Opinion - Let's expand K-12 education freedom to children in every state
My perspective as a mom of two school-aged kids informs nearly everything I do as a United States senator, and it is through my own life and conversations with other parents that I came to understand the importance of achieving universal educational choice as an option for every student in America.
That is why, during this year's National School Choice Week, I once again proudly joined as a co-sponsor of the Educational Choice for Children Act, introduced by Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). This bill would empower millions of parents in Alabama and across the country to access high-quality education that suits their child's unique needs, regardless of income or zip code.
When it comes to education, one size does not fit all. Every family should be empowered to make the best possible choice for their child's education. For many, that may be their traditional local public school; for others, it might be a traditional public school elsewhere; it could be a public charter or magnet school; it may be a private school or religious school; it could be a trade school; it could be home schooling; or it could be a virtual academy or hybrid solution.
The Educational Choice for Children Act would incentivize charitable donations to fund scholarships for families to use for K-12 education. Those scholarships would fund school tuition, supplemental educational services for children with special needs, tutoring, homeschool instruction and myriad of other expenses. As many as 2 million students across the U.S. would benefit from these scholarships, whether they live in the 32 states that have private school-choice laws or the 18 states that do not.
Although the Educational Choice for Children Act would provide funding for students to attend the schools best equipped to serve their needs, it would not impose new costs or mandates from Washington on states, schools or families. Rather than being administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the Educational Choice for Children Act would be a tax-incentive run through the Treasury Department to generate greater private financial support for students from kindergarten to 12th grade.
It is a tried-and-true model already in place in 21 states, including the great state of Alabama. In fact, my home state is quickly becoming a national leader in expanding K-12 education freedom and allowing families the opportunity to choose the best path for their children.
More than a decade ago, Alabama adopted its Education Scholarship Program, a state-level tax credit that generates privately funded scholarships for students from low-income and working-class families, offering those families more flexibility in selecting a school for their kids. Just last year, we became one of 12 states to enact universal school choice with the Creating Hope and Opportunity for Our Students' Education Act, providing education savings accounts to all families with school-age children.
Expanding parental choice in education has always been good policy, and the need to do so has only grown over the past few years. The National Assessment of Educational Progress 2024 shows that American students have not recovered from COVID-era learning loss brought on by mass school closures during the pandemic. Existing data demonstrate that fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores remain below 2019 levels, despite the federal government adding nearly $200 billion above baseline K-12 education spending during COVID. It all goes to show that throwing money at this problem does not provide a coherent solution.
We must move past an approach of carefree spending without an eye on results. Instead, our government should encourage greater parental control over children's education, empowering families to access the academic setting that best meets their kids' needs and has the greatest potential to improve opportunities.
For millions of American families, the Educational Choice for Children Act would accomplish just that.
When more parents from low-income to middle-class households have the freedom to choose their children's schools — the way higher-income parents can — they have the ability to shop around, finding the setting that checks all the boxes they see fit. Indeed, the numbers show this competitive effect from school choice increases accountability in both private and public education, leading to higher test scores, safer schools and more satisfied parents.
According to educational freedom advocacy group EdChoice, of the 188 empirical studies conducted on the efficacy of school-choice policies over the past three decades, 163 show positive results, while only 11 suggest negative outcomes.
Passing the Educational Choice for Children Act would allow parents and children across the U.S. to take advantage of opportunities typically available only to higher-income families, fulfilling President Trump's promise of universal school choice by empowering parents and students. This would be a huge victory for hardworking families. It would build on the success of state-level programs without dictating education policy from on high in Washington. And it would create a lasting legacy of quality education for generations of American children.
Katie Britt serves as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, deputy majority whip, and vice chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
New Hampshire enacts universal school choice, joining other states across the US
New Hampshire officially joined over a dozen states in the nation to enact universal school choice on Tuesday. Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed into law an expansion of New Hampshire's school voucher program, removing the income eligibility restrictions that had defined the program during its first four years. "Giving parents the freedom to choose the education setting that best fits their child's needs will help every student in our state reach their full potential," Ayotte said. "I'm proud to sign this into law today along with the Parental Bill of Rights, which ensures parents are the central voice in their children's education. I thank the House and Senate for working to get these across the finish line." The Granite State's school voucher program allows any family to receive at least $4,265 per child next school year to spend on educational expenses, including private school tuition or tutoring. The program provides families of children with additional needs of up to a maximum of $9,676 per year in taxpayer funds. Prior to the bill being signed by Ayotte, less than half of students in the northeastern state were eligible for the school voucher program. Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Culture Project, told Fox News Digital that "the teachers unions really stepped in it by fighting to keep schools closed during the COVID era." "New Hampshire is the 17th state to pass universal school choice in the past four years. The wind is at our backs and the momentum for education freedom is unstoppable. We have a state that went for Kamala Harris in November now going all-in on school choice. Putting parents in the driver's seat should be a nonpartisan issue – kids don't belong to the government – but the Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers unions," DeAngelis said. New Hampshire is the latest state to pass universal school choice, joining a trend of states with Republican trifectas expanding education options for children. New Hampshire is the first state that passed the legislation that went for Democrat Kamala Harris in 2024. Arizona became the first state to offer universal school choice for all families in 2022, launching an $800 million program that gives parents $7,000 to put toward their children's tuition.


Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Arizona governor vetoes bill to ban teaching antisemitism in Arizona's public schools
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would ban teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and expose educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. On Tuesday, the Democratic governor said the bill is not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits,' she said in a statement. Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff.' The measure cleared the Legislature on Wednesday on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. The proposal would prohibit teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would bar public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Educators would personally be responsible for covering the costs of damages in lawsuits for violating the rules. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, has said his proposal would create accountability when educators fail to protect students from the rise in antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. Opponents say the bill aims to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opens up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would be able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. The proposal would create a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate for a second offense and a revocation of the certificate for a third offense. At colleges and universities, violators would face a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would require colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. made some promises on vaccines to get confirmed. Is he breaking them?
The Trump era is rife with Republicans who abandon their principles in the name of toeing Donald Trump's line. But few have gambled with those principles recently like Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy. The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in February played the pivotal role in confirming a longtime purveyor of vaccine misinformation, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as Health and Human Services secretary. Cassidy did so despite often citing how 30 years of practicing medicine taught him how crucial vaccines are – and despite his very public reservations about Kennedy's views and motivations on the subject. He also did so at a time when vaccine skepticism has risen sharply on the right, meaning Cassidy's strongly held beliefs were already losing ground. At Kennedy's confirmation hearing, Cassidy recalled loading an 18-year-old woman who had hepatitis B onto an ambulance so she could get an emergency liver transplant. 'And as she took off, it was the worst day of my medical career, because I thought $50 of vaccines could have prevented this all,' Cassidy said. 'That was an inflection point in my career.' Cassidy, who faces reelection and likely a primary challenge in 2026, ultimately gave Kennedy a decisive vote, after obtaining what the senator cast as a series of vaccine-related concessions. But pretty much ever since then, Kennedy has tested the spirit of that agreement, if he hasn't violated it outright. Most recently, that took the form of Kennedy on Monday removing all 17 members of an expert panel of advisers that guides the federal government's vaccine recommendations. Many immediately cast this as contrary to what Kennedy promised Cassidy. It's not quite so simple, for reasons we'll get to. But plenty of other actions could fit into that category. For his part, Cassidy on Monday would not tell CNN whether he regrets his vote for Kennedy. Last month, the senator said Kennedy had 'lived up to' the agreement. But at other times, he has taken issue with Kennedy's actions. It's worth a review of what Cassidy said back then – and since. Cassidy laid out the conditions during a speech on the Senate floor. In those February remarks, Cassidy cited the same vaccine advisory panel Kennedy just cleared out. 'If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendations without changes,' Cassidy said, according to video of his remarks. An old transcript of Cassidy's speech on his own website omitted the word 'recommendations,' leading Kennedy's critics on Monday to accuse him of breaking his word by changing the makeup of the committee itself. But Cassidy's comments pertained to the committee's recommendations. (CNN has reached out to Cassidy's office about the transcript.) Cassidy in an X post Monday expressed concern about what comes next. He cited a 'fear' that 'ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case,' he added. He declined to go further when pressed by CNN's Manu Raju. Cassidy also said in his February speech that Kennedy had 'committed that he would work within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not establish parallel systems.' But just in the past two weeks, Kennedy announced changes to the CDC's recommended vaccine schedules without ACIP's input. 'CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism,' Cassidy said in his speech. There is no evidence that the CDC has done this. But Kennedy has taken actions that seem geared toward his longstanding and debunked linking of vaccines to autism, which Cassidy took exception to at Kennedy's confirmation hearing. Most recently, this took the form of launching a 'massive testing and research effort' to find the causes of autism, which critics worry will be geared toward vaccines. And indeed, CNN previously reported HHS had asked the CDC to study vaccines and autism, despite strong evidence there's no link between the two. This is one area where Cassidy has expressed reservations. 'I'll point out that has been clearly laid to rest,' the senator said in April of the supposed link between vaccines and autism, according to The Advocate. 'The more resources we put towards that, we are not putting towards actually finding out what is the cause of autism.' Finally, Cassidy's floor speech suggested Kennedy had provided assurances that he wouldn't use his position to 'wrongfully' create suspicion about vaccines. 'I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongfully sow public fear about vaccines [through] confusing references of coincidence and anecdote,' Cassidy said. 'But my support is built on assurances that this will not have to be a concern …' There is no question Kennedy as HHS secretary has said many things that could undermine confidence in vaccines – often using misinformation. Amid a measles outbreak in Texas, Kennedy wasn't quick to explicitly recommend the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, while floating unconventional treatments like vitamin A in ways that experts worried would discourage vaccinations. He also made a series of claims about the MMR vaccine that experts reject. These have included that it contains 'fetal debris' and that it 'was never safety tested.' He has also claimed that no childhood vaccine except the Covid-19 vaccine has been fully tested against placebos. But that's not true — something Cassidy pointed out in perhaps the most significant example of him calling out Kennedy. After Kennedy made the claim at a hearing last month, Cassidy returned to the hearing to correct him. 'The secretary made the statement that no vaccines except for Covid have been evaluated against placebo,' Cassidy said. 'For the record, that's not true. The rotavirus, measles and HPV vaccines have been, and some vaccines are tested against previous versions. So, just for the record to set that straight,' Cassidy said. It was the kind of claim that might lead one to wonder whether the guy you elevated to such a powerful position was actually living up to the agreement that got him there. Cassidy doesn't seem willing to go there yet. But all signs are Kennedy is going to continue making him second-guess his choices.