Linda Thomas is the school board president of a small rural district in Arizona. She is a strong advocate for public education as a public responsibility.
In this post, she reminds us that 85% of children in Arizona attend public schools despite the state ‘s trepidation as the “wild west” of charters.
She also describes the legislsture’s devious efforts to expand vouchers.
She writes:
“When vouchers (aka Empowerment Scholarship Accounts) were first introduced in 2011, only children with disabilities were eligible. That has now expanded to include children: who’s parent’s are in the armed forces, are a ward of the juvenile court, who attend a school or district assigned a D or F grade, are eligible to attend kindergarten, and who received a School Tuition Organization scholarship. This session, expansion efforts include those whose siblings receive ESAs, all first responder’s children and (HB 2291) children currently eligible for free or reduced lunch percent. HB 2291 also seeks to further raise the income threshold of those who qualify by 15 percent ever year going forward.
“ESA funds can be used for curriculum, testing, private school tuition, tutors, special needs services or therapies, or even seed money for college. The program however, requires parents to waive their child’s right to a public education…a right that is guaranteed under the state constitution, in order to receive the benefits.”
School choice, she says, is a smokescreen. The real goal is to transfer public funds to private hands. The one risk to voucher advocates is attaching any form of accountability. They want the money, no strings attached.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“…are a ward of the juvenile court….”
This one is particularly scary. Who gets to make the decision about getting/using said voucher? I’m guessing not the biological parent(s), since he/she/they don’t have custody. So some foster parent or the court could just make the decision to yank your kid out of their school and send them off to some random voucher school? And what happens if the voucher is not adequate to cover tuition at that school? Does the juvenile court system pick up the difference? The foster parent? Or do they bill the biological parent? What a farce.
Inevitable with ed reform, in my opinion. Once you’ve re-defined “public schools” as a contract service provider there’s no earthly reason not to include private schools.
There’s a powerful political motivation, too. Charter schools pull students from private schools. Ed reformers have to mitigate that effect, or lose private schools as part of their political coalition.
As usual, the only schools that are completely ignored in all these machinations are public schools. Somehow, 85% of the schools ended up without an advocate in government once this game of musical chairs was over. Oh, well. They were all “failure factories” anyway, or so I’m told.
In fact, President Obama’s only objection to vouchers is they “don’t work”, where he means test score comparisons, I guess.
Presumably he would go to an all-voucher system if it “worked better” than publicly-owned and run schools. I’m not seeing that he attaches any importance or value to “public education” other than whether it “works”, whatever “works” means.
The voucher opposition among ed reformers will fall, It’s already falling, because it’s not really based on anything other than test scores. Schools are just service providers. It’s really a private school mindset, in my opinion. It’s much better suited to private schools than to the larger, much broader idea of “public education” that includes, you know, THE PUBLIC part.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/05/obama-smacks-bill-oreilly-on-school-vouchers/
“In fact, President Obama’s only objection to vouchers is they “don’t work”
Isn’t this the basis of Dr. Ravtich’s objection to vouchers, too? That’s my impression, at least.
No, I think she’s written that she objects to public funding of religious schools. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
If I may continue to talk about Dr. Ravitch in the third person on her own, I know she used to be an outspoken supporter of vouchers for low-income, urban students to attend Catholic (and presumably other religious) schools. So something must have been outweighing any church/state concerns she had. I assume that thing was the belief that Catholic schools could “work” better for those students than the schools they were currently attending.
cx: “on her own blog”
* used the R. Shepherd correction style there.
Interestingly (to me, anyway) the only prominent ed reformer I’ve heard take a stab at coming up with some theory of “public schools” is Eli Broad. He insists he values “public education” and I’m assuming he values the concept in a bigger sense than as a contract service provider.
He seems to be reaching for some larger frame in his editorials, but it’s poorly-defined and not explicit. He does exclude vouchers, but it appears to be grounded in something bigger than “what works”. I’d be interested in how, specifically, he defines “public”, because obviously “publicly-funded” doesn’t mean “public”.
My sense has been that when people who support charter schools say that “charter schools are public schools,” they mean “public” in terms of access. Technically that would apply to vouchers, too, assuming they were available to everyone, but I’ve never heard the phrase “public vouchers.” I suppose that doesn’t mean I’ll never hear it, though.
Also, if liberal or Democratic ed reformers believe that competition for students between charters and public schools improves public schools, then why would they object to private schools?
You can’t really pick and choose your market theories. Once you sign on to “competition!” as the rationale for “choice” it’s a little silly to exclude religious schools. If competition “works” then more competition should work better!
