AFT’s Definition of Public Education: Your Money, Their Choice

Proposed Resolution 5 in the AFT convention book targets education savings accounts and other programs that let public support follow students to private schools. Resolution 7 goes further, opposing the expansion of charter schools and education savings account programs as forms of privatization.

The argument is familiar. Public money belongs to the system, not the child. If a family leaves, the union says the school loses money while still paying for buildings, buses, and utilities.

That is an interesting standard. Grocery stores also have fixed costs, but customers are not required to keep shopping at a store that fails them. Hospitals have buildings and utility bills, but patients are not told that choosing another provider is an attack on healthcare. Only in public education is the customer expected to serve the institution.

Education savings accounts offend AFT because they give parents leverage. A family can choose a school that better fits a child with autism, dyslexia, behavioral challenges, or a need for a different academic environment. That forces schools to earn trust instead of merely receiving students according to ZIP code.

AFT calls that diversion. Parents call it finding a better option for their child.

The union also claims to want collaboration with parents and students. Yet its preferred collaboration ends the moment a parent reaches a conclusion AFT dislikes. Parents may speak, attend meetings, and offer suggestions. They just cannot take the public education dollars intended for their child and select another approved provider.

AFT is not defending public education in these resolutions. It is defending one delivery system from competition. There is a difference.

Public education should fund the education of the public. The money should serve children, not protect institutions from the consequences of losing families.