Huntsville City Schools Board Member Andrea Alvarez: Public School Funding More Important Than Parental Rights

Huntsville City Schools board member Andrea Alvarez recently scolded local parents who unenrolled their children from her school district in a post on social media and later openly argued against parental rights. “I think before anyone unenrolls their child from public school, they should have to look every other student at that school in the face and say, ‘sorry, but my child deserves more than you do,’” she wrote.

I emailed her, asking for elaboration. In her response, she said that she was talking about school vouchers, which provide state funds to support educational expenses for students who attend private schools or are homeschooled. This is reasonable, since all parents’ tax dollars are contributing to fund public schooling, whether or not they use a public school. In Alabama, this is the Education Savings Account (ESA) program, which offers up to $7,000 per eligible private school student and $2,000 for homeschooled students. For reference, Huntsville City Schools spends over $11,000 per student each year. ESA funding liberates parents to have more flexibility in choosing a source of education for their children and costs the state far less than public schooling.

But Alvarez objects to this flexibility. In her reply, she said it was unfair for parents to choose a school that is more expensive, since not everyone can afford the same privilege. She claimed that “the people who are taking ESAs will leave behind the low-income and disabled students,” and that this could cause us to “lose public school.” “Most parents have options for their children,” she said. “The poor and disabled do not and we need to remember that.”

Of course, she seems to forget that the point of the program in the first place is to allow the less fortunate (for whom she has so much pity) to afford better schools that would otherwise be out of reach. This, at a lower price to the state than public schooling. But that’s not good enough for her. In her eyes, every penny of state funds needs to go to public schools. Alvarez claims, “there is a war on education,” based on “racism, classism” and criticisms of “far left ideology.” She believes programs like ESA to be part of this war.

Alvarez continued, “there has been 2 ideas of thought recently. ‘My tax dollars should follow my child/ AKA parents rights’ and ‘we should properly fund public education.’ The state can’t do both.”

This is a shocking admission. A sitting school board member readily volunteers that her idea of governance cannot coexist with parental rights. She is up for re-election next year, and I hope that parents remember this imprudent little confession in the voting booth.

Alvarez suffers from a delusion common on the left-- that her own notion of the greater good supersedes parental rights. Here is how I responded to her:

***

Thanks for your reply, that helps me understand where you’re coming from.

I think you’re correct that there are two main interests here, but I think we disagree on which should be prioritized. The first interest is the parent’s right to determine the education of their children, in general. This should be obvious. The idea that tax dollars should follow children to facilitate this flows naturally.

The other is the argument that parents must sacrifice a clearly superior education for their children to prioritize the theoretical wellbeing of other people’s kids. That argument is particularly rich in our own state of Alabama, and considering the deeply mediocre status of the local school district (of which you are a board member).

Are you next going to insist that I have an obligation to stop buying Nutella butter, since I should really be splitting that money among all my poor neighbors so we can share funds on Great Value peanut butter? If the needs of other children oblige me to neglect the needs of my own, should I cancel all forthcoming vacations, unless I plan to bring along every child in the school district? After all, to do any different would be to look them in the face and say, “my child deserves more than you.”

The irony of this is that, as far as a parent is concerned, their child does deserve more than any other child. I won’t take other children to soccer practices, feed them three meals a day, bring them on vacation, or buy them a puppy. It has nothing to do with intrinsic worth or value, and everything to do with rightly ordered priorities.

Of course, this argument of shame upon responsible parents is disingenuous anyway. Children unenrolling does not deprive you of money, on net. If their tax dollars go elsewhere, so does the cost of educating them. These line items offset. The main challenge you face is that if people unenroll en masse, your existence may be challenged and could lose funding entirely, since you are the educational equivalent of Great Value peanut butter. That would be a reflection of the poor quality of your services, however, and not of the greed of the parents.

Our children deserve to be educated safely, skillfully, and in a morally good fashion. If HCS can’t facilitate this, then parents have a right and a duty to unenroll. They are not obliged to sacrifice their children to give your floundering district a chance to catch up in rankings. They are not obliged to exchange good opportunities elsewhere for a seat in your classrooms, so that children of a stranger can also receive the same unexceptional tutelage. Fix your school, and people will come. If your school system cannot sustain itself by natural demand for a good education, then it needs to be defunded and replaced.

***

Alvarez never responded.

From: Robertson, Tyler

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025

To: Alvarez, Andrea

Hello Andrea,

I’m writing to ask about your remarks on Facebook recently, in which you said that parents who unenroll their children from public school are behaving as if their own children deserve more than other children at that school.

Would you be willing to elaborate on this? I’m curious about the exact angle you’re taking here. Are you saying it’s the moral obligation of parents to use the public school system? That seems to be the conclusion from what you posted. I’d like to be sure I know what you actually mean.

Thank you!

     Tyler Robertson

From: Alvarez, Andrea

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025

To: Robertson, Tyler

Good morning,

It was an anecdote for school vouchers. The people who are taking ESAs will leave behind the low-income and disabled students. 

There has been 2 ideas of thought recently. “My tax dollars should follow my child/ AKA parents rights” and “we should properly fund public  education”.

The state can’t do both. If we dismantle the federal Dept of Education, public schools will get another cut. 

If the community doesn’t speak up, we will lose public school. The point of the whole thing is that most parents have options for their children. The poor and disabled do not and we need to remember that. 

As you can see, most people preferred to get offended than actually consider the topic. This is because there is a war on education. There have been arguments to its premise (racism, classism,  “far left ideology”, etc), but I’m just happy people are starting to see the divide. I have had a lot of people reach out to me saying “I can’t believe my neighbor just said that” and it’s pretty interesting to see people waking up about this topic.

Thanks,

Andrea