Leadership Quote by John Engler

The line blends two commitments: an expansive view of what counts as a public school and a market-style belief that more providers and more parental choice will improve outcomes. It argues against caps on creating new public schools, a stance closely tied to the charter school movement that accelerated in the 1990s. As governor of Michigan, John Engler championed charter authorizing and interdistrict choice and reworked school finance so money followed students. Removing limits was central to the theory of change: if parents can pick among many public options, schools must compete for enrollment, and competition will spur quality, innovation, and responsiveness to family needs. The framing positions parents as the primary accountability mechanism and sees diverse schooling models as a strength rather than a threat to the public system.

Context matters. Michigan became an early charter state, and major finance reform in 1994 weakened the tie between local property wealth and school funding, making choice feasible statewide. Engler’s words echo a broader 1990s consensus that charter schools could be public, nonselective, and mission-driven while escaping bureaucratic constraints. Yet the insistence on no limits also surfaces familiar tensions. Rapid growth can produce uneven quality, fragmented oversight, duplicated services, and transportation burdens, especially in cities where many schools compete in the same neighborhoods. Because dollars follow students, new schools can destabilize traditional districts without a plan for capacity or equity, and families face a complex marketplace where information and access are not evenly distributed. Supporters counter that limits primarily protect incumbents, that specialization helps children with distinct needs, and that new public schools can be laboratories for practices that spread systemwide.

The statement ultimately recasts public education as a plural system rather than a single district monopoly. It challenges gatekeeping by boards and unions and shifts power to families. Whether that promise delivers depends less on the absence of caps than on the presence of rigorous oversight, fair enrollment rules, and thoughtful planning that keeps public purpose at the center of public choice.