Actually lots of people view some school choice plans as acceptable and others as not acceptable. It’s similar to the US Supreme Court decision on free speech that says there are limits to free speech.
In this case, it appears you are ok with allowing families to settle and send their children to a public school district that is more than 94% white. I agree you should have that right, just as I think African American and other families should have the right to select among various public schools.
Personally I am opposed to voucher programs because I don’t think public funds should go to schools that have admissions tests, or promote one religion over another. (I’m also opposed to allowing some publicly-funded public schools to reject students who can’t pass admissions tests.)
A variety of progressive leaders support public school choice including charters but do not support vouchers. That includes the state legislator who authored the nation’s first chartered public school law.
I guess I don’t know what “94% white” has to do with charter schools. Have charter schools furthered integration? Are the schools more diverse than public schools? If the goal was integration, the method wouldn’t be charter schools. The method would be changing district lines, going to county-wide districts perhaps, or open enrollment in public schools.
Chiara, the topic here is vouchers, which I oppose. You wrote that “You can’t really pick and choose your market theories. ”
I pointed out that you and others (and the Supreme Court) can and does set limits on our freedoms.
You seem fine with a school district that’s 94% white – that’s your choice, Your 94% white school district is permitted under Ohio (and every other state) law, except Hawaii, where the entire state is one district.
There are a variety of school choice plans available in the US. Some people who post have made it clear they are fine with magnets which screen out students via admissions tests. Others – including many who support charters – oppose the idea of using standardized tests to screen out students.
Overall point – a person can support some forms of school choice and not support others.
Are you this “Joe Nathan”?
http://centerforschoolchange.org/
Yes reading exchange. I’ve been an inner city public school teacher, administrator, PTA president, researcher, advocate, etc. Our 3 kids attended urban public schools k-12, all 3 have worked for St. Paul Public Schools. My wife recently retired after 33 years as a St Paul Public School teacher.
And I write a weekly column about education issues that appears in a number of suburban and rural papers.
Speaking of which, here is a link to this week’s column. It describes a new book in which 90 educators from all over the country write about what it’s like to teach, and discuss a poem that has encouraged/inspired them. Marvelous, moving writing.
http://hometownsource.com/2014/06/04/joe-nathan-column-teaching-with-heart-a-great-summer-book-for-educators-families/
Joe
Joe, on your website, there is the following …
“CSC has received more than $26 million from the U.S. and Minnesota Departments of Education and the Annenberg, Bill and Melinda Gates, Blandin, Cargill, Carlson, Carnegie, Frey, Helzberg, Kauffman, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Target, and Travelers Foundations.”
Is this true?
Absolutely. We believe in transparency. A few samples of what we’ve done:
a. With Gates: Helped Cincinnati district eliminate high school graduation gap between white and African American high school students, working closely with teachers union and school district; helped ST Paul public schools increase graduation rate; helped create 5 new charter secondary schools in ST. Paul
b. With Mn Dept of Education – helped create new alliances between 9 district and one charter high schools and colleges and universities that increased # of college level courses offered in high schools. created 17 you-tube videos in 7 languages that encourage students to take dual credit courses; created a Leadership Academy that brings together district, charter and alternative schools
c. With St. Paul Public Schools – work with 4 district & 2 charter public schools to help increase family and community collaboration with schools
d. With Bremer, St Paul & Travelers – helped produce triple digit increases in # of enrollments in dual credit courses in 4 district & 2 charters; produced videos found on our websites under alternative schools speak out about dual credit
e. With federal funds: Produced two publications, found on our website about value of schools and social service agencies sharing space
Those are examples. Hope some of videos and publications will be useful to you and others.
These voucher guys will say and do whatever they can to sell their snake oil. Take for example
Patrick Gibbons, who never met a public school he liked and a voucher he didn’t recently wrote in Jeb Bush’s pro-privatization blog about how the Friedman institute said Florida’s Voucher program is the most heavily regulated in the nation.
http://www.redefinedonline.org/2014/05/floridas-tax-credit-scholarship-program-most-regulated-in-u-
Well the Maclver Institute, the great north’s equivalent of Redefined Ed also wrote a piece saying Milwaukie’s voucher program was the most heavily regulated in the nation.
http://www.maciverinstitute.com/research/2014/06/study-shows-milwaukees-voucher-program-is-most-government-regulated-school-choice-program-in-america/
Pat wrote in ReDefined Ed: Friedman, a free-market education think tank, actually ranks the Florida tax credit scholarship as the most regulated state scholarship law in the nation.
Then the Maclver Institute wrote: The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) was named “the most heavily regulated private school choice program in the country” in a study released by the Friedman Foundation last week.
