Imagine being a child from a poor neighborhood. Imagine having to go to the school in your zip code, which, of course, is also in a poor neighborhood. Imagine knowing that in your educational future, you have no choice, no say and no options. Now imagine that you suddenly could choose your school instead of your zip code choosing for you. The school choice movement gives parents and students these options.

While 59 school choice programs now operate in 28 states and the District of Columbia, nearly 90% of U.S. children still attend public schools, most of which are assigned based on the antiquated zip code model. Based upon the understanding that parents, not the government, know the best place for their children to thrive, the “school choice” movement seeks to empower parents and students to obtain the best education to fit their particular needs. School choice includes a variety of options from vouchers, to Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs), tax credit scholarships, charter schools (independently run, publicly funded schools), homeschooling and others. The concept not only empowers parents and students, but applies the market principles of competition and innovation to the education sector.

Market principles already exist within the private school sector. Dallas boasts of great private schools spanning from religious and non-religious, Catholic, Jewish, Montessori, international schools and college-prep. Each option, like a product, has distinctive features: uniforms, no uniforms, great sports teams, no sports teams, all-girls, all-boys, and co-ed. There are schools for children with learning disabilities, schools that use classic texts and schools that don’t. Parents investigate graduation rates, teacher-student ratios and whether the school has a strong arts or athletic program. Competition continues to incentivize schools to fit their educational niche. In addition to being a school, these institutions are businesses that need to please their customers (parents) and submit to a governing board. Schools therefore fire bad teachers and administrators. Over the years, some private schools do well while some go out of business.

No such dynamic exists in the public school system because, as a government-run monopoly, they have no competitors, and therefore no incentive for innovation. Sure they boast of new “programs” that require massive tax-payer funding, but no incentive exists to make sure students really achieve. Most parents, however, can’t afford to stop “buying” the bad public education product. But hey, at least public schools don’t “go out of business,” right? Thomas J. DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola University in Maryland and author of “The Problem with Socialism,” states, “As with all monopolies, the convenience of the administrators and employees comes before the needs of the customers, because the customers will always be there. They have no choice.”

Moving to a new home may be the only real “choice” available to many parents. Some argue that public schools in wealthy neighborhoods are better because they have more money. Di Lorenzo, however, observes that public schools in wealthy neighborhoods are better because they have to compete with private schools. Yet often only the wealthy can afford to pay both the school property tax and private school tuition. In a way, this renders the zip code-driven public school model as elitist because it remains the only option for low-income residents.

Why, then, do those who claim to be for giving the poor a chance end up being the same ones who oppose giving the poor a choice? In reality, the issue has less to do with children than it does with self-interest. If parents have a choice and failing schools close, teachers and administrators fear losing their jobs. Take a look at the numbers: From 1970-2015 the number of students in public schools increased just 9%. Yet over the same time period, public school employees increased 83% (non-teaching, administrative staff increased 113% and teaching staff increased 52%). Teachers now make up only half of all public school employees. Bloated bureaucracy makes up the rest.

While school choice should be a bi-partisan effort to help children receive a good education, Democrat politicians routinely oppose the issue. Why? Follow the money. Rhonda Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), one of the nation’s largest teachers unions, makes $497,118 per year. Additionally, the AFT’s 2016 political donations exceeded $45 million in federal donations to Democrats. Evidently, teachers unions have a codependent relationship with the Democrat Party — the teachers need their jobs and the Democrats need the money. Democrats protect the teachers, while teachers give Democrats cash. And the students? Not in the equation.

School choice puts students first, not educational bureaucrats or politicians. If we want an America filled with opportunity for children, we need to stop allowing the government monopoly of public education to enable the codependent relationship between teachers unions and the Democrat Party. Restoring market principles and competition to education will make all schools, even public schools, better. We need to restore market principles to education and give parents, not education bureaucrats, the government or union bosses, a choice in their child’s education.