The Friedman Foundation, named for free-market economist Milton Friedman and his wife Rose, is the nation’s most fervent advocate of vouchers.
It commissioned a national poll to ascertain the depth of support for vouchers, and much to its surprise (and, no doubt, embarrassment), the public prefers smaller class sizes far more than vouchers.
Furthermore, the least favored option among those presented in the poll was vouchers for low-income families. To the extent that the public favors vouchers, it is for everyone, not just for the poor.
The public’s least favorite way to “reform” school was longer school days, according to this poll.
But the big problem for the Friedman Foundation is that the public prefers to improve public schools by reducing class sizes, not by adopting vouchers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Here’s my prediction. They’ll direct more money to funding research that attempts to show that there is no correlation between class size and quality of education. That’s how they work. There is someone ready to take up the cause if the price is right.
Well, actually there is no correlation between class size and quality of education except in the early elementary grades with low-income kids.
Interesting, Bill F.
Are you positioning your generalization as some sort of fact? If so, we’d like to see your source(s). Do you have any?
Also, you might want to pass your information on to those “dolts” in the Ruling Class, almost all of whom send their own kids to elite private academies that proudly emphasize classes of 18 or less for all students.
Those “bozos” at Exeter, Dalton, Sidwell Friends and The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools must really be mental midgets. It’s incredible that they’re ALL wrong—all of them!—for believing something so obviously idiotic as smaller class sizes being better for students, all the way from Pre K to 12 grade.
It’s amazing that we Americans even know how to put on our clothes every morning, given how universally “bad” our public schools supposedly are AND, now we find out that even the administrators and parents of students at “the best” schools in our country are also utterly clueless when it comes to what is best for the education of our young people.
Glad that guys like you are around to “set us straight”.
So, what class size do you advocate? And why do you choose that number?
Citations?
I’d love to see that peer reviewed research.
Bill F.: “Well, actually there is no correlation between class size and quality of education except in the early elementary grades with low-income kids.”
It depends on how you define quality of education. If you want to define it by standardized test scores, then what is not being tested for?
For instance, I like to think that education should help students learn how to engage in civic dialogue in a classroom. But when class sizes are increased, it is harder for individual students to have time to speak in front of others and to engage in classroom discussion. The ability to articulate oneself in front of a larger group isn’t really tested for on standardized tests, unless I’m missing something.
Bill F.: I think the narrative about class size and quality of education has been distorted so as to make school districts feel more comfortable about increasing class sizes.
If Friedmanites are worried about how any of their ideas poll with the public, they’d best be prepared to be embarrassed often. That’s why their policies have universally been applied through “Shock Therapy”/Disaster Capitalism.
For a great expose of the impact of “Shock Therapy”/Disaster Capitalism”, I recommend Naomi Klein’s, The Shock Doctrine
“In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world– through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.”
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
And when there aren’t any suitable “targets” overseas, one has but to look around at home for a crisis to create / exploit – education as the next theater for “shock and awe(ful)”!
Yes, should be required reading – even ahead of (sorry, Diane) REIGN OF ERROR. In fact, I’m not sure REIGN can be fully understood without understanding the place and purpose of education “reform” within the context of THE SHOCK DOCTRINE.
BTW, Diane, it’s a pretty big leap to think that any Friedmanites are capable of embarrassment. The number of deaths and destroyed they are directly and indirectly responsible for rivals (if not trounces) Stalin.
I’ll bet Eric Cantor would support them, at least according to this post in education week.
Cantor Hits Critics of Expanding School Choice
“Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the House Majority Leader, used a high-profile speech on education to draw attention to what he sees as a concerted effort to tamp down school choice in education overhaul hotspots, including Louisiana, New York City, and Washington, D.C.
“School choice is under attack in the very places that top this year’s rankings,” Cantor said. “It is up to us in this room, and our allies across the nation, to work for and fight for the families and students who will suffer the consequences if school choice is taken away.”
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2014/01/cantor_hits_critics_of_expandi.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2
Somebody must be doing something to have gotten his attention . . .
They finally got around to “filling his glass”, you know with coolade, right!!
Choice. Not voice. Who gets to choose? And what are the choices?
