COVID-19

DIDN’T
BREAK
THE
PUBLIC
SCHOOL
SYSTEM.
IT WAS
ALREADY
BROKEN.
FAMILIES ARE LEAVING TRADITIONAL
SCHOOLS IN RECORD NUMBERS FOR
PODS, HOMESCHOOLING, CHARTERS,
AND MORE.

COREY A. DEANGELIS

REASON 31
W
E ARE WITNESSING an exodus from public
schools that’s unprecedented in modern U.S.
history. Families are fleeing the traditional
system and turning to homeschooling, vir-
tual charters, microschools, and—more
controversially—“pandemic pods,” in which families band
together to help small groups of kids learn at home.
The result has been an enormous backlash. A recent New
York Times opinion article claimed that families forming pods
is “the latest in school segregation.” Denver Public Schools
issued a formal statement in August urging parents not to unen-
roll their children—even though the district is not reopening
its schools in person—because it is “deeply concerned about
the pods’ long-term negative implications for public education
and social justice.” Falls Church City Public Schools in Virginia
issued a similar statement the next day, pressuring families not
to withdraw their children. Administrators were concerned
about “pandemic flight” and worried that “an exodus of stu-
dents” would cause schools to lose money.
The vast majority of students have been out of the class-
room for nearly half a year because of the K-12 school closures
brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. Although it’s techni-
cally back-to-school season, millions of children won’t actu-
ally be returning to school buildings. About three-quarters
of the nation’s 100 largest public school districts decided not
to reopen with any in-person options this fall, which has left
families scrambling for alternatives.
We now have substantial data suggesting that the public
school system will likely lose millions of students this school
year. An August nationwide survey from Gallup suggests that
the proportion of students enrolled in traditional public schools
might drop by seven percentage points, with a random sample
of 214 parents telling pollsters what type of education option
they will choose for their oldest child this year—whether that
be a public, charter, private, parochial, or homeschool option.
Because around 50 million children were enrolled in public
schools pre-pandemic, this finding implies that about 3.5 mil-
lion students may leave the system.
While the direct cause of this wave of departures is the pan-
demic, the exodus didn’t come out of nowhere. Many families
simply realized the school system wasn’t going to be there for
them. Some expected the remote learning disaster from the
spring to repeat itself. Others didn’t like what they saw going
on when they got a closer look at their child’s curriculum at the
end of last year. And being offered slightly less poorly choreo-
graphed Zoom lessons—or nothing at all—wasn’t enough to
keep the skeptics around. For many, COVID-19 was the final
push they needed to leave a system that was already barely
meeting their needs.
The education establishment is panicked, but there is little
32 D ECEM B ER 2020
it can do to stem the flow once families determine to take mat-
ters into their own hands. What remains is the task of restruc-
turing the underlying funding mechanisms to attach money
to students instead of institutions, so that more families are
empowered to escape a system that isn’t working for them.
THE EXODUS
AS COVID-19 STARTED to spread domestically and schools began
to close in the spring, many families struggled. But some dis-
covered that they really liked homeschooling. The pandemic-
induced test drive of home-based education gave millions of
parents a chance to reassess the factory model. Some families
reported that their children were less anxious, more engaged
with learning materials, and learning more in a fraction of the
time. Other families realized that they could actually make
homeschooling work—and decided never to turn back.
In fact, national polling from EdChoice has found each
month since March that families are growing more positive
about homeschooling as a result of COVID-19. A survey from
July found that 74 percent of parents reported having a more
favorable view of homeschooling, whereas only 15 percent
reported having a less favorable view.
A Google Trends search reveals that public interest in home-
schooling reached a peak in mid-July, as it dawned on millions
of families that their public schools weren’t necessarily plan-
ning on reopening in person.
The August poll from Gallup estimated that the proportion
of homeschoolers—defined as students who are not enrolled in
a formal school—would double this school year. And a survey
conducted in May and June by EdChoice found that 15 percent
of families reported they were “very likely” to make the switch
to homeschooling full-time this year.
