Linda Lyon, a retired Air Force colonel and president of the Arizona School Boards Association, responds to a reader who supports school choice, charters, vouchers, and home schooling.
She writes:
”Yes Charles, you are correct that the military industrial complex does provide a valuable service to our military mission. There are many functions that are not a core competency of the military (such as building airplanes) that have made sense to be outsourced. But, outsourcing the defense of our nation is not one of those functions. Where we’ve done that, as with Blackwater, it has not ended well.
“Of course education is “built” on a mix of public and private. After all, our public district schools don’t publish their own textbooks, or build their own buses or computers. But, as with the military, the core mission of our districts — to educate ALL our children, should not be outsourced. I maintain this function, to ensure it remains a common good, should not be privatized.
“I believe you intimate that when private schools siphon funding away from our district schools, it doesn’t matter because the student (and presumably the cost to educate them) goes with them. Unfortunately, all the costs don’t follow. Research shows that about 19% of the fixed costs (utilities, facility maintenance, administration, teachers, etc.) remain.
“Ultimately, your “tell” about your perspective is that you used the term “government run schools.” This tells me that you believe government is the problem and that privatizing our schools is the answer to reducing the size of our government. I believe our public district schools, are critical to the good functioning of our democratic Republic in that they are the only schools that truly take all comers, are totally transparent and accountable, and represent their communities through locally elected governing boards. I believe that anyone’s right to “choose” where they send their child to school, should not be more important than my right to know how my tax dollars should be spent and what the return on investment is. I believe in REAL fiscal responsibility…that we get what we pay for.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
She’s super. Outstanding response. Respectful and thoughtful. The disrespect from Ed Reformers is so frustrating.
LikeLike
Hear, hear! Great response and it sums up well how important public schools are to maintaining our democracy and its role in offering a space for all children no matter their background, ethnicity, disability or whatever. The folks who favor “choice” in education are really supporting the wealthy, the elite, who think anything funded and organized by government is “socialistic” and even “communistic.” Keep fighting to counter the Kochs, the Mercers, the Singers (billionaires all) and let’s not forget the Walton Family as well.
LikeLike
Well Said!!!
“. I believe our public district schools, are critical to the good functioning of our democratic Republic in that they are the only schools that truly take all comers, are totally transparent and accountable, and represent their communities through locally elected governing boards. I believe that anyone’s right to “choose” where they send their child to school, should not be more important than my right to know how my tax dollars should be spent and what the return on investment is. I believe in REAL fiscal responsibility…that we get what we pay for.”
Yes!
LikeLike
It;s just sort of horrifying when you read on the ed reform side and see how blithely the “money follows the child” is bandied about as a cure-all for all the problems with privatization.
They are not thinking this thru AT ALL. Ask one of them for a figure on “the money” that is “following the child”. Ask them for specifics on how that works. Which “money” covers transporation, a huge expense for public schools? Which money covers special education? That cost is now spread over all public school students. What happens when it’s fragmented and put solely on each special ed student?
They also use the college and university system to sell privatization of K-12 ed, but ordinary people think the college and university system is 1. wildly inequitable and 2. all but unaffordable. They’re right.
If they’re designing privatized K-12 systems like colleges and universities we’re in huge trouble. Young people are staggering around like over-burdened mules with student loan debt in our fabulous “college and university system”. Is that the gift they want to give K-12 students? No thanks.
LikeLike
Lyon truly understands the role of public education in our country. We don’t need a less efficient or effective system of parallel schools that will weaken our public schools. Many charter schools are a “one size fits all” option, not public schools. Public systems offer many more and often far better choices, depending on students’ needs, than charters . Most privatizers are attacking public schools so they can gain access to public funds. Public education is a public asset that is also an example of democracy in action. A good public system enhances the value of any community. Sending local tax dollars to corporations is a disinvestment in one’s own community. So-called choice creates more problems than it solves, and privatization has taught us this.
LikeLike
Beautiful response to you know who, Mr. Libertarian. Those libertarians hate “government run schools” but would have no problem with Walmart run schools and all that implies. Public schools are run by duly elected school boards; they are not always perfect, sometimes they can be a collection of knuckle heads but they don’t have a lifetime appointment and can be replaced in subsequent elections.
LikeLike
On the “fiscal responsibility” side if you live in a state that is captured by ed reformers you’ll notice they stop talking about how wildly efficient charter schools are once they make the sale.
The public were told in Ohio that charters would not just be BETTER but they would be CHEAPER because…magic of competition, hocus pocus, mumble mumble.
