Philadelphia schools recently adopted a new multimillion-dollar curriculum — and district teachers sound mad as hell about it.

The School District of Philadelphia recently rolled out its $25 million English Language Arts (ELA) program for the 2024–25 school year. According to a recent article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, teachers have mixed reviews.

Some teachers call it “a wonderful program” and “rigorous and evidence-based.” One teacher claims his students have advanced faster than years before.

However, several others — many remaining anonymous for fear of reprisal — express either skepticism or opposition. One calls the new curriculum “a burden.” Another veteran teacher navigates around its inaccuracies.

“I have to tell the kids, ‘Cross that out, the definition is wrong,’” cites the Inquirer.

Just to be clear, these educators admit this program works for some but not others.

If teachers feel this way, how do you think the students feel?

And this problem goes beyond curricula. Education is multifaceted, developing students’ values, character, and creativity and cultivating their intellectual curiosity, emotional stability, social awareness, and problem-solving abilities.

Mandating a one-size-fits-all system is a fool’s errand.

Moreover, limiting educational choice also limits academic achievement. The numbers say it all. Barely one-third of Philadelphia students can read at grade level. Meanwhile, the Trial Urban District Assessment ranks Philadelphia schools in the bottom third of 26 big-city school districts nationwide.

Some leaders are quick to blame the pandemic. Yet, Philadelphia schools weren’t doing much better before Covid-19.

If we keep doing what we’re doing, we can expect more of the same results, meaning bridging these achievement gaps won’t likely happen in the foreseeable future. In the words of Philadelphia Superintendent Tony Watlington, “We’ve got a long way to go.”

What should Philadelphia students and teachers do in the meantime?

Cristina Gutierrez, a dual-language kindergarten teacher in Philadelphia, says she might vote with her feet.

“If I could find something else doing whatever that pays me the same, I would leave.”

Gutierrez claims she isn’t alone, suggesting the new ELA curriculum will lead to “an amazing exodus of teachers.”

Even the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT) worries that this program will push teachers out of the district.

“A number of veteran teachers say it’s difficult—folks have worked there for years, and they’re saying they’re frustrated and talking about leaving,” according to Arthur Steinberg, PFT’s president.

But leaving is easier said than done if you’re a student. Unlike teachers who can quit and find work elsewhere, students and families have nowhere to go. Simply put, they are stuck.

And while educational leaders develop decades-long strategies, these kids don’t have years to catch up, especially considering how far behind they are now.

This is precisely why we need educational choice. When families seek out the best education for their kids, they need a multitude of schools and settings to choose from.

Pennsylvania students and families are eager for new educational opportunities not offered in their neighborhoods. If money wasn’t a concern, only one in five Pennsylvania parents would send their children to their local district school.

But increased choice also necessitates increased resources. The biggest hurdle to a better education typically boils down to cost. Low-income families can afford neither the cost of living in the communities that house the blue-ribbon public schools nor the tuition at nearby private schools.

To level that playing field, students and families, especially those in low-income households, need scholarships, educational savings accounts, and tax credits to escape their underperforming neighborhood schools.

We can achieve educational choice by expanding current programs, like the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) programs. Recent research demonstrates these programs support more than 77,000 students, many living in low- and middle-income families, in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. Furthermore, EITC- and OSTC-awarded students academically outperform their public school counterparts.

But these programs alone aren’t enough. More than 200,000 students attend Pennsylvania’s lowest-performing schools—the bottom fifteen percent based on statewide testing.

Legislating new programs, such as Lifeline Scholarships, and enacting open enrollment so students can attend schools outside their zip code would fill those gaps.

If educators demand increased choice, it only makes sense that we provide the same to the students, too.

David P. Hardy is president of Girard College and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Commonwealth Foundation.