Ok. Let’s go with an idea that the owner of this blog has put forward: every parent with a school-age child should have the choice of a local, well-resourced [in every sense of the word], quality public school. Let charters and vouchers compete with that. A fair competition.
Or you can put charterites/privatizers in charge of public schools, starving and strangling and mismanaging them while throwing increasing support [in every sense of the word] behind charters and vouchers. A rigged competition.
And the bottom line is: the latter garners immense $tudent $ucce$$ for a few select adults. Makes ₵ent¢. Sadly [?], the former is only guaranteed to give the best chance possible for a “better education for all.” An obvious non-starter among $triver$.
Or maybe I’m just not enough of a cage busting achievement gap crushing twenty first century innovator to grasp the advantages of replacing public education [with all its faults and needs for genuine change] for the vast majority with an openly rigid two-tiered education system—Harpeth Halls and Cranbrooks for the meritorious few, McSchools for the unworthy many.
I’m not hearing a lot of cheering…
😎
Well, kudos to them for publishing their findings. Douglas County School District, in CO, did a survey of parents. When they did not get favorable responses they invalidated the findings. We had to go to the survey company and purchase the findings ourselves. Usually with these groups, if it doesn’t turn out the way we want, we never asked the question.
And yet they all won reelection.
I think a subtle point that is missed with the voucher issue is that good quality neighborhood schools anchor and stabilize a better quality community. Everyone wants to live in a good community. Many families already make their school choice when they decide where to live. The way that vouchers are pushed forces many families to admit that their neighborhood is possibly inferior, or maybe they made a wrong choice.
For lower income families who have less choice about where they’d like to live, they might appreciate those school vouchers, but it probably means a prohibitively long/expensive commute to the choice school. What that lower income family would really appreciate is a housing voucher to move to closer to their preferred school.
Why not a housing voucher program to choose where you want to live? Would Milton Friedman approve?
I think I’ll have to steal this. Excellent point.
…and I’d just add that lower income families want more than just good schools. They want safe neighborhoods, too.
Did you know that there ALREADY is a federal program called Section 8 that hands out about $17 billion a year in housing vouchers for poor people?
I’m surprised that none of the anti-school-choice folks have complained about such a dangerous voucher program.
Great! Is there Section 8 housing in Palo Alto? Or Carmel? or Woodside? or Beverly Hills? I hear good things about those communities and I’d like to live there. Can you explain how I could optimize my choices through existing programs?
I do not know for sure, but I do agree with your point that voucher programs need to be better funded and more widespread.
And since you mention Section 8 housing vouchers, I point out that we also give out food vouchers (SNAP) because kids shouldn’t go hungry, but those vouchers are insufficient and hard to qualify for. And in the closest grocery stores in a lot of poorer neighborhoods, fresh fruits and vegetables are harder to come by more expensive that Twinkies. For such families, transportation starts to get expensive to get to a good grocery store.
We should give more generous food vouchers because all parents should have the freedom to choose healthy foods for their kids.
But maybe once again, housing vouchers would be better so that families could have good grocery stores nearby (hopefully with reasonably-priced produce).
Is this the line of thinking that Milton Friedman had when he proposed school vouchers?
Pretty much, and I’m glad you are such a supporter of giving people more money to choose better options for themselves.
When you don’t believe in a public sector simply because it is public, facts simply won’t stop the movement to force a crackpot ideology down the throats of the masses.
BTW, Section 8 “vouchers” aren’t the same as public school vouchers. Furthermore, you have income limits that qualify you to receive them. Vouchers were Milton Friedman’s scheme to circumvent Brown v. Board of Education and continue the racist, segregationist school system we had in the U.S. pre-Brown.
susannues —
You are quite right that Section 8 vouchers and school vouchers are not the same thing. One involves giving people money with which they can go to a different school, and the other involves giving people money with which they can move to a different neighborhood AND school.
The most startling difference is how complacent voucher opponents are about housing vouchers. In many cases, of course, they are (or were) blissfully unaware of the existence of housing vouchers. But once they do become aware, the failure to oppose housing vouchers is completely inexplicable. After all, if it’s a bad idea to let some of the more motivated poor people escape their neighborhood public school, how much worse can it be to allow them to escape both the school and the neighborhood altogether?