They’re not “better” and they’re not “cheaper” either. In fact, Ohio lawmakers spend a good chunk of every session finding ways to increase charter funding, while cutting public school funding. This is in a state where charter TEACHERS are paid measurably less than public school teachers, so the idea the money would “go into the classroom” was nonsense too. I don’t know where the charter money goes but it doesn’t go to teacher salaries. If it did they wouldn’t be paid less than public school teachers.
They struck out on just about every promise. It doesn’t matter though, because they just move the goalposts. Now it’s not “better” or “cheaper” it’s “choice!”
LikeLike
Most charters skimp on teachers’ salaries, but they pay big dollars to administrators. Many charters with low student enrollment have a bloated administration compared to public schools.
LikeLike
Well said, but these things have been explained to Charles before ad nauseum. Wasted typing.
LikeLike
Sounds like Charles has been “schooled”! His lack of response is deafening.
LikeLike
Linda Lyon. Thank you for the clear response to Charles and to like-minded defenders of privatized education. Those who say choice allows “money to follow the child” are engaged in spreading fake news. Even so, some fans of market-based education want to pro-rate the per-pupil costs of education, including what may be regarded as “overhead” (e.g., facilities, debt, benefits, central administrative costs). These economic exercises are often performed in belief tanks where scholars are assembled to make the case for “choice” and voucher-like schemes along with creating no-frills education programs, especially for public schools. Here is an example.
In 2009, Marguerite Roza is senior scholar at the Center on Reinventing Public Education and a research associate professor at the University of Washington College of Education published a study titled: Breaking Down School Budgets: Following the Dollars into the Classroom. The study is not peer reviewed. It is designed to show where school districts might save money, by several means, including altering class sizes, and teacher salaries.
Roza’s study compared the proportionate per-pupil per costs of teachers and teacher aides, with breakouts for: (a) subject matter, e.g., math vs. foreign language; (b) types of courses e.g., core courses vs. electives; (c) students served e.g., remedial vs. honors; (d) grade levels—9th vs. 12th; and (e) district size and region of the nation. The sample of districts was small. Some of the results were counterintuitive, but the reports from CRPE are more about pushing an agenda than offering solid evidence.
According to Rosa, in all three districts, the average salary of teachers who teach electives was meaningfully higher than teachers of core course teachers. In addition, teachers of AP and International Baccalaureate courses earned much more and had smaller courses than teachers of mid-level or low-level core courses. The data to support these conclusions is not disclosed; but Rosa cites a 1999 study that absolutely contradicts her statements. Here is the study, see page 25 and following https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/199916.pdf
The point of Roza’s study is to argue for “better outcomes at lower cost” as the best policy. That position that is common among reformers who have no desire to increase budgets for schools. Rosa argues for redesigning schools so they offer efficient and effective uses of resources for high-priority services—core courses—and cutting costs for low priority services—non-core courses, electives, including the arts and foreign languages.
Among other recommendations are these:
–pay higher salaries to teachers of remedial courses in core subjects;
–increase the class sizes for teachers at the top of a salary scale;
–increase the number of classes for teachers at the top of the salary scale;
—offer fewer high cost electives identified AP, IB, foreign languages, music and art.
–reduce course options for limited populations such as talented students and those enrolled in special education,
–lengthen the duration of core courses (e.g., double blocks),
–shorten the duration of non-core courses and increasing those class sizes;
–schedule non-core courses for two or three days a week,
–reduce the number of noncore/elective courses available, or
–limit the number of electives that a single student may take.
Roza ends her report with an expression of hope that schools will enter the “market economy” where the cost of a service or product is determined by what sellers and buyers agree to (p. 6).
This study is just one of many others promoting cost-per-pupil analysis of education in tandem with “unbundling education services.” During the Obama Administration an effort was made to enlist teachers in promoting similar initiatives, proposed by McKinsey & Co in 2010 but repackaged as the RESPECT program “Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching.”
The record of the early history of that effort has vanished, except for this “make nice while we de-professionalize teaching” version, published in 2012. https://www.ed.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/RESPECT_Program.pdf
Rosa’s not-peer-reviewed study with some graphs and charts is here. http://educationnext.org/breaking-down-school-budgets-2/
Again thank you for this post and taking on leadership roles in two of our most important institutions.
LikeLike
One word: Bravo.
LikeLike
Your response, Charles, or do you need a few days until you figure it is safe to repeat all of your previous talking points?
