When ALEC and its faithful friends in think tanks and state legislatures promote “choice,” what do they really mean? When the Walton family and their family foundation attack public sector institutions and advocate choice, what do they really want? When they push the Parent Trigger and call it “empowerment,” who do they want to empower?
This reader left a comment in which he sees a strategy and a goal in the laws and policies pushed by ALEC, the Waltons and others intent on privatizing the public sector.
He writes:
“It is a tenet of ALEC that charter schools should be completely unregulated, unsupervised, and unaccountable. The goal is choice, not accountability or results.”
“Diane, I think the real goal is the capture of democratic government by corporations–the institution of corporatism in place of democracy. Everything ALEC wants is actually well regulated–but by and for the corporations, who co-opt government police and tax collection functions to their profit; this is often referred to as “corporatism” as used by the Italian proto-Fascists at the turn of the last century, or corporate nationalism.
“The real goal is corporate power; choice is just a canard.
“From everything we’ve seen “choice” is not the goal of these groups, it’s quite the opposite. The corporatist strategy is to convince the public to abandon traditional government services by offering a false “choice” in favor of their corporate counterparts. The choice is false, because political machinations are used to destroy the funding base for public services and the public’s faith in the ability of government to provide these services in order to drive the public to “choose” the corporatist vision. By undermining the government, corporatists like ALEC can then install their vision by claiming that the public demands a “choice” between the failed “socialist” government and the “competitive, efficient, effective free market”.
“But the reality is not that at all. The reality is a corporate-controlled governmental behemoth that looks and functions much like the old Soviet government, with corrupt corporate and government apparatchiks leeching the vast wealth of the nation while the public suffers without any recourse.”
The concept of “choice” is really control of choices because not every parent or every child gets to choose. Just try rolling a severely retarded multihandicapped child into a charter and see the choice you get. You might not even be able to get up the steps to the building since many are located in churches and churches are notorious for lack of accessibility.
Actually I think this is revenge by the “states’ rightists” that goes back to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s. They lost their right to discriminate in the schools based on race. Now they are taking up segregation again in the mantle of “choice”. This time, even though choice is not as overtly racist, it is even more insidious in that it is classist. Of course in the back of their minds, the lower classes are brown even though there are really more white than black and brown people who are poor. America is supposed to be land of equal opportunity, yet fighting to keep the poor oppressed seems to be the goal. I mean how can you get a class of people to work for minimum wage unless they are already poor and that wage is a boost up?
I agree completely. The pro-corporate movement often sends out the right-wing media cry against “big government”, but is silent on the “big money” buying our government.
Which activities should be undertaken collectively through government and which should be done through a decentralized market system?
This is the fundamental question that needs to be answered. ALEC and its libertarian supporters believe ALL decisions should be market based and government should stay out of the way of everything… I’m not sure that the rest of us have a consensus.
In general I have not found libertarians to be anarchists, but no doubt some come closer than others. Perhaps this group is on the anarchy fringe.
I would expect that there is a broad concensus in society, but things might get messy in the details. When it comes to education, for example, I think there is broad agreement that allowing high school students a range of choices within a building is a good thing, but disagreements about the desirability of society providing a range of choices between buildings unless the student’s family is willing and able to provide for those choices privately.
teachingecon, when the charters are unregulated and run by someone who has no education background there is going to be trouble. The idea that one person can appoint a board, hire unqualified family members, provide little teaching resources and make a profit is despicable. The “choice” is the “choice” to make money. It is a scam. Many things sound great on paper but are often something else in practice-like school “choice”.
But what if charter schools were well regulated? As Dr. Ravitch says, there are a number of very good charter schools out there. Could they not be replicated?
But ALEC and the charters don’t offer a “decentralized market system”; they offer the illusion of one. Instead, they pervert legislation to extract tax revenues using the same government they claim to hate so much. Like a virus taking over a cell for its own use, the corporatists want to use government to increase and perpetuate their profits.
And to answer your original question, just ask Adam Smith; he had a pretty good take on the answer!
I don’t think the discussion should start with any particular organization’s idea about what is best. The groundwork needs to be established first.
I think that trying to distinguish between a student choosing one class from among a set of classes and a student choosing one school from a set of schools is a useful place to start. What would make the former permissible and the later impermissible?
If the latter is a fraud, then it’s impermissible. That’s the point of the thread. We’re not discussing a theoretical world in which classes and schools are supposed to be fungible goods, so we can then beg the question about free markets and choice.
Like most economists, when the ugly truth about the easy corruptibility of the free market raises its head you change the question.
If you assume that the old Soviet government really ran for the benefit of the connected then the last paragraph describes what we have now in our government. It’s not as bad as that yet, but with more and more legislation enacted courtesy of the Kochs and their ilk, it’s getting to that dismal result. Ironic isn’t it?
Diane, the reader is correct – Milton Friedman Economics 101.
When taking all of this into consideration, I simply recall Diane’s post (& I can’t seem to find it–I thought it was January 6th, but it’s not) whereby a Florida psychologist/ guest blogger described his experience at the strip-mall charter “school” (you know, the one between the gun store & the adult video store?). The receptionist was also the school’s registrar & held the title of “counselor” (albeit with no formal training). The “playground” was a small space (w/no equipment) behind the storefront, between
garbage & recycling bins. The kids were on computers (&, I think, that was the best thing he had to say about this charter “school”). T.M.I., teachingeconomist. Most of the readers here KNOW what’s become of the charter “school” movement and, more importantly, the raison d’etre. Just look at Shirley’s comment above.