Excellent. Wait until I tell my destitute cousins about this. They’re in a poor part of New Jersey. They’ll be interested in “Free Housing” in either Millburn, Ridgewood or Short Hills.
Glad you let us know it’s available.
Also, my struggling uncle and his daughter will be very happy to know about this too. They’re in East Los Angeles and I’ll let them know that they can get free housing in Bel Air, Malibu or Beverly Hills.
When can they get it to their new houses, courtesy of the billions available through this “housing program” you’re advocating?
I can’t tell if you’re trying to be sarcastic here, but if your point is that vouchers need to be better funded and more widely available, I agree with you.
That said, most of the other commenters wouldn’t agree, as they don’t seem to believe in giving poor people money if it might be used for anything other than the specific buildings that the government designates for poor people.
There is a long waiting list to even attempt to qualify for section 8. And to keep it requires a lot of frequent paperwork. And it isn’t all free. The tenant has to contribute a certain amount determined by their income. However, although it does sometimes allow families to move to more desirable locations, most of the housing remains in the inner city. And many landlords are reluctant to rent to section eight since they are not always the best tenants and have been known to destroy the places they lease.
People, actually section 8 vouchers are very much in the vein of school vouchers. They were pushed by the very same sorts of people– can’t have public housing, you know. First, starve the public institution, then give poor folks a “choice” with section 8 vouchers– public money to private landlords. Does this sound familiar????
I come in contact with several young men, through work relationships and civic affairs. More than one male is black, who has not has been imprisoned or involved in a gang. Their reasoning is that they went to public schools in suburban neighborhoods, where they had peers who aspired to take after their parents. The peers wanted to be lawyers, doctors, etc.
Wait a minute: how are we going to train young people to accept an endless work day and work week, unless we lengthen the school day and year? No wonder John King and Meryl Tisch refuse to listen to parents and teachers, who obviously have no idea about what’s best for their kids.
It just goes to show why our betters refuse to listen to anyone but themselves: after all, how are young people going to accept the powerless, underpaid, micromanaged jobs of the 21st century unless the public schools start training them in kindergarten?
Don’t know if you saw this Huffington Post article on the need to abandon use of the word “reform”… : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/maybe-we-need-to-find-a-n_b_4563091.html After reading the Friedman I’d also like to see the term “structural status-quo” abandoned…
The 32 page Friedman report pointedly omitted mention of the 27 statewide referenda between 1966 and 2012, from CA to MA and Fl to AK, in which millions of voters rejected vouchers and all similar gimmicks by an average of 2 to 1. The referenda, far more significant that mere polls, are detailed in my monograph “The Great School Voucher Fraud” at arlinc.org.
What is it with this deceptive nonsense re Section 8 vouchers and school vouchers being peddled here on a blog dedicated to the preservation of public education? You know good and well “vouchers” are being used to give handouts to religious, racist schools, which is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
The original argument I was making about section 8 housing was intended to be facetious, somewhat. Milton Friedman thought school vouchers were a great way to circumvent segregated schools, but it misses the point that it is more than just schools that are at issue. Your zip code is as likely to determine your school performance and destiny. So why not allow for housing vouchers for such families to move to desirable zip codes? (I’m not sure that Milton Friedman would have embraced that idea.)
Or better still, why not work on improving all communities, along with their neighborhood schools, so that all zip codes are desirable places to live?
There are more reasons why school vouchers come up short than just separation of church and state.
I’m sorry you are so agitated about both housing and school vouchers, but at least you are consistent in opposing having the government give aid directly to poor people.
I have no problem with housing vouchers. I do have a problem with school vouchers.
I realize that the concept of housing vouchers hadn’t occurred to you until very recently, but you might think about whether it makes sense to oppose one type of vouchers and support the other.
From an alternate point of view, this voucher fixation by the Friedman Foundation IS about religion. The “reformers” are so blinded by their religious-like faith in the private capitalist system they want to apply its tenents to every aspect of life. They would gladly ram their philosophy down everyone’s gullet without observing the consequences of their actions. The reformers have come to worship the concept of competetion and free enterprise to the extent that they have lost all interest in the facts or what their blind zeal backed up by lots of money is doing to our children.
May God help us all.