LikeLike
The term “government-run” is inflammatory and designed to indicate waste and incompetence thanks to decades of propaganda churned out by the likes of ALEC and mentally ill idiots like Steven Bannon and the lying, conspiracy theory generating Alt-Right media machine funded by theocratic and/or autocratic, fascist/racist obsessed billionaires like Betsy Devos and Robert Mercer.
The correct term is “community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit, traditional public schools” that are held accountable through democratic legislation at the state level instead one individual that does not answer to anyone but the major shareholders of the corporation he or she is the CEO of.
Corporations are not democratic institutions.
Public schools are democratic institutions that start at the community level just like democratic teachers unions. Local school districts represent democracy from the ground up. NCLB and all the other crap out of DC that followed switched that formula to the top down while crushing all democratic resistance at the bottom.
How many local, communities based public school districts still elect their school boards — there are more than 13,000 of them left and they are in decline?
In 1939-40 there were more than 117,000 public school districts, while private schools have gone from 18,374 in 1961-62 to more than 30,000 in 2010-2011
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_098.asp
LikeLike
You make some interesting points. Comparisons of education to the military are imprecise, and can be misleading. Diane always gets upset, when I quote Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli.
Our nation has a Defense Department, and the responsibility to provide for the common defense, rests with the government. The Defense department could not function, without the private sector.
I believe sincerely, that children can be educated in a diversity of environments. Rich, liberal elites, often put their own children in exclusive private schools. People who can afford it, often do not wish to hand over their children to government-publicly-operated schools. Strange how people like former senator Al Franken, fight for publicly-operated schools, and then do not send their own children to them. This is why I have pushed for a “slumlord” law, to force all politicians who claim to champion public schools, send their own children to the schools that they claim to love so much.
When a family chooses to opt-out of publicly-operated schools, and exercise choice, (and receive a voucher), the funds that would have been disbursed in the public school, are then disbursed in the alternate school. The student is “siphoned off” as well.
Of course, there are “sunk costs”. It costs the same to heat a classroom with 21 students, as it does to heat a classroom with 20 students. But as the school population decreases, the number of teachers, administrators, staff, etc. will also have to decrease. The same phenomenon occurs when a student’s family moves across the state, or across the nation. Fixed costs are irrelevant in the long run. In a choice environment, schools that do not “cut the mustard” will have to down-size. The smaller, more efficient public schools will likely improve, now that students who do not wish to be there, are gone.
When digital photography killed off Kodak, and Rochester NY lost population, the school system downsized. No one suggested keeping empty schools open, and paying teachers that had no students. School choice merely accelerates the dynamic.
I often use the term “government-run schools”. This is exactly what they are. If you find this term disparaging, then fine. I do not necessarily believe that government is the problem. Permitting parents the ability to “opt-out” of publicly-operated schools, and enroll their children in alternate schools, will not reduce the size of government. Government still has to issue the voucher to the family. The costs of government-provided education will not diminish. Only the location of the expenditure changes.
School choice may even increase the amount that this nation spends on education. When parents are given choices, and see the improvements in non-public schools, and the public schools feel the spur of competition, education is certainly going to improve. Citizens may be inclined to increase public expenditures on education, when they have more control over the expenditures.
In fact, in Arizona. the ESA is equivalent to 90% of the per-pupil expenditure, currently in the publicly-operated school. The state retains the 10%, and provides no educational services to the families which exercise choice.
I still cannot fathom the connection between publicly-operated schools and our democratic republic. Many(not all) of our government leaders were privately educated. Many (not all) of our government leaders, send their children to non-public schools, while mouthing support for publicly-operated schools.
Non-public schools do not have to accept all applicants. West Point is a publicly-operated institution, and accepts only about one applicant in a thousand.
Non-public schools can be held accountable, as well. Legislation can be enacted, whereby school vouchers can only be redeemed at schools which meet accreditation by an independent accrediting agency.
Government regulates many aspects of our lives. There is no reason to believe that school choice will result in non-public schools running amok, and failing to deliver quality education to their students. Legislation can be enacted to ensure accountability, and transparency. Such is the case at the vocational/technical school level, and at the university level. It can be accomplished at the K-12 level, as well.
LikeLike
Charles,
I don’t care whom you quote. I do care that you never listen to what anyone else says or admit you are wrong. You repeat the same talking points over and over, ad nauseum. At one point I deleted comments when you repeated yourself but gave it up because you always repeat yourself. I got tired of trying to correct you because you don’t listen.