That you can know that charter school is a bad school from reading a paragraph about it on this blg gives great hope that a proper regulatory environment will be able to ensure high quality charter schools. Inspectors who actually visit the schools should easily be able to identify low quality schools. There may even be some hope that parents who actually visit the school could detect the low quality and not enroll thier children.
Sorry I’m commenting late, te. Personally, I’ve somewhat soured on the word “hope”–too much connection to a best-selling book The Audacity of… by a certain someone we know who, it appears, is tacitly allowing American children to lose their right to a free and appropriate education by selling the same to the highest bidders.
Also, it bears repeating that “wishin’ & hopin’ & thinkin’ & prayin'”
ala Dusty Springfield isn’t going to stop these shyster charter
pushers. I’m not criticizing you or your comment, I’m just saying that I don’t foresee any such “proper regulatory environment.”
That’s just not part of the privatizers’ game (& by privatizers, the “Audacity” author and his government people are included).
Most of the comments here advocate the closing of bad schools. Few would disagree with that, but there would likely be a discussion about what constitutes “bad”. An argument against charter schools, however, must explain why good and great charter schools should be closed and it must leave other nontraditional public schools untouched.
As for the possibility of regulation, I think that getting a regulatory environment that allows charter schools is more likely than getting a regulatory environment that forbids them.
Here’s a link to a column about a difference form of school choice developed by high schools and colleges, working together. In this case, students can take college level courses on their high school campus, up to and including earning an “A.A” degree before they graduate from high school.
A related form of school choice, which is helping to encourage expansion of these high school programs, is allowing high school juniors and seniors to spend part of all of their class time on college campuses, earning credits toward graduation there. State funds follow the students, paying their tuition, books and lab fees.
https://hometownsource.com/2013/03/28/new-high-schoolcollege-collaborations-are-win-win-win/
Some young people strongly prefer to spend all their time on a high school campus. Some prefer to spent part time in high school, part time on the college campus. Some (overall about 5% of juniors and seniors) spend all their time on a college campus.
I can see some value in this, Joe, as I have been interested in articles and discussions (with friends,when our kids were in high school) regarding the question of a continuing need for a full four years of high school for every student.
Thanks for your note, retiredbut miss the kids.
More than 110,000 students have used Minnesota’s Post Secondary Enrollment Options program since 1985. Survey’s we have of participating students find that more than 80% of participating students report that if they had to make a decision, they would again participate. Principals survey by the State legislative Auditor also report that the program also has encouraged greater collaboration between high schools and colleges.
My son was able to take 25 credit hours of classes at our university while still a high school student. If he had not had that opportunity we would have likely tried to send him to a private boarding high school or Bard College at Simon’s Rock.
Glad he (and I hope others in your state) had this opportunity.
There is no formal system in my state, and it is up to the families to pay the university tuition and arrange transportation between schools. On the other hand it is possible to graduate a year early from high school, and some students take advantage of that.
Sorry, teachingeconomist. In Minnesota and some other state, laws allow high school juniors and senoirs to enroll in various colleges and universities, with state funds paying the cost of their tuition, books and lab fees. This law was first adopted in 1985 and has been in place since then.
Last year it was expanded, allowing 10th graders to take a career tech course on a college campus. If they earn a “C”, they may take additional career tech courses in the 2nd semester.
http://hometownsource.com/2012/06/29/new-10th-grade-post-secondary-option-ready-for-use/
The law has consistently been supporter by the PTA, various communities of color, advocates for low income families, members of the business communities, and others (including our Center). It’s been opposed by the state teachers union, school boards, supts and high school principals.
It’s been supported on a bi-partisan basis because it helps many youngsters and has helped encourage many high schools to create new collaborations with colleges, offer more AP and IB, and provide new opportunities for teachers.
http://hometownsource.com/2013/03/28/new-high-schoolcollege-collaborations-are-win-win-win/
Reply to teachingeconomist’s 4/4 8:04 AM comment:
I still must respectfully disagree with you, te, RE: charter regulation. Isn’t going to happen, and EVEN if it did, it would be a front (as well as a chance for ever more people to hire on their buddies & make big bucks while actually doing nothing).
You may be right, but it might be more difficult to get state legislatures to close all charter schools than it would be to get state legislatures to do a better job regulating charter schools.
Many states have extensive regulations for charter public schools. For those interested, more detail are available here: http://www.publiccharters.org/law/
Even with regulations, sometimes people break the law/mismanage money (like some teacher union officials – please note that I said SOME). For example, the NEA had to take over the Indiana State Teachers Association.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130327/BUSINESS/303270085/Judge-rejects-Indiana-teachers-union-request-dismiss-case?nclick_check=1
Then there was the Broward County (Florida) Teachers Federation of Teachers audit by the AFT, which according to the Miami Herald left to the president’s resignation and charges of more than $300,000 in theft by the President of union member funds.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/14/2896054/broward-teachers-union-faces-long.html
We could go on and on. There are some great unions, some great people in unions, and some charlatans. The same can be said for district & for charter public schools.