I have to laugh. Most of us have been in classrooms. Most of know the difference between one that has a lot of kids and one that has fewer. Most of us have experienced the difference first hand so why do these people think that we will fall for the idea that class size isn’t important?
Landlords who accept section 8 are usually in already poor neighborhoods (it’s not legal for landlords in Seattle to refuse Section 8, but they can always find another reason to reject tenants).
I’m fascinated by the inherent arrogance of voucher proposals. This fascination with choice is projection by the well-to-do denizen of capitalism onto people who often don’t know where their next meal comes from. It is encouraging to see that at least the Freidman group executed their survey with some intellectual honesty.
I’m fascinated by the arrogance of pseudo intellectuals who think low-income people are too stupid to make decisions for their children.
Bill F., I am fascinated by the arrogance of elites who want to destroy the public sector, on which most of society depends for fairness and equity. I am also fascinated by the snobs who look down their noses at dedicated teachers, who do work that the snobs and elites could never do.
“perfectly balanced — equal parts ignorance and arrogance.”
Jamie Vollmer – The Blueberry Story
Actually, Bill, the “pseudo intellectuals who think low-income people are too stupid” are the “Choice Hustlers” like Michelle Rhee, Jeb Bush, and others who like to throw that nice sounding word around with the hope that people will buy it.
Some new data must have come in for this group, however. I notice that Arne Duncan now refers to charters as “community schools” and I’m noticing that even the proponents of charters call them by that name, or just never mention them any longer.
Here in Seattle a pro-charter candidate for school board had to prevaricate about her position on charters, always stating that her “opposition” was due to the “currently inadequate funding” for such “educational innovations that challenge and improve the status quo”.
If you are so sure about “choice” why aren’t you and your fellow privatizers opening up the discussion to talk in Real Terms about what such “choices” mean and who will pay for them. And who will be hurt by them, particularly those who want their children to attend school close to home and be part of a community that supports and cares about each other’s children.
Get word to the Money People in your organization, sir: Tell them you need some new language: the old slogans and jingles just ain’t working anymore.
Maybe Frank Luntz is available. I know his number if you need it.
The “choice” low income people repeatedly demonstrate that they want (by, say, showing up by the thousands to protest school closings in Chicago and Philadelphia, and charter expansion nearly everywhere) is a strong, equitably funded local neighborhood public school. If “choice” is so divine, Bill F., why are you and your ilk trying to deny them that choice?
Blame the parents, Diane.
Are privately provided vouchers acceptable for K-12 students? Currently a large number of post secondary students get a mix of public and privately provided vouchers. Should that stop?
Choice and competition drive innovation and produce higher quality products in every other industry; education is no different. You were given a choice as to which company to host your blog, which cell phone service to use to tweet out your blog posts, and which method of transportation to use to speak to groups about how choices are bad. (Those examples don’t even put a dent in all of the choices you make any given day.)
Parents make choices for their children every single day that are just as important as education: food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and health care. They should be given educational choices to determine what schools work for their needs. This is the only way to adequately provide more opportunities to children.
As referenced in the study, the top concerns for parents — smaller class sizes, technology, and accountability — would all be addressed with the implementation of vouchers. I suspect a more intimate explanation of this to parents would increase support for them.
The opportunity for young children to learn in an environment that suits their learning style as best as possible should be of top concern, not the preservation of a learning system that cannot innovate at the necessary rate and is subsequently structurally failing so many children.
If education is simply too important to allow for more choice, why then is higher learning given this option through Pell Grants and other federal loans and scholarships?
Competition is appopriate in choosing goods and services. However, many aspects of the public sector are not and should not be competitive. Public schools are one example. Police protection and fire protection are another. I don’t want a choice among police departments or fire departments. Public beaches are open to all, so are public parks. Regulations of the air and water is a public responsibility, not subject to competition. Public schools are a public responsibility. If you don’t like your public schools, you may often find choices in the public sector. If you don’t like what is available, pay for private or religious school. There is zero evidence that public schools improve when they compete.
Economists have thought long and hard about thing ps markets drop well and things they do poorly. Fire protection in crowded urban areas, for example, is difficult to produce privately because of the tendency to free ride on other’s purchases.
Markets can clearly produce fine schools as 10% of all students are educated in private schools that have to attract students. This is even the case in my little community where all the more specialized forms of education, progressive, Montessori, and Waldorf educations are only provided by market based schools.
teachingeconomist: “Markets can clearly produce fine schools as 10% of all students are educated in private schools that have to attract students.”
If you only care about educating a smaller portion of the population, your argument seems to make sense. But if it is considered a social value that all students (100%) be educated regardless of income, physical or mental disability, or language barrier, then I question that free market strategies produce overall superior results to public schools.
Wdf1,
Certainly you would agree that the 10% of the student population currently being educated in private schools is limited by folks ability to pay for private school tuition and the availability of schools that are tuition free.
My point, however, is a different one. There are many things that markets do not do well, many things that they do better than alternative ways to organize production and allocation of goods and services. Things ranging from unemployment insurance, to GPS satellite signals to urban fire protection come to mind as examples of services that markets will produce inefficiently. The existence of a wide variety of high quality private schools suggests that markets can produce high quality education, so it is not a matter of market failure.
But the argument behind school reform is that U.S. schools are on the whole performing badly (for instance, just look at our standardized test scores relative to other countries). A closer look at the data shows that there is a strong correlation between family income and student performance. The reason U.S. scores are where they are is due to a higher rate of childhood poverty.
Therefore, any free-market suggestion to improve the schools should demonstrate superior performance among lower income families, relative to traditional public schools. That’s not happening, and in many cases it worsens the situation. But go ahead and engage the argument if you think that there’s something folks have been missing. That’s a key purpose of this blog.
That is not my argument.
I think the benefit of having choice schools is that the schools can become more specialized, treating each student as an individual rather than a street address. My town has a Montessori school, a progressive school, and a Waldorf school available to anyone with the means to pay a private school tuition. The traditional zoned schools in my town can not provide those kinds of education because of their admission policies. While there are plenty of folks in my town who highly value a Montessori education, they don’t all live in the same elementary school catchment area.
The Buffalo Public Schools has a Montessori School grades PreK to 8, with talk of extending it to grade twelve. So there is no reason your public school district (if it is large enough) couldn’t provide that option.
I think that is quite right. There is a large private Montessori school that has filled that niche in my town already, so there was clearly an interest in this type of education by families in my town. Clearly the public district could, if it chose, allow these kind of magnet schools, and I would be in favor of it. It would cause the traditional zoned schools some significant trouble, however, and be subject to many of the criticisms made here about choice schools (Skimming, neighborhood destruction, etc)
Is it skimming it providing an opportunity?
Actually providing an opportunity is often seen as skimming and something to be avoided. I have often asked about what weight we should give to the education of the child that is being skimmed, but there has been little interest in thinking about that.
I prefer the Magnet program (which Buffalo continues to embrace) to for profit Charter Schools, many which are legalized segregation. Ultimately, the more affluent families (usually white) send their children to one of the numerous private city high schools if they don’t get into a good magnet school (or even if they do).
Magnets may be better than most for profit charters, but I think there is much to be said for nonprofit charters, especially those started by educators and parents working together.
I was actually involved in the start of a charter school (although, at the time, it was supposed to be a satellite early childhood center). Eventually it expanded to grade eight. The original premise was exciting, but now it appears to be run like other schools. I assume it has remained non profit.
I am going to basically disregard the mentioning of public beaches and public parks as there are examples of private ownership in each of those. Competition is certainly present. The fact that you do not want a choice of police or fire departments does not mean that others agree or that choices cannot exist in those areas typically seen as ‘public.’
I guess I am missing the evidence that the public school system is doing so well that it should be immune to competition. If this were the case, parents and students wouldn’t be demanding more school choice options, i.e., competition in the forms of charters, vouchers, tax credits, ESAs and the like. Even though parents ranked vouchers behind smaller class sizes, technology, and accountability, does not mean that options shouldn’t be available to other parents who determine that their children would learn best in a completely different environment. Leaving those children behind is a moral issue.
Coincidentally, public schools utilize the benefits that the market provides with everything that it uses in the classroom from pencils, paper, computers, the Internet, books, games, desks, and other instructional material. Those that provide education despise the idea that competition and innovation improve products but demand more of those very same goods and services in the classroom that are provided through competition.
Innovation increases with competition. Dare I say requires it.