Another national survey by Civis Analytics found that nearly
40 percent of families have disenrolled their children from the
school they were supposed to attend because of reopening
plans. Notably, this survey suggests that some of these changes
could last. About 17 percent of the families who withdrew their
children reported that they would not place their children back
in the original school even after it’s considered safe to do so.
These indications aren’t limited to surveys. We also now
have hard evidence of actual public school enrollment declines
across the country. Arizona’s largest school district reported a
5.6 percent decrease in enrollment from last year. Clark County,
Nevada, reported a 3.4 percent drop. In Florida’s Orange County,
enrollment is down about 9 percent from projections. In Nash-
ville, it’s down 4.5 percent from projections. And as of August
28, over 3,000 students—about 1.6 percent of total enroll-
ment—had filed to withdraw from Virginia’s Fairfax County
Public Schools and switch to homeschooling or a private school.
Photo: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg/Getty
 Each of the reported enrollment reductions has been larger
for elementary students than for higher grade levels. The drop
in Mesa Public Schools in Arizona is around 10 percent for
elementary schools and 17 percent for kindergartens. The drop
in Dallas Independent School District is about 8 percent for
elementary schools. Each of these districts reporting enroll-
ment reductions has announced that they do not plan to reopen
with any in-person instruction.
Homeschool filings are also through the roof in many states.
Nebraska reported a 21 percent increase from the same time
last year. In Vermont the rise is 75 percent; in Wisconsin it’s
128 percent. These spikes have been as large as 175 percent
in the biggest school district in Utah, 229 percent in Maricopa
County, Arizona, and 288 percent in the state of Texas. So
many families filed to homeschool in North Carolina that they
crashed the government website.
PODS AND MICROSCHOOLS
PODS AND MICROSCHOOLS are a midway point between modern
private schooling and homeschooling. “Microschool” is a broad
term to describe groups of around five to 10 children together,
often in a home, with a teacher or “guide” to facilitate learning.
Many families are now applying the microschooling approach
to the current situation and creating “pandemic pods.” These
groups allow families to pool resources to cover the costs of
private tutors or just to share supervision responsibilities to
make home-based education more efficient and affordable. Put
differently, microschools and pandemic pods allow families
to economize by outsourcing the process of homeschooling.
Although many families forming pods are unenrolling their
children from the public school system altogether, others are
banding together to offset child care costs while their children
receive instruction from their traditional public school teach-
ers virtually. In states like Arizona, eligible families can even
use a portion of their children’s K-12 education dollars to cover
the costs of microschools. One private Facebook group helping
families form and find these pods has picked up 41,000 mem-
bers since it started about a month before the beginning of the
school year.
While some families are using pods to administer the virtual
curriculums provided by the schools where their children are
still enrolled, others have opted out entirely. This trend, per-
haps more than any other, is what spooks the public education
bureaucracy.
Given that the U.S. spends about $15,000 per public school
student per year—and given that districts are partly funded
based on enrollment counts—the departure of 3.5 million kids
could drain up to $52 billion from the public school system.
The public school monopoly is afraid of this exodus—and
The public school
monopoly is afraid of
this exodus—and for
good reason. Given
that districts are
partly funded based
on enrollment, the
departure of 3.5
million kids could
drain $52 billion from
the system.
for good reason. Arizona’s Chandler Unified School District, for
example, already estimated that its expected loss of 1,656 stu-
dents would lead to a funding shortfall of around $21 million.
Denver Public Schools in August issued a statement not-
ing that “the district loses approximately $10,600” for every
student who withdraws. It urged families not only to “stay
enrolled in your school!” but also to “reject the notion of school
vouchers and stipends,” arguing that allowing public dollars to
follow children to the educational setting of their choice would
“siphon funds from public education.”
The reality is that the public school system siphons funds
from families; school choice returns that funding to its right-
ful owners.
