A couple of weeks ago, the Heritage Foundation published a paper titled “Time for the School Choice Movement to Embrace the Culture War.” It set off a bit of a firestorm among choice advocates, who debated a big tent versus small‐tent strategy, with the big tenters, among whom I include myself, largely rebuking the paper. But its arguments were not entirely wrong.
The paper’s basic premise is this: Many parents do not like the ideas subsumed under “critical race theory” or other “woke” views, and were more parents informed about the threat of such things in public schools, enough would become new choice supporters that choice would get over the political finish line in many states. In other words, what choice advocates should embrace is the conservative side in the war.
As matters of principle and national messaging, this is a no‐go for me.
As principle, everyone should have choice for whatever reason they want it (not to mention that many ideas under the CRT heading are not obviously or incontrovertibly wrong). As messaging, why unnecessarily alienate swaths of decent people by condemning ideas many embrace? There is no need for all choice supporters to appeal only to conservatives when conservative supporters can handle that themselves.
That said, the paper is right that choice supporters should seize on the culture wars, but to make the point that everyone needs choice. First, because with it you no longer have to emerge victorious from political warfare – which you may well not do – to get the values and content you believe your children need. Second, because giving everyone the ability to choose ends the need for anyone to go to war, fostering peace. It is an argument that Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom have been making for years.
To its credit – and my initial excitement when I first read it – Heritage’s paper early on makes exactly the right case, stating:
school choice offers a sensible resolution to cultural debates. School choice gives parents what they want, regardless of which side they are on—more control over their children’s education. And, it acknowledges that parents have pluralistic views about which values to instill in their children.
Only as the paper veers from universal principles to conservative application, seemingly couched in a strategy directive to all choice supporters, does it lose me. But were the paper directed only at conservative audiences, saying “conservatives should support choice so things we agree are bad are not imposed on your kids,” it would have been fine. I want to see the same thing from “woke” education supporters, telling like‐minded families that to reliably get what they desire they need school choice.
The Heritage paper is partially right: school choice supporters should embrace culture wars. But as an opportunity – indeed, an imperative – to explain that choice is the key to all sides getting what they believe their children need, and to foster peace to boot.
