EdChoice recently released a report, Who’s Afraid of School Choice, that examines the rhetoric used to oppose school choice programs.

The results in the report show that the intensity of the opposition to school choice programs is consistently strong, regardless of the scope or size of the program. In other words, a smaller program received the same “apocalyptic predictions” that a larger program received, regardless of the funding level or number of students the program would reach.

Authored by Jason Bedrick of the Heritage Foundation and Ed Tarnowski from EdChoice, the study examined the arguments against the new school choice programs in eight states: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. These states were ranked according to the level of funding and number of eligible students in the programs. Once the states were ranked, the public statements against the programs were examined to determine if there was a difference between the arguments against smaller programs and those against larger programs.

The authors looked at over 3,000 comments, ultimately focusing on 183 that were scored according to “rhetorical intensity, from mild concern to apocalyptic predictions.” The findings showed that even the smallest programs that serve a small population would receive the same doomsday warnings that universal programs received.

For example, an Alabama legislator claimed that a choice program, which serves less than 2% of the state’s students, would “decapitate public education.” A South Carolina legislator claimed that an even smaller program in his state was the “first step to the death of public education.”

The authors concluded, “Opponents of education choice recycle the same false prophesies of doom without regard to the evidence or the scope of the proposals before them.” Ed Tarnowski points out, “Policymakers should focus on bold, universal programs that expand access to educational opportunities for all families. Instead of being swayed by fearmongering, they can rely on decades of data—and the tools in this report—to counter myths with facts.”