For decades, polling has shown that the general public favors changing the way the government pays for the education of our children in elementary and high schools. They would like to see it change from a mechanism that funds a system (the public-school system—adults) to one that funds children and their educational needs. We often call this different mechanism “parental choice” or “school choice.”

You may be surprised, too, that those who favor parental choice—about 60 – 80 percent of the population—place themselves across the political spectrum . . . Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Yet despite this overwhelming level of support, the political forces favoring the status quo, especially the teachers’ unions, have consistently blocked most efforts at meaningful change.

Changes in support of parental choice

Over the course of the last year, not only has the percentage of those favoring parental choice increased substantially, but so has the intensity of that support. The reasons for this are many, but as you might guess, a lot of it has to do with our nation’s recent COVID-19 experience. Millions of children have been deprived of normal, face-to-face classroom interaction, especially in public school settings.

In response, many parents have enrolled their children in other schools (many of them being religious schools) that safely serve families in-person. Other parents have turned to homeschooling. In short, these parents have chosen to pay a significant price either directly (in tuition) or indirectly (by a parent leaving the workforce) in order to provide the education their children need. In either case, more parents have begun to see, often for the first time, why it is so very important for the state to offer educational options which fund students—not entrenched institutions. More specifically, they are beginning to understand why it’s important for the state to allow education dollars to “follow the child” to the school of the parents’ choosing, regardless of whether that school is religious or not.

Not surprisingly, many legislators around the country are responding to this need with a variety of new and enhanced school choice proposals. The same is true here in Minnesota, where an Education Savings Account (ESA) Bill (SF960) has been introduced. This proposed bill would allow parents to directly access the educational funds which the state has already allocated for their children by requesting that they, the parents, be made the direct custodians of that money. Money which they are then free to use for any expenses (e.g., tuition or tutoring services) related to providing education for their children.

This option empowers parents to act in the best interests of their children by giving them the financial ability to attend the school that best meets their needs. Whether that school operates from a religious worldview or a secular worldview should be of no interest to the state, so long as that school produces good workers and good citizens.  

How you can act

First and foremost, you need to stay informed on the issue and resolve to use your standing as a citizen to encourage legislators to return “educational power” to parents where it properly belongs. You can do this by simply going to the VoterVoice website of Opportunity for All Kids (OAK), our MN coalition for school choice, and signing up to receive regular updates on the status of our legislative proposal as well as action alerts to let you know when and how to exert your influence.

Second, you can become vocal on this issue with your friends and acquaintances. Inform them of the urgent need for this change. Assure them that far from being “an attack” on the public education system, this is an indispensable means of restoring that system to health. The system needs to once again become accountable to parents—not to special interest groups in St. Paul or Washington, D.C. This is true whether parents ultimately decide to leave their children in the public system or move them elsewhere. 

Third, you can use your voice to expose the damage to religious liberty that is being inflicted by the current system. As it now stands, the only schools which government will fund are secular schools, which, in effect, places the government in the position of favoring a secular, non-religious view of life over a religious view of life. As the Supreme Court said very clearly in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2016), far from being a position of neutrality toward religion, the current funding system represents an act of outright hostility.  

Conclusion

At a time when government and culture in general are becoming more openly hostile to religion and many other fundamental American values, there has never been a more critical time for the Church and its members to speak up in defense of parental choice and religious liberty. For it is in so doing that we safeguard our ability to speak the Gospel Word, the Good News of Easter, into a culture that desperately needs to hear it.

In Christ,

Rev. Hinz

Rev. Fredric Hinz
fred.hinz@mnsdistrict.org
LCMS Public Policy Advocate
Minnesota South and North Districts
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod