In states with universal programs, Wolf at Arkansas foresees a gradual increase in the number of students who participate, eventually attracting 15% to 20% of all students in a state. That wouldn’t be the end of public schools, but it would mark a significant increase in the number of students who choose their own educational path with the support of the state.

A growing number of states are adopting a comprehensive new type of school choice program that would pose a threat to public schools if many students were to leave them for a private education. 

Eight states – including Arizona, Florida, Indiana, and West Virginia – have approved “universal” or near-universal school choice laws since 2021. They open the door completely to school choice by making all students, including those already in private schools and from wealthy families, eligible for about $7,000 to $10,000 in state funding each year for their education. 

What’s more, most of these states have also enacted education savings accounts, or ESAs. They give families much more freedom than traditional tuition vouchers, depositing state funds into private accounts to spend on virtually anything related to learning, from homeschooling and online classes to therapy and supplies. 

The universal laws amount to a bracing change in school choice. Such programs have existed for decades but until now have been limited to a narrow set of students, such as those from low-income families, or in poor performing public schools, or in need of special education. 

By making all students eligible, regardless of their ability to pay for a private education, universal programs in the eight states expand the pool of possible participants by about 4 million students, according to an estimate by EdChoice, an advocacy group. That’s a 40% increase in eligibility since 2021, bringing the total to 13.6 million students after the programs start in the next few years. 

School choice advocates – led by grassroots conservative Christian groups, big money political lobbies like American Federation for Children, and education nonprofits like EdChoice – call the universal programs a major milestone in their long and contentious battle for parental rights. They argue that parents, not the government, are best suited to direct the education of their children and should receive taxpayer support to do so as a competitive check on public schools they also pay for but consider failing or inadequate. 

But over the years, school choice has suffered from a low participation rate, with fewer than 1 million students partaking in state programs today, mostly to attend religous schools, in a nation with about 50 million public school students. The big question is whether universal laws, paired with the flexibility of ESAs to customized learning, will spur a major exodus to private schooling. 

“Universal choice is really a significant move beyond the existing programs we have now,” says Professor Patrick Wolf at the University of Arkansas, who has studied school choice for 25 years. “In terms of regulating education providers, this is a much stronger move into the free-market provision of K-12.” 

Why Now? 

This sudden success reflects both long-term trends and recent events. Americans’ satisfaction in public education has slowly eroded over the last two decades. And during the pandemic, student test scores in math and English plummeted as a result of ineffective remote learning, with satisfaction dropping sharply from a majority before COVID to a mere 42% last year, according to Gallup. 

Advocates in Republican-controlled states seized the opportunity created by COVID, when teachers unions blocked the reopening of schools, spurring parents to search for educational options, including homeschooling, to keep their kids from falling behind. 

“Parents saw there were many ways to educate kids,” says Robert Enlow, president of EdChoice. “It opened up a world of possibilities for them.” 

At the same time, the spread of a woke curriculum following the police murder of George Floyd in 2020 provided some parents with another reason to seek alternatives to public schools. In cities from Seattle to Buffalo, students have been taught a version of history casting white Americans as privileged oppressors and blacks and Latinos as powerless victims of structural racism. 

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis made these two related educational crusades ‒ curbing political correctness and passing universal choice ‒ his own in the runup to his campaign for president. In 2022 he spearheaded a Florida ban on teaching that America is racist at its core, and also won restrictions on instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity – prohibitions embraced by several other states as well. Then earlier this year, DeSantis won legislative approval of a universal law, making Florida the largest state to adopt school choice for all. 

But just as progressives have embraced a race- and transgender-conscious agenda that has spurred a backlash in many states, the universal choice program pushed by conservatives is stirring much controversy, too. In addition to solid opposition from Democrats, who fear a flight of students and funding from public schools, some Republicans, particularly in rural areas, also object to the costs of giving taxpayer dollars to wealthy families to pay for private schooling. 

Although Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Utah have joined the four other red states in approving universal choice, Republicans in Texas have joined Democrats in blocking efforts to pass it, suggesting the program may have limited room to run nationwide. 

Universal choice is also untested. Parents looking to control their kids’ education could find themselves in the dark because there’s little publicly available information about the quality of private and religious education. Homeschools and various types of private instruction are mostly unregulated and don’t require teacher credentialing or student testing in many states, leaving parents without objective ways to evaluate them. At public schools, at least parents have an inkling, based on public test score data, of what to expect. 

Academic research can only hint at the value of universal choice programs, which have never been studied. The exhaustive research on restricted school choice has shown neutral to negative effects on test scores in statewide programs, which include middle-income students. But the programs have had clear positive benefits on scores for low-income students in particular and have improved high school graduation and college admission rates for some students. 

“Universal choice is a great leap into the unknown,” says Professor Wolf. “Parents are experts on their child’s needs, but parents are not experts on private educational providers. They need accurate and complete information about them.” 

The Godfather of Universal Choice 

Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize for economics, is considered the first prominent proponent of universal choice, bringing his theory of efficient competitive markets to education in a 1955 paper. He and his wife Rose later started a foundation for educational choice in their names that morphed in 2016 into EdChoice. 

“Friedman said you can’t create opportunity and access for people unless you give everyone choices in a marketplace,” says Enlow of EdChoice. “If you really had a competitive marketplace that included public, private, charter, and other school options, many new schools would spring up and it would have a positive impact on education.” 

Related Posts:

We should notice anomalies—things that are unusual or out of place. Anything that sticks out as abnormal. Moses used names, repeatedly, for all of the characters in this story except one. That should make us sit up and take notice. In observation we gather the fuel we need for the fire of interpretation, and observing odd insertions or omissions is no exception.