LikeLike
Charles,
You are uninformed. That is the kindest thing I can say.
LikeLike
Government run schools versus corporate run schools?
Charles would call the US Army that “Government run army” to distinguish it from the mercenary corporations he no doubt thinks would do a much better job.
LikeLike
I would love some feedback or advise from readers here. What should we as parents do to support our local schools when they are not doing well? Not failing – I despise characterizing a school as failing because it is not an accurate relfection; however, I am saddened and frustrated that district policies have lowered student achievement.
For example, they stopped offering geometry at the MS in 2016 after the district argued access wasn’t equitable. Instead of allowing ALL students access to high achievement, they removed the option. Why?!? I have also witnessed, as a volunteer, classroom behavior that disrupted the learning environment. Our district changed suspension policies in 2014 and the result as been, from our experience, detrimental to learning.
Our rural district does have two expensive private schools close by. Parents in the community who want “college prep” and can afford it pass over our public schools already. The stigma is tangible. We see a loss of over 1/4 of the public junior/senior class to the local community college (Running Start is state-funded college for 16-18 year olds).
What can we parents do when our kids in public school aren’t accessing “college prep” coursework, aren’t challenged, and must face noisy disruptive environments? Do we move? Do we give up and homeschool? Do we pay for tutors on our own? Do we become part of the cycle when we give up and send our own kids to the “better” private school? I ask because I have met families here that have made every one of these choices. And yet the larger community problem persists.
LikeLike
Anna,
I would start by running for the school board.
LikeLike
Noisy and disruptive environments are often cited as problems, but most schools that are adequately funded select children who need a quieter environment and study more for programs that often give them more than the private schools. Flight into private schools might be couched in terms of a desire for better preparation, but often the underlying reason is status or prejudice.
LikeLike
Anna
I am one of those parents sending my 2nd child to a private high school next year. I feel your pain. My older daughter will remain in public school because most of the reforms have been greater for my son because he is 2 yrs younger. I abhor common core, I despise the testing madness (and I opt them out when I can), I don’t like the NGSS, the obssessive ed tech, and I don’t want my children pushed into the AP for all madness. In our district, if a kid doesn’t take AP, they sit in a classroom and rot….I know because my daughter is in exactly this situation right now and this is where all the bad behavior occurs. We chose a private school that is not common core aligned, no state mandated testing, no NGSS and they emphasize the arts, music and sports and they actually deemphasize AP classes. I wish that we didn’t have to pay the price for this private school, but I must protect my child and offer him a chance to really learn (teaching to the test is big where I live). I am very pro public education, but I don’t like the reforms that have occurred over the past 5-10 years. There is no easy answer for any of this.
LikeLike
You state that there is no easy answer. Part of the answer is for the public education system to permit parents to withdraw their children from the dysfunctional schools! And then get a rebate on the taxes that are going to the dysfunctional system.
LikeLike
Nonsense, as usual.
LikeLike
Anna, Government-run-publicly-operated schools have a “take it or leave it, but we still get your money” attitude. Publicly-operated schools have no reason to take direction from the public, because they will have a monopoly. You are not the only parent, whose children are trapped in a school, and you have no alternative.
Publicly-operated schools operate on a “one-size-fits-all” mentality. If a class like geometry is not “equitable”, the school just drops it. Students who are academically-challenged, as well as the gifted/talented lose out in publicly-operated schools, all over this nation.
You ask a number of questions in your final paragraph. Parents who face the problems listed, have a limited number of choices.
-move
-home-school
-continue to pay taxes to a school system that does not meet their needs, and scrimp to pay for an alternate school
-pay for private tutors
Can you not see, that the solution to the problem that you face, is to demand that your state/municipality institute a school choice program? Your publicly-operated school is obviously not delivering educational services to your children, which you feel they deserve.
You should be able to withdraw your children from the noisy,disruptive environment, and get a rebate (or at least a partial rebate) on the taxes you pay for the dysfunctional school. You would then be able to exercise the choices your children deserve.
Obviously, the wealthier families in your area, have withdrawn their children, and are sending them to the private schools you mention. What incentive do the wealthy families have to insist on quality public schools? If a school bond issue, comes up or an increase in school taxes, will the wealthy parents vote for it? (not likely)
LikeLike
More nonsense.
LikeLike
Excellent, Linda, and thank you.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Restore Reason and commented:
If you want to advocate for privatization of our public schools, how’s about you look at how it benefits ALL American children vs. just disparaging the “government-run” schools!
LikeLike