(Guest post by Greg Forster)
OCPA’s Perspective has posted the second of my two articles making the case against any federal school choice program that goes beyond D.C. schools – or other legitimately federal jurisdictions (other territories, military bases, etc.). This is only my own opinion; I recognize the reasons why others, including at EdChoice, are supportive of federal choice or are at least fed-curious. But I’m here to make the case in opposition.
Having already argued against federal vouchers, through Title I or by other means…
If we want to continue living in a democratic republic and not in a technocratic oligarchy, we should be fighting tooth and nail to resist the process of federal takeover, not strengthening it…[Moreover,] it would be the states, not the federal government, which would create systems for parents to access choice through Title I portability. And not just the states, but the education bureaucracies of the states. So the bureaucrats most directly threatened by school choice would be the ones designing the programs. In other words, these programs would be designed to fail.
…in my latest article I argue against federal tax-credit scholarships:
The idea behind federalism is that governance should be kept as close as possible to local communities. That is partly because big, distant legislatures and bureaucracies are not likely to serve people well if they’re not directly connected to them. And that’s still going to be a problem even if you do find a clever way to circumvent the Constitution’s legal barriers to national education policy…
I never thought I’d live to see freedom-loving activists demanding to have the future of school choice put into the hands of the IRS. I feel like Rip Van Winkle. What did I miss here?
Federal choice of any kind also involves a sacrifice of moral legitimacy, which is destructive for any policy and fatal to a reform movement:
Lately I’ve heard a lot of talk from my conservative friends about how wrong it is when distant, powerful elites who are culturally alienated from the population at large shove laws down our throats that we regard as unjust. The question is, do we dislike that because we would rather it was our distant, powerful elites imposing our preferred laws upon populations from whom we are culturally alienated, and who view those laws as unjust? Or because elites shoving things down people’s throats is inherently wrong, whoever does it?
I also canvas the danger we run of a high-profile, national political loss should the bill fail, and other fun topics.
The school choice movement has gained enormous ground by focusing on the states. Let’s stick with what works and not sell our birthright for a D.C. mess.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
I think Greg is right. Much as I want to take a giant step forward for school choice, having the feds involved is not a good idea. The folks who need to learn the value of choice (local folks) won’t learn it. They will remain opposed. Next point, if the feds give it to you, they can take it away–also not good. If the feds supply the money, it gets done and when the money goes away, choice ends–also not good. What the feds should do is look at ways to balance the playing field between ordinary local supporters of school choice and the teacher’s unions. How about a national right to work law that says you don’t have to join a union or even pay them dues if you don’t want to?
It’s a story as old as the hills; everyone wants limited government until they’re in power.
I would like to officially nominate “fed-curious” as the best new word of 2017.
Thanks; I’ll admit to being pretty proud of that one. 😜