Um how can they both be the most heavily regulated? They can’t of course but facts rarely stop those guys.
“FLERP!
June 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm
My sense has been that when people who support charter schools say that “charter schools are public schools,” they mean “public” in terms of access. Technically that would apply to vouchers, too, assuming they were available to everyone, but I’ve never heard the phrase “public vouchers.” I suppose that doesn’t mean I’ll never hear it, though.”
Oaky, but let’s look at “access”. In Newark, the CEO tried to solve the “equal access” problem she ran into by unilaterally re-writing the rules to include a “common application”. But she ran into a problem, because several of the charter schools simply declined to participate. They have that option, that “choice”. The same thing is apparently true in New Orleans. So is that “access” if they can simply decline to participate in a process that was intended to put public schools and charter schools on a level “access” playing ground?
Further, she’s going to have to provide transportation to make “access” real. If she doesn’t provide that (it looks to be too expensive) isn’t “access” just a false promise? Won’t practical matters like geography and parental ability to provide transportation limit access?
Some school choice programs are better than others. One way to deal with transportation issues is to offer several schools in one building. That also has challenges (see battles in New York) but it does reduce transportation issues.
Most state laws require that charters be open to all. That’s been pretty widely respected in the charter legislation. We did lose the battle with magnets, which were and are allowed to use admissions tests.
As a counter-example, in NYC, everybody has a zoned school. And then there are a bunch of “choice” schools that families can apply to. Interested families have to submit an application. They may have to live within a certain geographical area. Importantly, if there are more applicants than there are seats, there WILL be hurdles designed to winnow down the pool. There may be a lottery, and there will likely be much more than that. Families may have to physically show up at the school and take a tour before they’re considered part of the applicant pool. The student may have to submit grades, standardized test scores, and letters of recommendation. The student may have to take additional tests that schools have devised specifically for their own application process. The student may have to be interviewed. For performing arts schools, the student may have to audition (and may have to do it again at a callback).
At the threshold, there is a legitimate argument that the very fact of an application requirement results in something less than equal access. There are also legitimate arguments that the equality of access is reduced with each additional requirement. On the other hand, there are legitimate arguments that there are good reasons for these requirements, and that these good reasons outweigh the concerns about unequal access.
These arguments play out against the backdrop of the zoned schools. If you don’t get into the choice school you want, you can always attend your zoned school. The zoned school is the backstop. It’s the thing that makes public schools truly “public,” because the zoned school takes all comers (subject to the important, unavoidable, and sometimes enormous caveat of geographical restrictions).
In the most common state of affairs, when it comes to the issue of access, charter schools are similar to the non-academically selective public choice schools. Like the public choice schools, they’re open to “the public,” but subject to the caveat that applicants must fill out an application and, if demand outstrips supply, succeed in a lottery. Like many public choice schools, there may be aspects of the admissions policies of specific charter school that are unique to that school.
There are legitimate arguments that because of their admissions processes, charter schools are incapable of providing equal access. On the other hand, there are also legitimate arguments that things like applications and lotteries are inherent in the very idea of “choice” schools, which are not required to have the “backstop” function of zoned schools, and which do not have the power to enroll their students automatically each year. A choice school, whether public or charter, must be affirmatively chosen.
Now New Orleans, as far as I’m aware, is the one example of a system that is effectively 100% charter. In a system like that, there will have to be charters functioning as backstops, although I assume the logistics of enrollment won’t be the same as with traditional zoned schools. Does that create a two-tier system? Yes. Do public schools create two-tier systems? Yes.
I’m not saying charter schools are no different from public choice schools. There are all kinds of differences that I’m aware of, and I’m sure there are a lot I’m not aware of.
“These arguments play out against the backdrop of the zoned schools. If you don’t get into the choice school you want, you can always attend your zoned school. The zoned school is the backstop. It’s the thing that makes public schools truly “public,” because the zoned school takes all comers (subject to the important, unavoidable, and sometimes enormous caveat of geographical restrictions).”
Exactly. That’s the only concession I’m looking for. Public schools in the current “choice” political environment are the “backstop”. They’re what puts the “public” in public schools. In fact, their existence allows “choice”!
Does that make public schools different than “choice” schools? is it true to say “charter schools are public schools”?
What are the implications for public schools now that they have been designated a “backstop” (by default, because no one will admit this obvious fact) to the preferred “choice” schools?
Do you think they’ll do WELL as a “backstop”, a “safety net”? Do you think they’ll improve? Because that after all was how ed reform was sold to the public. Ed reformers were going to “improve public schools”. “Improve” means “invest in and value”, not designate to a lesser status.
There are lots of different kinds of district and charter public schools. For example, there are suburban public schools in exclusive communities where the price of admission is the ability to purchase an expensive home. Those schools aren’t “backstops”.
There are district & charter public schools that attract mostly students with whom traditional schools have not succeeded. You could call them “backstops” or you could call them, in some cases, great havens for young people who are not going to make it in traditional schools. We’re working with some of those alternative district schools, and we’ve taped some of the youngsters from them.
I think the St. Paul Public Schools AGAPE school for teen parents is a terrific option for those youngsters. They have high expectations and help those young people take college level courses. This has transformed the way some young people think about themselves.
Same for Gordon Parks, another district public school. It’s for young people with whom traditional schools have not succeeded. They’re doing great some great projects with young people and encouraging many to take college level courses.
Here’s a link to 3 90 second videos where 3 youngsters attending these schools speak out.:
http://centerforschoolchange.org/2014/02/alternative-school-students-speak-out-on-dual-credit/
There are similar schools in many urban areas. Some of them are backstops, some of them are brilliant.
If ed reformers had said to public schools parents when they were selling this “you know, we really see your public school as a ‘backstop” to our visionary new system” would the public have supported that?
Shouldn’t they have been told they were being relegated to the role of Social Security versus a 401k or Medicaid to a private insurance policy? That this wasn’t about “improving” their schools at all?
Depends on what you mean when you say “this”. Lot of efforts to improve schools are just that – efforts to improve a number of schools, not just to create new options.
As an example, laws in Minnesota and Washington allowing students to take college courses on college campuses have encouraged more high schools to offer such classes.
“If ed reformers had said to public schools parents when they were selling this ‘you know, we really see your public school as a “backstop” to our visionary new system’ would the public have supported that?”
It’s not a killer marketing slogan. But depending on the location, yeah, they might have supported it. Change “backstop” to “complete failure” and you’ve basically captured the way that charters were marketed in a lot of communities where many parents already saw their local schools as a backstop they’d rather not send their kids to.
“Joe Nathan
June 4, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Chiara, the topic here is vouchers, which I oppose. ”
But vouchers are going in in state after state! Is the anti-voucher faction of the ed reform extremely weak, or what?
Is it like the “adequate funding” faction, where we’ve seen public school funding decline in state after state under ed reform leadership?
You don’t seem to be getting a whole lot out of this alliance. Looks to me like the “low tax, reduce funding, anti-labor, privatize everything that isn’t tied down” caucus in ed reform is winning every round. “Liberals” in ed reform are getting trounced.
Actually, vouchers in most states have not passed. I think that’s good.
A voucher by any other name … State after state has passed a “voucher lite” tax credit which has the same effect, namely funneling state tax dollars to private schools. While it’s true that vouchers haven’t passed in most states, there is a significant and growing end run around the opposition to vouchers.
PJL, the National Council of State Legislators, a bi-partisan group, notes that 14 states had adopted education tax credits. It agrees that the number is increasing. I agree that it is a bad idea.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-choice-scholarship-tax-credits.aspx
Whoa. Your user name shows up as “FLERP!” On the iOS wordpress app. So I guess now I have my own doppelgänger.
FLERP! Sorry, I don’t understand what you wrote.
Joe, there was a tv show called “The Office,” and it had a character named “Oscar,” and on one episode Oscar learned that his co-workers had given him the nickname “Actually,” because of his penchant for starting sentences with the word “Actually.” I’m just saying.
Joe, I could go on and on on the battles you’ve lost. You all claim to oppose a reliance on standardized test scores and excessive testing, yet the people who were actually effective on that were not ed reformers, but parent groups in TX and NY.
Where were you? How many tests would kids be taking before ed reformers stood up? Why does the “liberal” portion of ed reform have absolutely no power to influence ed reform?
I read House charter subsidy bill that passed. The Great Liberal Ed Reformer George Miller crafted it.
He got nothing from Republicans in return for a huge subsidy to build charter schools. Eric Cantor could have drafted the House charter school bill. Scott Walker could have drafted it. It’s a GOP dream come true, and Miller got nothing for public schools in return.
I don’t doubt you’re all doing a bang-up job promoting, building, staffing and funding charter schools. That’s obvious. I’m asking you what ed reformers in government do for PUBLIC schools.
won some, lost some. As noted, the newspaper column I’ve been writing weekly since 1989 constantly cites good things that some district public schools are doing. We’ve been asked by unions and districts to help them in a variety of ways, some of which are described on our website. You can see some of the results, both from students and statistics, on our website, http://www.centerforschoolchange.org