Observation is the first step in any good Bible study practice. And in most passages, there is a lot to observe!
Under the umbrella of observation, we naturally think about noticing what is present in the text. But sometimes, we also need to notice what is absent. The key to interpreting a section of Genesis 21 turns on just such an observation.
Ishmael is Sent Away
When Isaac was weaned, his parents threw a huge party to celebrate this milestone (Genesis 21:8). During the party, Ishmael laughed at Isaac, and this angered Sarah so much that she told Abraham to get rid of Ishmael and his mother, Hagar (Genesis 21:10). God agreed with Sarah, so Abraham sent them away (Genesis 21:12–14).
When their meager food and water ran out, Hagar prepared for her son’s death and cried out to the Lord (Genesis 21:15–16). God heard Ishmael’s cries and opened Hagar’s eyes to a nearby well (Genesis 21:17–19). God was with Ishmael as he grew up (Genesis 21:20).
This story is straightforward, right?
Something is Missing
As we continue to remind our readers, context matters. Why does this story immediately follow the glorious account of the long-awaited birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:1–7)? How does the story’s placement in the text aid our interpretation?
I didn’t understand this connection until I landed on an observation. In these fourteen verses (Genesis 21:8–21), something important is missing.
Ishmael’s name doesn’t appear at all.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Abigail Ham, Hadassa Ribeiro, Ezra Craker, Katie Rosendale, and Savannah Shustack |
Thursday, November 17, 2022
Because Calvin is in a covenantal, ecclesiastical partnership with the denomination, that decision had implications for Calvin faculty, who are required to sign a covenant for faculty members in which they affirm, among other historical church documents, the Heidelberg Catechism. They are also required to pledge to “teach, speak, and write in harmony with the confessions,” according to the faculty handbook. For some faculty, Synod’s decision meant their affirmation of the confessions was now in conflict with their consciences when it came to LGBTQ+ issues.

Calvin’s board of trustees decided last Friday to approve the Professional Status Committee (PSC)’s recommendation to retain all faculty in the “pioneer cohort” — a group of faculty who were the first to file statements of confessional difficulty in response to decisions made at Synod in June. The statements were prompted by the Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA)’s decision to elevate its stance on LGBTQ+ relationships to confessional status.
Synod, the CRCNA’s general assembly, voted to affirm that an interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism used to justify the denomination’s stance against LGBTQ+ relationships had confessional status. For decades, that stance had been considered pastoral guidance, a much less firm designation.
Because Calvin is in a covenantal, ecclesiastical partnership with the denomination, that decision had implications for Calvin faculty, who are required to sign a covenant for faculty members in which they affirm, among other historical church documents, the Heidelberg Catechism. They are also required to pledge to “teach, speak, and write in harmony with the confessions,” according to the faculty handbook. For some faculty, Synod’s decision meant their affirmation of the confessions was now in conflict with their consciences when it came to LGBTQ+ issues.
Chimes granted faculty involved in the process anonymity due to the stakes of the situation and the sensitivity of the issue in the Calvin and broader CRCNA community.
Calvin’s faculty handbook encourages faculty who disagree with the denomination on a confessional issue to file a statement of confessional difficulty with the PSC. At a board of trustees meeting in July, administrators confirmed with the board that they were “all on the same page” about proceeding with the standard confessional difficulty process, according to Provost Noah Toly.

Toly told Chimes that this process has been the biggest part of his job since June.

A group of faculty began meeting during the summer for conversations about how the process might work. Toly guided these conversations. A group of faculty also met off-campus several times to discuss the issue, a faculty member said.
Around the beginning of the school year, a number of faculty decided to submit statements of confessional difficulty, also known as gravamina, to the PSC. About a dozen faculty filed gravamina, according to English and gender studies professor Linda Naranjo-Huebl, who was not among those who signed.
The PSC assesses gravamina and makes recommendations to the board regarding the involved faculty. The Calvin gravamen process for the pioneer cohort concluded at a board of trustees meeting on Oct. 28, in which the board affirmed the PSC’s recommendation to allow the pioneer cohort to continue to serve at the university within a set of expectations based upon Calvin’s existing policies on human sexuality and academic freedom. Those expectations apply to all faculty members, not just those who have gone through the gravamen process, Toly said.

“While we understand that not every member of the Calvin community will agree with every position or decision the University makes, our desire is that this be a place where even our disagreements are characterized by respect and love for one another,” Toly told faculty and staff in an Oct. 28 email. “I am hopeful that this process and outcome can serve as a model for our students and other observers as we continue to wrestle with important issues.”

According to Toly, the board found the PSC’s recommendations to be “respectful of the university’s covenantal partnership with the CRCNA, consistent with confessional commitment, congruent with existing policies and procedures, supportive of academic freedom and reflective of constructive engagement.”
To File or not to File
Naranjo-Huebl told Chimes her scholarship and personal convictions are “directly at odds” with Synod’s interpretation of the confessions as they apply to LGBTQ+ relationships. Naranjo-Huebl signed the denomination’s Covenant for Office Bearers 20 years ago, when LGBTQ+ relationships were not a confessional issue, so she believes leadership will need to take the initiative in redefining policy and issuing guidelines. She chose not to join the initial cohort of faculty signing a gravamen.
“Because I disagree that Synod has the authority to interpret the seventh commandment the way they have, I don’t intend to file a gravamen at this time,” Naranjo-Huebl said.
Read More
Related Posts: