Is School Choice the Right Choice?

Summer Pannell
Sep 3
5 min read

by Summer Pannell, PhD

4 panelists on stage in front of an audience — Aspen Institute Panelists on School Choice

Recently, a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival wrestled with one of the most charged debates in American education today: school choice. The conversation gathered three thoughtful voices—Alberto Carvalho (superintendent of Los Angeles Unified, formerly Miami-Dade), Cara Fitzpatrick (Chalkbeat editor and author), and Tommy Schultz (CEO of the American Federation for Children)—to assess how far choice has come, what the evidence shows, and what it might mean for students, teachers, and communities.

Why this moment matters

"Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another."

That line—attributed to G.K. Chesterton—captures why debates about schooling are so passionate. Since the modern voucher movement began in Milwaukee in 1990 with Polly Williams’ pilot program for about 1,000 low-income children, school choice has grown dramatically. Today, charter schools operate in almost every state, and private school choice programs (vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, education savings accounts) exist in more than half the states. Panelists noted a rapid expansion: from roughly 500,000 students using private school choice mechanisms in 2020 to estimates that reach 1.4 million the next school year, and projected program expenditures rising from about $3.4 billion (2020) toward $9 billion.

What do we mean by "school choice"?

The language matters. During the discussion, panelists clarified three broad buckets:

Traditional public schools — secular, free, neighborhood schools run by a district.
Charter schools — publicly funded but granted autonomy from district control; they can be independently governed or district-affiliated.
Private school choice — programs that use public funds to help families pay for private options (often religious) via vouchers, tax credits, or education savings accounts.

Alberto Carvalho explained that in LA Unified roughly 25% of students attend charter schools, and when you include other choice pathways (magnets, pilot schools, affiliated charters) more than half of LA students engage with some form of choice. Yet nationally, enrollment in charter schools remains a minority share—well under 20% and in some measures under 10%.

What does the evidence say about outcomes?

Research is messy because "charter" and "private" cover wide variation. As Cara Fitzpatrick emphasized, outcomes depend on the model, community context, and the specific program.

Charter school research shows standout models—especially in urban settings serving low-income students—with some charters significantly outperforming neighborhood schools. On average across many studies, charters perform similarly to traditional public schools.
Private school choice studies have historically examined small, targeted programs; more recent, larger evaluations offer mixed results. Parental satisfaction tends to be high; academic outcomes are often about comparable to public schools but can vary by subject (math sometimes worse in short-term snapshots) and by student subgroup.
Competition effects: Research by scholars like David Figlio (cited on the panel) suggests that competition from choice can lift district school performance in districts with more options. Figlio’s work in Florida and Ohio points to meaningful benefits for low-income students and Black boys in particular, including higher college completion rates in some analyses.

One complicating factor is measurement: many private schools aren’t required to administer state assessments, which reduces visibility. Organizations like NAEP and NAPE that collect broader testing data help fill that gap, but state-by-state differences in accountability complicate cross-sector comparisons.

Equity, access, and the rural question

Choice advocates argue that vouchers and universal mechanisms democratize access—particularly for low-income families who lack the means to move or pay tuition. Opponents warn about "cream-skimming," fiscal impacts on district operations, and ideological uses of public funds for religious instruction.

Panelists pushed back on some common assumptions:

Rural communities often support choice when options are clearly explained. Families will travel for a better free option; in practice, private or micro‑schools have launched in rural counties in many states.
Claims that universal choice subsidizes wealthy families are politically potent but less predictive than critics suggest; many state program designs and scholarship targeting aim to limit regressivity.
Religious schools: courts and state constitutions complicate the church–state line when public funds move to private providers. Panelists noted longstanding legal controversies and emphasized that the primary question for many families is which option best serves their child.

Accountability, testing, and what we should measure

Accountability is central. If public dollars follow students, how do states ensure quality and protect the public interest?

Testing: State assessments are the dominant accountability tool, but heavy reliance on test scores can narrow curriculum. Cara described how high test-focus schools may boost scores through intense test prep while de-emphasizing art, music, science, or recess—things many parents value.
Data gaps: When private schools are exempt from state tests, policymakers lose comparative data. Panels argued for consistent, actionable assessments (including national norm-referenced tools) that can inform families and policymakers without incentivizing narrow instruction.
Closure and improvement: Competition can improve district options, but some of those gains come from closing persistently low-performing schools—an outcome that raises complex community and political questions.

Teachers, training, and the workforce challenge

Teachers are central to any model. The panel raised several interlocking concerns:

Retention: Average public school teachers often leave the classroom within a few years. Factors include pay, working conditions, respect, and professional development.
Pay and resources: Public per-pupil spending and private tuition averages vary widely. Panelists cited rough figures suggesting public systems spend around $20,000 per pupil on average, while private tuition averages are substantially lower and private teachers often earn 25–30% less.
Training and fundamentals: Literacy—especially the "science of reading"—was a focal point. Panelists argued we already know how to teach reading effectively and that large-scale adoption of evidence-based reading instruction (phonics, phonemic awareness, comprehension strategies) should be a national priority.
Teacher mobility: Choice can draw experienced teachers into new settings (private, charter, microschools). The question is how to keep excellent educators in classrooms and ensure every child benefits.

Technology, AI, and the next wave of innovation

Artificial intelligence is poised to reshape schooling quickly. Panelists agreed that AI can be a powerful tool—streamlining lesson planning, personalizing instruction, and freeing teachers for higher-order support—but warned of risks if schools fall behind in adoption or over-depend on automated answers. The message: teach educators and students to wield AI as a supplement, not a substitute, for human instruction and judgment.

Practical takeaways for district leaders and policymakers

Embrace competition while protecting quality: Districts that innovate—by creating affiliated charters, stronger magnet options, or better in-district choice—can retain and attract students.
Standardize measures that inform families: Broader, comparable assessments help parents make informed choices and allow policymakers to monitor outcomes across sectors.
Invest in teacher pay, respect, and evidence-based training: Recruitment and retention depend on compensation, working conditions, and high-quality professional learning—especially in literacy.
Focus on best practices over governance fights: As Alberto Carvalho put it, "Good education is good education, however it arrives at the kid. Period."

Conclusion: a pluralistic, accountable approach

The panel did not offer a single, definitive answer. Instead, they returned again and again to a few core convictions: parents want options, many choice programs have appealed to families, and some models have produced impressive results for disadvantaged students. At the same time, we must preserve quality, transparency, and the public mission of schooling.

That balance—between innovation and accountability, between parental choice and communal responsibility—is the central policy challenge. Whether you stand for robust public investment, expansive parental choice, or some blend of both, the policy test is the same: what changes deliver measurable, sustainable improvements in learning and life outcomes for all children?

For a deeper look at the evidence and to hear the full conversation, watch the video here.

The Aspen Ideas Festival discussion brings these debates to life with data, lived experience, and concrete examples from districts and states navigating rapid change.