What Does Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Mea Culpa Say About the Importance of School Choice?

Colleen Hroncich

Our local government-run grocery store sells rotten food. I still buy my child’s food there because other families don’t have other options, and I think I can make it better by complaining when I shop there.

Our local government-run health clinic has terrible outcomes. I still take my child there because other families don’t have other options, and I think I can make it better by complaining while she’s a patient there.

No parent would make a decision like the ones above. They sound ludicrous to even write. But social media is abuzz about an essay in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine by a mom, Nikole Hannah-Jones, who did the educational equivalent to her daughter. Hannah-Jones is a long-time correspondent for the magazine who covers racial injustice and civil rights. She is probably best known as the creator of the controversial 1619 Project, which “aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” 

Writing a deeply personal but limited, mea culpa, Hannah-Jones asks, “In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?“ In the end, she explicitly apologizes to her daughter for cheating her out of a better education in pursuit of her own ideals, but she doesn’t seem to reflect on the very beliefs that led her to make that decision. 

Why is the idea of public school so entrenched in some minds that a parent would sacrifice their own child’s best interests at the altar of public schooling? This is especially baffling when it’s a person whose work regularly traces the historical and systemic racism that has been part and parcel of the institution from the beginning. It’s unlikely she would have made a similar decision in the grocery store or health clinic examples above.

Nothing in the history of government schooling should cause anyone to believe it is the best way to allocate or run education. By definition, putting the government in charge of education makes everything a political issue. It empowers bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists, and the well-connected to the detriment of parents, especially lower-income and less politically powerful parents.

School choice programs, such as vouchers, education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, and (to a lesser extent) charter schools, flip the balance of power. They enable parents from across the income spectrum to make the best education decisions for their children—an ability wealthy families have always enjoyed. 

Because children’s outcomes are shaped by many factors, it’s hard to make truly apples-to-apples comparisons of school choice programs. Still, a substantial body of evidence finds that choice can benefit participating students, increase parent satisfaction and involvement, and improve nearby public schools through competitive pressure. 

Importantly, school choice also gives parents—especially disadvantaged parents—agency. It treats them with respect and recognizes them as free-thinking individuals capable of making decisions for their children. This is incompatible with a government-run monopoly schooling system that kids are assigned to based on their address.

This doesn’t mean every parent will make the best choice—as the Hannah-Jones situation illustrates, the current system doesn’t ensure that either. But today, many parents have no choice, trapping thousands of children in schools that fail to meet their academic, social, and safety needs. Putting parents in the driver’s seat isn’t likely to be any worse. 

In the past, Hannah-Jones has opposed school choice programs. It will be interesting to see if she reconsiders her position in light of her—and her daughter’s—experiences.