Many opponents of school choice argue that government schools are the lifeblood of many rural communities. School choice will be harmful to those communities as students leave the government school system. However, if we look at reality—what has actually happened—we get a much different picture.
Florida has had a school choice program for twenty years. The program has not created a mass exodus from government schools, nor has it destroyed rural communities. What it has done is give thousands of parents and students the freedom to select a school that best serves their needs, desires, and interests.
Kaylee Tuck, a State Representative for a rural district in Florida, notes that a decade ago, 390 students in her district used the school choice program. In 2022, more than 1,500 students used the program. Statewide, over the past ten years, the percentage of rural students enrolled in private schools has increased from 2.4 percent to 6.9 percent.
For the families using the state’s scholarships or education savings accounts, school choice has created opportunities. Students who are struggling in government schools now have alternatives. Parents who don’t approve of the values taught in the government schools now have alternatives. This is true of urban students, suburban students, and rural students.
While the evidence belies the claim that school choice destroys rural communities, that isn’t the fundamental issue. If parents and students are denied alternatives because school choice might harm the community, then we are placing the alleged well-being of the group above the well-being of individuals. We are subordinating individuals to the collective.
Students are not monolithic. They have unique needs, desires, and interests. Parents know their children better than politicians and bureaucrats. If we want students to have the best educational opportunities possible, then we must enable their parents to select the school that best serves the child’s needs, desires, and interests.
If one ignores the facts, it is easy to make claims about the consequences of a policy. If we want to know the truth, we must look at reality.