Greg George,
Bringing for-profit competition into the public system introduces entrepreneurs who drive down costs to maximize profits. This is “innovative,” but it is not good education. If they could find a way to outsource the children to a low-wage country, they would do that too. No thanks. Do it to your own children, not other people’s children.
Diane Ravitch,
Not all forms of educational choice are “for profit.” You know that, and parents should be given the ability to choose what option works best for their child.
Your assumption that entrepreneurs exist to export children overseas for profit is ill-informed and a slander to all entrepreneurs working to improve the lives of those that buy their products and services, many of which you use every day. Entrepreneurship is hard and risky. It should be appreciated and celebrated as it is unique to our lives. Especially since it has dramatically reduced the rates of absolute poverty in the world.
The example “for profit” school you describe would fail under market conditions because parents would be demanding a different service for their children entirely. A sensical person sees right through your example.
Politicians do not operate without incentives. It is oversight on your part to assume that they are benevolent angels looking out for everyone but themselves. This is exactly why parental choice is so important: It incentivizes the right people as much as possible.
In response to your comment, “Do it to your own children, not other people’s children.” May you take the same advice regarding your repugnance for choice and competition.
Respectfully,
Greg George
“There is zero evidence that public schools improve when they compete.”
That is because it has only been the past 10 years or so that we have finally been given a few pockets of the country that allow competition among schools – both public and private. What we are seeing in Indiana is a responsiveness in our public schools as a result of the new competitive environment that has been created. Researchers will producing their work over the next few years.
In the mean time, parents will continue to seek out the best options for their children. No legislation (or lack thereof) will change that.
Or
Dear Diane,
A number of things wrong with your arguments.
1) The argument about school choice is not about For-Profit verses Not-For-Profit. It’s about government-run verses non-government-run.
.
2) Government run schools ARE “for profit” in that someone profits from the money pumped into the system. Lots of someone’s (grin). Money goes places. In the case of the government run schools a goodly amount goes through the teachers pay checks into the hands of the highly politically active teachers unions who use that to corrupt our government. That is not goodness, either for the public or for the teacher’s who loose that income. The only thing missing in any not-for-profit model (gov’t or private) is the stock-holders (owners) receiving dividends as ROI.
.
3) You mention some things that you feel should not be in non-gov’t hands, but all you mention already do have non-gov’t entities performing said services. Private parks (ie: recreation facilities), private security services abound, gov’t farms out road building (all building) to private firms. There are arbitration functions that take a burden off the court systems, etc. Pretty much everything government attempts to do requires some element of private, free market support to work.
.
It boggles the brain that there are still folk who think ONLY the government can do any job well. There is no intellectual argument that can support that position. That position is more about emotion, how you FEEL about it, than logic or grounding in reality.
.
Reality is no ONE method of educating children works. They are all different, as are their parents. A mix of opportunities needs to be available.
.
Government has a role to play as a security element to monitor for fraud as in any endeavor where money exists those who’d steal it (in some manner) also exist and constant vigilance from a neutral entity is required. It’s why corporations bring in independent auditors to look for funny businesses. (grin).
.
In security you do not have the fox watch the hen-house but that is what we do in education. Government cannot both administer the processes AND then also monitor same for misuse and abuse. It’s a conflict of interest to monitor yourself for security violations. Look how well the IRS does at monitoring it’s own abuses, or any other government agency for that matter.
.
Fraud and abuse will exist in EVERY single process human beings are involved in because the bad-guys live by abusing any system they can get their grubby little fingers in. They never cease to try.
.
We need government to be the watch-dogs and NOT the administrators of processes. As the administrators the first thing they do is protect the budgets that give them status and power. It’s the rare administrator who will say “Gee, I’m spending too much public money, I’ve got to cut my budget and get rid of the fluff.”
.
Parental choice allows the decision of which school get’s more money to be DISTRIBUTED into many hands. That is the essence of the security adage “don’t put all eggs in one basket”.
.
What you see in the school choice debate is not about the children, but about an entity, the public school system, fighting to protect it’s CONTROL of money. To relinquish control is to relinquish power which is not something humans willingly do. Unfortunately for our children.
I have to agree that smaller class sizes are the way to go. I personally thrived much better in school when I could receive the appropriate amount of one on one instruction.