroll automatically.
That does not mean open enrollment chaos. It means standards. Grades. Behavior. Fit. Schools should be allowed to reject applicants, with clear explanations for why.
Yes, parents will be angry. That is not a reason to avoid the system. That is how college works. Merit matters. Fit matters. Accountability matters.
What About the Schools That Lose Students
This is where people panic.
If some schools lose students and funding, what happens?
Here is the uncomfortable answer. They consolidate.
If two schools with one thousand students each now have seven hundred apiece, combine them. You get a stronger fourteen-hundred-student school with more resources, better programs, and more focused investment.
Right now, we treat school districts like sacred geography. Fixed. Untouchable. Immovable.
That mindset locks failure in place and insulates class barriers.
If a district is bad and cannot attract students, how exactly is it supposed to improve under the current system? More money alone does not fix institutional rot. Incentives do.
Yes, This Threatens Gatekeeping. That’s the Point.
Let’s be honest about the real objections.
NIMBY: Not in my backyard.
The same argument used against affordable housing or multifamily housing gets deployed here. We do not want those kids/people in our schools. They will bring crime. They will lower standards. They will change the culture.
That fear says more about the people expressing it than about the kids.
If you want to send your child to a private school to avoid that discomfort, fine. Pay for it yourself.
Public schools should serve the public.
Now, people will scream about equity.
What if poor kids cannot get transportation? Offer it where possible. But no, it does not need to be an absolute requirement.
What if they do not fit in? Their clothes are cheaper. Their parents do not buy them cars.
Welcome to life.
Teach kids humility. Teach empathy. Teach your privileged kids not to be assholes. This is not a policy failure. This is parenting.
If being exposed to wealth disparities is uncomfortable, maybe that discomfort is educational. Maybe… it may… wait for it… create empathy.
Religion and Identity in Schools
A lot of parents choose private schools for religious reasons. I understand that.
But we have also stripped so much individuality out of public schools that the only identities left are consumerism and social class.
We say separation of church and state, but what we often mean is sterilization of community culture. We can respect pluralism without turning schools into ideological voids.
That said, if you want a religious education, go to a religious school and pay for it.
The Real Issue Is Zip Code Destiny
The single strongest predictor of upward mobility in this country is zip code.
That is not merit. That is not character. That is not work ethic.
That is structural inequality baked into geography.
If we are serious about giving kids real opportunity, we have to break the link between where they are born and what they are allowed to become.
Allowing students to move between public schools is the cleanest first step.
The Bottom Line
I support a voucher-like system inside public education.
Public dollars should follow students between public schools. Schools should compete. Students should apply. Excellence should be rewarded. Failure should not be protected indefinitely.
If you are a progressive who claims to care about equity, or a conservative who claims to care about merit, this should not scare you.
And if it does, ask yourself why.
Disagree with me. Argue with me. But do not pretend the current system is fair, functional, or moral.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?