PRIVATE AND CHARTER SCHOOLS
A NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE survey conducted by Ipsos Public
Affairs found that private and charter schools adapted to the
lockdown better than did district-run public schools. The sur-
vey found that private and charter school teachers were more
than twice as likely to meet with students each day—and about
20 percent more likely to introduce new content to their stu-
dents—than were teachers at traditional public schools. Par-
ents of children in private and charter schools were also at least
50 percent more likely to report being “very satisfied” with the
REASON 33
instruction provided during the lockdown than were parents of
children in traditional public schools.
Special interests, hoping to protect their monopoly, have
been fighting hard to prevent families from having access to
these alternatives. Oregon’s teachers union successfully lob-
bied to make it illegal for families to access virtual charter
schools back in March. The Pennsylvania Association of School
Administrators likewise pushed to block families from switch-
ing to virtual charter schools, and California passed a bill that
prevented funding from following children to public charters.
One charter school in the Golden State reported that the legis-
lation forced it to put 500 already-admitted students back on
the waitlist. The teachers union in Alaska opposed the state’s
move to partner with a virtual school that had been success-
fully providing remote education for decades.
A coalition of 10 teachers unions and the Democratic Social-
ists of America called for a ban on new charter schools and pri-
vate school voucher programs, and the Los Angeles teachers
union called for a ban on all charter schools.
Families are hitting other government-imposed road-
blocks as well. Officials in Montgomery County, Maryland;
Dane County, Wisconsin; Sacramento County, California; and
Oregon have ordered private schools not to reopen in person,
even though day care centers are permissible in each of those
places. A private school in Sacramento rebranded as a day care,
going so far as to retrain its teachers as child care workers, in an
attempt to get around the regulation, but the county ordered
it to close anyway.
Massachusetts now requires pandemic pods with more than
five unrelated students to be licensed—and paying a private
instructor is forbidden. New Mexico is currently under pres-
sure from the U.S. Department of Justice for unconstitution-
ally limiting private schools to 25 percent capacity while public
schools are limited to 50 percent capacity and day cares are
permitted to operate at 100 percent capacity.
UNIONS
EVEN NOW, THE outflow of students could be staunched if schools
reopened. But public schools, especially those in major cities,
have been deeply resistant to in-person instruction. Eighty-
five percent of the nation’s 20 largest school districts decided
not to offer any in-person instruction this fall. New York City’s
part-time in-person reopening plan was met with fierce oppo-
sition. Teachers groups poured into the streets to protest with
props such as fake tombstones and body bags. Amid threats of
a teacher strike, Mayor Bill de Blasio pushed back the reopen-
ing date to September 21. After more discussions with union
officials, he further delayed the reopening of schools until Sep-
tember 29 for elementary schoolers and October 1 for the rest
34 D ECEM B ER 2020
of the student body.
The American Federation of Teachers, which boasts 1.7 mil-
lion members, threatened “safety strikes” over fall reopen-
ing plans. An Arizona school district had to cancel classes in
August at the last minute because of a teacher “sick out” that
left families out to dry. Families in Kenosha, Wisconsin, found
out after 10 p.m. on a Sunday night that public schools weren’t
going to be there for students the next morning because 276
teachers called in absent at the last minute. And after pushback
from the teachers union for voting to reopen schools in person,
the Ft. Worth Independent School District board voted again,
at around 3:30 a.m., to delay reopening for two more weeks.
The latest data suggest that these reopening decisions have
more to do with union influence and politics than safety. Using
Education Week’s data on the reopening decisions of 835 public
school districts, researcher Christos Makridis and I found that
districts in places with stronger teachers unions are much less
likely to be offering full-time in-person instruction this fall.
Even after controlling for several county-level demographic
variables, including age, gender, marital status, race, political
affiliation, and household income, we found that a 10 percent
increase in union power was associated with a 1.3 percentage
point reduction in the probability of in-person reopening. In
Florida, 79 percent of the 38 school districts included in the
dataset are planning to offer full-time in-person instruction. In
California, a state with much stronger teachers unions, only 4
percent of the school districts included in the dataset are plan-
ning to do the same.
We did not find evidence to suggest that reopening decisions
were statistically related to health risk as measured by recent
COVID-19 cases or deaths per capita in the county.
