What happens when my child sees peers with different family rules at Embark?

It's an opportunity for empathy and growth. Kids learn that families make different choices based on values, and they practice understanding and respect.

How does Embark support families through these challenges?

Embark helps parents guide open conversations about freedom, fairness, and respect, supporting kids as they learn to navigate difference with confidence.

Reimagining School Choice Beyond Politics: Freedom, Accountability, and Equity in Education — Embark Center for Self-Directed Education, Leesburg, VA

Summary: This essay examines how school choice debates in Virginia and across the United States have become deeply polarized, often dividing families and educators who actually share similar goals. It argues for a broader, bipartisan vision of educational freedom—one that balances choice, accountability, and equity—so every child can access learning environments that fit their needs.

Andrea Cubelo-McKay attending the “Strong School, Stony Ground: Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference,” where educators discussed school choice, accountability, and the future of hybrid learning.

Families and educators across the country are rethinking education, and nowhere is that more evident than in Virginia’s ongoing conversation about school choice. Some families have already sought alternatives to the conventional system—homeschooling, hybrid schools, microschools, or self-directed learning spaces. Others remain in public schools, unaware that meaningful options even exist. What unites them is the recognition that school doesn’t fit every child and the belief that learning should be more flexible, humane, and accessible.

Yet the phrase school choice itself has become a political flashpoint. For many conservatives, it represents parental rights, religious freedom, and liberation from government overreach. For many progressives, it signals privatization, inequity, and the erosion of public education. These competing narratives prevent collaboration and obscure a deeper truth: both sides want children to thrive, but differ on how to get there.

Reimagining school choice means widening the conversation. It requires acknowledging that choice must include public schools, microschools, homeschooling, hybrid models, and self-directed learning environments—and that access shouldn’t depend on income, geography, or ideology. The real work lies in finding the balance between freedom and accountability, expanding educational opportunities without abandoning the public good.

Freedom and Accountability

Parents often step away from conventional schools because they see that the structure isn’t serving their child’s needs. For some, it’s about giving their children the chance to thrive. For others, it’s even more urgent—it’s about their child’s ability to survive emotionally, mentally, or physically in environments that feel unsafe or unresponsive. Families want their children to have space to grow without being squeezed into a one-size-fits-all model.

At the same time, there’s an important conversation about accountability: not just to individual children’s safety and well-being, but also to the larger community. When tax dollars are involved, people understandably want assurance that resources are being used responsibly and that all children—not just some—benefit from the choices being made.

Freedom without accountability can go wrong. Accountability without freedom just recreates school under another name. The challenge is how to hold both.

For contrasting views on this, see EdChoice – Virginia (which advocates for expanded choice) and the Learning Policy Institute (which focuses on equity and accountability in public systems). For a more critical perspective, Brookings has highlighted the risks that choice programs may unintentionally increase inequities—for example, one study of New Orleans found that large-scale choice efforts led to modest increases in school segregation rather than integration (Brookings).

Partisan Divides and Dog Whistles

Participants seated around a conference table discussing hybrid learning and school choice policy during a Mid-Atlantic education conference. — Educators, policymakers, and advocates exchanging perspectives during a hybrid learning policy roundtable at the conference.

At the National Hybrid Schools Project annual conference, these tensions were on full display. In one conversation, participants discussed how the right in Virginia will likely lose ground on school choice after the next election, assuming the left regains power. Some in the room expressed disbelief that, in their words, the left “constantly votes against their own interests” by not supporting school choice candidates. Others acknowledged why: the candidate being discussed carried positions on gun control, LGBTQIA rights, and discrimination that were, to many progressives, simply abhorrent.This is where dog whistles shape the debate. Each side listens for signals that confirm their fears:

On the right, people listen for hints that progressives will use school choice as a way to push DEI mandates or override parental rights.
On the left, people listen for hints that conservatives will use school choice to exclude or erase marginalized youth, or to weaken public education.

One side walks away convinced that supporting school choice is too risky—because it might mean aligning with values or agendas they are diametrically opposed to. And in the end, both sides also walk away convinced that the other isn’t really fighting for children.

Who Loses When We Stall

The result of this stalemate is that school choice becomes economically inaccessible. If only private-pay models thrive, then families who can’t afford tuition are left out. Alternative options—hybrids, microschools, SDE centers—struggle to stay open.

In other words, by the right not engaging in deeper dialogue, they unintentionally reinforce inequity. And by the left rejecting school choice outright because of who tends to champion it, they also contribute to shutting out lower-income families who want something different. Meanwhile, the families who are most vulnerable are stuck with the fewest options.

The Work Beyond the Dog Whistles

If we can get past the partisan signaling, there’s still real work to be done. Both sides—if they can sit at the same table—will need to grapple with questions like:

How do we make school choice accessible to families of all income levels, not just the wealthy?
How can young people themselves be given a real voice in shaping policies and practices that affect them? (See National Youth Rights Association for one example.)
What does accountability look like—to children’s safety and to the community—especially if tax dollars are involved?
How do we ensure that youth who have historically been marginalized—whether by race, ethnicity, income, geography, disability, or gender identity—are included rather than excluded?
What structures will fairly support and sustain the educators who choose to work in these models?
What models of funding and governance will make alternative learning communities sustainable in the long term?

These aren’t easy questions, but they are shared questions. And naming them could be the start of building a coalition that’s honest about the hard trade-offs while still committed to giving families real choices.

Centering Youth

One of the most striking moments at the National Hybrid Schools Project annual conference was when the conversation turned to “parental rights.” Everyone in the room had something to say. But when I raised the idea of “youth rights,” I was met with blank stares—like deer in headlights. Even the libertarians shrugged and said, “Well, kids can’t vote.”

But that’s exactly the point. Young people don’t have the same avenues to advocate for themselves. If adults don’t intentionally bring their voices into the conversation, they will be left out entirely. And then we risk creating yet another system designed by adults, for adults, in the name of children.

Through all of this, one truth keeps me grounded: young people deserve to be at the center of these conversations. Adults will always argue about policy, philosophy, and politics. But in the end, the measure is whether children feel safe, seen, and free to thrive.

For a global frame of reference, see the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which—though not ratified by the U.S.—lays out clear standards for including youth voices.

Why This Matters to Me

For me, this isn’t just theory. Every day, I work with families and young people who are navigating these choices in real time. I’ve seen the relief when a child finally lands in a place where they feel safe and free to be themselves. And I know there are countless other children who are still suffering in silence, because their families don’t even realize they have a choice—or because barriers of cost, access, or politics keep those options out of reach. That’s why flexible, responsive learning opportunities can’t just exist outside the public system. They need to be available alongside, or even within, public schools too.

This isn’t about winning a partisan debate. It’s about making sure every child, no matter their background, has a real chance not just to survive, but to thrive.

Conclusion: A Broad Coalition

When political divides dominate the conversation, children pay the price. But when we model dialogue across differences, when we name the dog whistles and resist them, we can begin to build a broad coalition—rooted in the belief that every child deserves access to learning environments where they feel safe, seen, and supported.

Reimagining School Choice Beyond Politics