Baptists and Bootleggers: School Choice Edition
Two very different groups are the most vocal opponents of school choice. They should reconsider.
Most readers are familiar with Bruce Yandle’s classic public choice concept of Baptists and Bootleggers. In the example, two groups, religious Baptists and illicit alcohol producers and bootleggers, combine forces to support the same regulations, namely that of prohibiting alcohol.
Prohibition is laudable to the Baptists because, in theory, it keeps people away from strong drink and sinful behavior. Prohibition is simultaneously a boon to bootleggers because it creates a black market they already dominated and prices increase due to scarcity.
There's a similar partnership afoot in the domain of school choice. I recently attended the Center for Civil Society's symposium at Pepperdine University and was asked about the education freedom wave that's moving across the United States. In recent years, over a dozen states have passed sweeping school choice bills. These laws give hundreds of thousands of students publicly financed educational options that include private schools, micro schools, and even homeschooling.
A question was posed: What groups are not in support of school choice? Without hesitation, two groups came to mind, representing a new "Baptists and bootleggers" example. In this case, it's rural Republicans and urban Democrats. These two groups, albeit for very different reasons, exhibit the highest amount of opposition to school choice measures around the country. Of course, not every rural Republican and not every urban Democrat fit the profile, but the rule is more prevalent than the exceptions.
Urban Democrats tend to oppose school choice for one of three reasons. First, many view public education as a jobs program. Unfortunately, the job growth comes at the administrative level. Second, many Democrats seem to distrust parents (see California’s AB 1955, signed by Democratic Gov. Newsom, which legally forbids a school from disclosing certain information about children to their parents). Finally, and perhaps most cynically, many Democrats are simply in the pocket of the local, state, or federal teachers' union.
On the other side of the aisle are rural Republicans. Many of these members employ a clever use of doublespeak when opposing school choice. First, they say rural communities lack private school options, and therefore, no one will benefit. Then, out the other side of their mouths, they'll say that any school choice program will so deplete the single high school in their county that all football games will forever cease, and the fabric of the community will unravel. Which is it? The only way to square this circle is to assume that there is tremendous pent-up demand for new educational options, but the rural legislator is determined to thwart the will of the people in favor of faded nostalgia.
Most surprisingly for both groups is that this is a single issue upon which they are more than happy to lend their name to bipartisan support. Imagine waving the flag of bipartisanship only to keep students locked into educational situations that fail to meet their needs.
So, what can be done, and are there any bright spots? Back in the day—the early 2000s—Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) made a concerted effort to educate and engage members of the party of Jackson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy. Unfortunately, in recent years, the organization could more accurately be named “Education Reformers for Democrats.” There is still time for DFER to support students, especially urban students and students of color, by refocusing its efforts on finding political candidates who truly support educational options for all students. Highlighting the efforts of Democratic elected leaders like Nebraska Senator Justin Wayne, who passionately defended his vote in favor of a scholarship program, would be a fine place to start.
At the same time, rural Republicans would do well to accept the reality that school choice doesn't represent the death knell of their local communities. On the contrary, it might be what saves them. In the absence of quality educational options, people with children leave rural areas. They flock to suburbs and cities. Not only will this mean a diminution in dollars for public schools, but local economies will starve. Businesses that once thrived in rural areas will be lost forever. And no amount of career and technical education is bringing those jobs back to rural areas.
Because of COVID, some migration patterns reversed as adults work remotely and leave cities. But a virtual workforce cannot be sustained in the absence of satisfactory educational options. Rather than being provincial, rural Republicans can be providential, showing the way and proving that their communities still hold some of the best pieces of Americana, namely: strong work ethic, community values, and family ties, all paired with world-class educational options.
In the case of prohibition, Baptists and bootleggers were eventually overcome by public sentiment. We can expect the same from educational choice, albeit without the boozy hangover.
This article was originally published on December 6, 2024 in Philanthropy Daily.
Well done, Shaka. Very thoughtful and well-written.