These results make sense. Stronger unions are in better posi-
tions to get the policies they want. And keeping public schools
from reopening in person minimizes any safety risks for union
members while keeping benefits for teachers, in terms of job
security and wages, about the same.
Yet teachers aren’t the only stakeholders in this debate.
Reopening schools without any in-person instruction ignores
the needs of families.
Some public school districts in Arizona, California, Wis-
consin, North Carolina, Virginia, and Michigan have reopened
otherwise-closed public school buildings as “day cares” and
started charging families for the service—in addition to what
they already pay in property taxes. But if public schools can
reopen as day cares, why can’t they reopen as schools?
The answer is that one group of workers is willing to super-
vise children in person while another group is refusing to do so.
Day care workers are watching students at schools while teach-
ers provide remote instruction from their homes. This may be
a great deal for teachers, but families and taxpayers are getting
the short end of the stick, since they now have to pay two people
for the job of one.
Teachers unions also pushed to limit requirements for
virtual instruction. In the spring, the Los Angeles teachers
union struck a temporary deal with the district to require just
Some districts have
four hours of work each day. Some public school districts even reopened otherwise-
attempted to use language from the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act as an excuse, in the name of equity,
closed school
to not provide any virtual instruction to any students. These buildings as “day
districts reasoned that they would be contributing to inequal-
ity if some students had better access to remote learning than
cares” and started
others. Instead of stepping up to the challenge presented by the charging families
pandemic, they decided to shut down learning for all children.
In fact, an analysis by the Center on Reinventing Public
for the service. But
Education found that only one in three school districts required if public schools
teachers to deliver any instruction this spring—and less than
half of districts expected teachers to take attendance or check can reopen as day
in with students on a regular basis. A national survey con- cares, why can’t they
ducted in August by Common Sense Media found that 59 per-
cent of teens reported online learning was worse than in-per- reopen as schools?
son learning. Only 19 percent reported the opposite.
Although the five largest school districts in Massachusetts
aren’t reopening with any in-person instruction this fall, the
state’s teachers union successfully reduced the 180-day school
year by 10 days for “planning purposes.” And The New York
Times has reported that “many teachers have expressed anxi- should be for educating children—not protecting a govern-
ety about how they and their homes would look on camera dur- ment monopoly.
ing live teaching.” More and more families are starting to understand this. A
At least one public school in Indiana in August even con- national poll from August found a 10 percentage point jump in
ducted a nonsensical “virtual fire drill” for students to partici- support for school choice (from 67 percent in April to 77 percent
pate in from home. now) among parents with children in public schools.
Although educational freedom isn’t the norm right now,
there are at least five proposals that have been recently intro-
FIX THE SYSTEM duced in Congress—in addition to legislation in states such as
FAMILIES ARE GETTING a bad deal, and they know it. Hopefully, North Carolina and Pennsylvania—that would allow more fund-
they’re reevaluating the structure of K-12 education funding ing to follow children instead of institutions.
and realizing that there’s no good reason to fund institutions Families are waking up to the fact that they have been pow-
instead of students. As with many other taxpayer-funded ini- erless when it comes to K-12 education for far too long. This
tiatives, from Pell Grants to food stamps, the money should realization is already pushing parents to unenroll their chil-
go directly to students, and families should be able to use it dren from the public school system. It could also push them to
on the provider of educational services that works best for demand their children’s education dollars back from that sys-
their children. tem. In this sense, the public school monopoly’s latest failure
This has always been obvious to supporters of educational to meet the needs of millions of families just might be the straw
freedom, but it’s now becoming clear to others as well. Schools that breaks its own back.
aren’t even reopening, yet the system is still getting our chil-
dren’s education dollars. And in most cases, none of those dol- COREY A. DEANGELIS is the director of school choice at Reason
Foundation.
lars follow the child when they switch to a private school or
homeschool. That doesn’t make any sense.
Even if a school does reopen, families should still be able
to take their child’s education dollars elsewhere. The money

REASON 35
Copyright of Reason is the property of Reason Foundation and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.