Senate Democrats Would Do Well to Listen to Gov. Polis of Colorado, Not Sen. Kelly of Arizona

Gov. Jared Polis sits for an interview with Colorado Matters host Ryan Warner at the Governor's Mansion in Denver. Nov. 13, 2024. PHOTO CREDIT: Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

Sen. Mark Kelly and 30 of his Democratic colleagues have rallied behind a repeal of the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), arguing – incorrectly – that these scholarships “take money out of public schools” to give it “to private ones.” That claim is not just misleading, it also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the program works and, more importantly, of what is at stake for American families.

The ECCA is structured as a federal tax credit that encourages private donations to scholarship-granting organizations. It does not raid public school budgets. No funds are “taken” from public schools because the money involved is voluntarily contributed by taxpayers who choose to support scholarships. This is not a zero-sum transfer from public to private education. It is an expansion of opportunity financed by private generosity, incentivized through the tax code.

Sen. Kelly’s framing suggests that educational choice is inherently hostile to public education. But the experience of states across the country tells a different story. When given the ability to choose, parents often seek out schools – public, charter, private, or religious – that best meet their children’s needs. Decades of research show that competition spurs improvement across the board. Out of 28 studies, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems.
 
“In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam dunk,” writes Alexander William Salter, economist at Texas Tech University.

As for the states, it’s free money. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a proud liberal Democrat, put it bluntly when discussing participation in federal scholarship programs, saying he “would be crazy not to” accept the funds for his state. That is practical governance. Leaders who prioritize students over systems understand that turning away resources that expand educational access – especially for low- and middle-income families – makes little sense.

At its core, this debate is not just about funding mechanisms. It is about the First Amendment. The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is deeply intertwined with freedoms of speech, religion, and association. For many families, education is not a neutral enterprise. It is an extension of their values, beliefs, and aspirations. Denying them meaningful choice in education effectively limits their ability to live out those convictions.

Nor would public-school uniformity serve the children of families at the lower rungs of the income ladder.

Critics often argue that school choice programs benefit the few at the expense of the many. But the ECCA is designed precisely to broaden access – especially for children who lack the means to escape underperforming schools. For low-income families, scholarships can be the difference between being trapped in a failing environment and accessing a school that offers safety, rigor, and hope.

The rhetoric of “taking money” obscures this reality. It shifts attention away from the students who stand to benefit and toward powerful government unions that resist all change. Public education should serve families – not the other way around.
​
Sen. Kelly and his colleagues are free to defend public education. But they should not do so by mischaracterizing a program that empowers parents, expands opportunity, and reflects the First Amendment values they are sworn to uphold.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS