One of the mantras of school choice advocates is that “the money”–whether federal, state, or local–“should follow the child.” It should be stuffed in a backpack that he or she can spend wherever they choose. The claim is made both for charters and vouchers, and behind it is the assertion that the money somehow belongs to the child, not the community that paid taxes.
Peter Greene here shows what a fallacious claim that is.
He writes:
“I’ve resisted this notion for a long time. The money, I liked to say, belongs to the taxpayers, who have used it to create a school system that serves the entire community by filling that community with well-educated adults who make better employees, customers, voters, neighbors, parents, and citizens. But hey– maybe I’ve been wrong. Maybe that money, once collected really does belong to the student. In which case, let’s really do this….
“Does she want to go to the shiny new charter school? Let her go (as long as they’ll take her, of course). But why stop there? Travel has long been considered a broadening experience– what if she wants to take the voucher and spend it on a world cruise? Why not? It’s her money. Perhaps she wants to become a champion basketball player– would her time not be well spent hiring a coach and shooting hoops all day? Maybe she would like to develop her skills playing PS4 games, pursuant to a career in video-game tournaments. That’s educational. In fact, as I recall the misspent youth of many of my cohort, I seem to recall that many found smoking weed and contemplating the universe to be highly educational. I bet a voucher would buy a lot of weed….
“Heck, let’s really go all in. Why use the odd fiction of a voucher at all– let’s just collect taxes and cut every single student an annual check for $10,000 (or whatever the going rate is in your neighborhood). Let’s just hand them the money that we’re asserting belongs to them, and let them spend it as they wish. Maybe they’d like a nice couch, or a new iPad, or a sweet skateboard, or a giant voucher party, or food and clothing for themselves and their family. ….”
Whose money is it?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
And while we’re at it, I’d like my road repair money to spend on the road of my choice. And instead of money going to the military, why, I could buy my own hardware. This could be fun! Publicly supported arts? Gimme my share, cause I have my eye on a sad-eyed watercolor clown I’d like.
LikeLike
You know there are probably people who would like to start charter armies, so please don’t give them any ideas. Now let me see about a Velvet Elvis…
LikeLike
Don’t have to give them any ideas, see Haliburton, Blackwater or XE.
LikeLike
Peter –
Once again, you hit the nail square on the head & in such a clear, simple explanation!
LikeLike
Agree. It is brilliant.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Who's Minding the Children? and commented:
Could NOT agree MORE!
LikeLike
“The money should follow the student”
The money should follow the student
To make it a cinch to steal
It might sound quite imprudent
But stuffing backpack seals the deal
LikeLike
“But stuffing backpack seals the deal”
Isn’t that what was done in Iraq and Afghanistan during Georgie’s wars??
LikeLike
I think stuffing backpacks was probably too small-scale for the Neocons and hence beneath them (if that is indeed possible), but I seem to remember something about them handing out pallet loads of 100 dollar bills on the streets (to the tune of billions of dollars) — in return for critical information (like what day curbside trash pickup was and whether most people prefer paper or plastic grocery bags at the local market)
LikeLike
No Duane, those were CEO briefcases….new toys to test you know.
LikeLike
I never did buy into that particular meme either. My children benefited from the taxes we all paid to create a public school system as did my husband and I and our parents before us. We all have paid taxes to fund the public schools even when we had no children in the schools. I did not pay my taxes for the benefit of any one child; I paid my taxes to benefit all children. As a citizen, I am committed to providing a public school system for all children. If you want to choose a different option after fulfilling your duty to support your local public school system, go ahead. You don’t get to carve out public funds for your choice; you don’t get to opt out of supporting public education as a common good. Like Turrean said, you don’t get to direct your tax dollars to your personal needs no matter how much you want that sad clown.
LikeLike
“The money should follow the child — until after October 5th.”
LikeLike
EXACTLY! If the “money follows the student,” then it should darn well follow the student–every time they move. I have students that move schools two, three, or even four times in a single year. How are we supposed to figure THAT out?
LikeLike
Various states handle this in different ways. Every state provides some $ to districts. If a district count goes up or down, the funding they receive from the state goes up or down. Here’s a summary prepared by Education Commission of the States on how different states handle this:
Click to access 50-state-survey-vol-iirevfinalbu.pdf
LikeLike
Nope. In Utah, the entire per pupil expenditure from the state goes to the charter school, and a new law just passed that will REQUIRE school districts to give part of their property tax revenue to charter schools.
LikeLike
Bad idea or not, it is coming. Be prepared. We have several bills floating around here in Florida that would attach school funding to the student so they can use it as they choose. It has been discussed in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives and Senate in Washington, DC as well and there are more than a few Democrats that will support the idea without hesitation. It will be necessary to ensure the complete realization of the so-called ‘free market’ vision of education. Students and their families can’t be real consumers in the free market unless they have real dollars to wave in front of those competing for those dollars.
I agree with Peter but that doesn’t mean that this bad idea will not become law. Sooner, rather than later. Milton Friedman demands it!
LikeLike
Hey, quit bad-mouthing ol Milt.
LikeLike
Am I wrong, or would this simply drive up the cost of attending the current posh private schools?
I went to a nice Catholic high school in my state (at half the normal cost, as my father was teaching there). Today, that school’s tuition is about $14,000 per year.
If my state passed laws that required the money to “follow the child” (until after October 5th or thereabouts), and every student effectively had a $7000 voucher, how long would it really be before my alma mater simply raised its tuition to $21,000 per year?
LikeLike
“The child should follow the money”
Let children follow money
Down town and city street
In land of Milken honey
A charter they will meet
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Excuse me, but I believe this proposal does not go far enough.
Why should we, the taxpayers, be cutting a check to each and every “child?”
Why not simply not give them anything and save ourselves some money.
I mean, let us no longer pay for public schools.
That’s my very modest proposal.
Every citizen needs to be responsible for their own educational needs, if any.
What’s not to like about lowering taxes?
What could go wrong?
LikeLike
While I agree that the money allocated for education does not literally belong to a family or a child, here’s what the United Nations Declaration of Human RIghts has to say about the right to an education, and the family’s right to choose that education.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
LikeLike
Oh, conservatives would have a field day with THAT! The U.N. demanding it? That’s rich.
And what say you about the policies that charter schools take advantage of–that the money stays with the school where the child is on October 1, no matter WHERE that student ends up later in the year? And what about the vast majority of charters that don’t backfill, so that they can provide smaller class sizes but have plenty of money?
LikeLike
Do you have a link to a source for your claim that the “vast majority” of charters don’t backfill? In New York State, the vast majority of charters do backfill.
LikeLike
Tim, Google is your friend. You always come here demanding people do your work for you. Are you lazy or incompetent?
Here is one little teaser for you though:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2014/02/the-charter-school-advantage.html
”
Change of Subject
OBSERVATIONS, REPORTS, TIPS, REFERRALS AND TIRADES
BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS
« Poll: GOP race tightening a wee bit | Main | What’s the matter with voters? »
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
The charter school advantage
Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah and Alex Richards have the story today:
Chicago Public Schools on Tuesday released data showing privately run charter schools expel students at a vastly higher rate than the rest of the district.
The data reveal that during the last school year, 307 students were kicked out of charter schools, which have a total enrollment of about 50,000. In district-run schools, there were 182 kids expelled out of a student body of more than 353,000.
Crunch those numbers and you see public schools expelled 1 in every 2,000 students; charters expelled 12 in every 2,000 students, or 1 in every 167 students.
For charter critics, the numbers will buttress long-standing complaints that the privately run operations push out troubled students, allowing their schools to record stronger academic performances….
And, OOPS!, from nj.com:
“Charter schools in many of the state’s most disadvantaged districts do not look much like the communities they serve, according to a study to be released today by public school advocates.
According to the report, the schools—concentrated in Camden, Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, Plainfield, and Trenton—educate significantly smaller percentages of poor students, those from non-English speaking families, and special education students, than do the public school districts they serve.
“It’s problematic,” said Julia Sass Rubin, an associate professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, and one of the authors of the study, which was conducted in conjunction with Save Our Schools NJ, a pro-public school group which she helped found.
Rubin said even charter schools outside the seven urban areas also served significantly smaller percentages of economically disadvantaged students.”
Keep on playing that neoconservative fiddle though, Tim. You are so good at it!
LikeLike
Chris, we agree that some charters suspend too many kids. Some charters also enroll a lower percentage of low income kids that district schools.
Then there are magnets all over the country – such as those in NYC that have selective admissions and use tests to screen out kids
LikeLike
Joe, I don’t really think you and Chris agree. You seem to think it’s something that just happens, like earthquakes and tornadoes. Would you support laws regarding charter schools suspending kids and taking an equal percentage of lower income students? Nah, didn’t think so.
LikeLike
Charters should follow same procedures as district schools in terms of discipline of students. I would not force either district or charters to take a certain percentage of x students…we certainly have plenty of suburban schools that are founded in part, because parents don’t want their kids to be around “those” students. In fact some of those suburbs hire detectives to make sure that “those kids” are not enrolled.
Moreover some charter critics are upset with charters that enroll what they consider too many Black or Hispanic kids.
So Dienne – are you in favor of district schools having admissions tests? I’m opposed to any schools using admissions tests.
LikeLike
In the low income community in which I worked as a high school special education teacher, we checked to see that our students were actually residents of the district. They couldn’t afford to allow students from outside the district to attend for free. The way we fund our schools definitely needs to be thoroughly addressed. I have no problems with magnets providing a specialized education to talented students. They are providing programming that most districts cannot afford to duplicate in all their schools. I agree that their selection methods may cut out students who could do well, especially when they rely on entrance exams alone. Is that really a reason to eliminate magnet programs? As much as we would like it not to be true, not all children benefit equally from the same program. In high schools we tend to hide that behind class titles so that we don’t have to openly acknowledge that some kids are taking more advanced or specialized classes than their peers. There is no question that we need to do major work in making sure that resources are equitably allocated including the ancillary services that the surrounding community needs.
LikeLike
We agree on the need to have more equitable funding. I think it’s great to offer district options that are open to all. What concerns me is that some people who post here are fine with allowing some district magnets to use tests and or grades or auditions to determine who gets into a program – but then criticize charters that (allegedly) do that. There’s only one state that permits using admissions tests for charters, and that’s Louisiana.
I think that’s wrong where it’s district or charter.
LikeLike
I think we will end up going over the same old territory of what is a public school and how are public schools governed. The same goes for the discussion of admission and retention of students.
LikeLike
Another tiresome ad hominem attack from Chris. And one that completely dodged the question.
All “mom and pop” charters in New York backfill. All but two of the charter networks do. So asking again, where is the evidence that the *vast majority* of charters don’t backfill?
LikeLike
In Utah, Tim, the charters do NOT backfill. That is from a variety of personal experiences, both inside and outside, of charters. A teacher at a charter school that takes students from my school (and sends them back midyear) was bragging out in front of everyone in a doctor’s office about this. She said that her charter just had to wait until October 1, and then they could “kick out” the kids who didn’t wear the dress code or were otherwise a problem. But every year, the district overestimates how many of these kids will go to the charter, and so every year we don’t get enough teachers. It makes our class sizes preposterous. Core classes routinely have 40, and sometimes even 42, 7-9 grade students.
LikeLike
Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
Not possible. Someone has to pay.
Education for profit has become profitable, especially with massive and garanteed tax subsidies for tests, security on tests, and a lot of not very educational goodies.
What would happen with this idea: Don’t tax anyone for “other people’s children.” Let’s have a “user pay the cost” policy. Can’t pay? Don’t have children. Have excess billions? Build schools for the poor–Wait, some are trying just that…but many also want to be tax-subsidized for doing it.
LikeLike
Laura, The United Nations envisions that the public will pay for education. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is worth reading.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
LikeLike
I am fully aware of that, and lest there be any doubt, I support public education with reliable and equitable funding
LikeLike
The problem that I see, as a parent, is that there remains no avenue for parental choice and control over the education of your own child. At least not here in this part of SC. The ultimate control is in the hands of politically-motivated administrators and intimidated teachers. The only thing that gets a response is funding…or the lack thereof. Parents need a voice in the process.
LikeLike