Arthur Camins, director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J., has a warning for Democrats that school choice is a bad choice.
He omits Republicans because they have become the party of school choice and privatization.
School choice is an alluring term, but the reality is far different from the rhetoric.
He writes:
“In our culture the “the right to choose” suggests an almost inalienable individual right, making for powerfully resonant political rhetoric. However, behind the easy-to-swallow positive connotation of choice, there is underlying message in its use in the context of education. If stated explicitly, the message might cause a little indigestion: Be out for yourself and don’t worry so much about your neighbors or community…
“However, what is moral or sensible for an individual does not make for sound or just education policy for a society. The moral burden falls not on parents, but on those who knowingly advance the wellbeing of the few at the expense of the many….
“Supporters of equity and democracy must depend upon and develop agency and hope for community solutions because when there is only despair, the only rational course of action is individual survival. Ideological supporters of privatization understand this and actively undermine democratic participation and the promise of collective solutions. That is why since the 1980’s they have followed an explicit starve-the-beast strategy to defund public institutions in order to undermine quality, public trust, and confidence. That is why they favor private charter boards over elected school boards.
I have come to believe that the struggle for equity must include a tandem strategy of opposition and advocacy.
Friends of equity need to oppose funding charter school, not because choice is inherently a bad idea but because the spread of charter schools is morally corrosive and drains money from other local schools. Since funds are always limited, the opportunities for the few come with the sacrifice of others. “They are stealing your child’s future,” might be an appropriate opposition slogan. …
“Progress requires an opt-in campaign for local public schools based on community rather than individualist values. Advocacy should highlight the fundamental characteristics of effective public schools both in the U.S. and abroad and contrast these with prevalent market-based solutions….
“Candidates need to hear from the public: There are better choices than school choice to improve education.”

Both parties should take a look at the impact of privatization on Chile or Sweden, both failed experiments. Sweden is still trying to pick up the pieces after the quality of their schools declined due to “choice” options. Choice sounds innocuous on the surface, but choice results in more segregation and discrimination. Choice leaves lots of children and schools behind and amplifies the impact of poverty and discrimination in impoverished public schools. Public education should be about access, equity and excellence for all American children.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/04/sweden-school-choice-education-decline-oecd
LikeLike
Oh, they know it. No one has to tell them there’s “waste fraud and abuse” in government contracting.
They don’t care.
LikeLike
Hasn’t much of the state and national leadership of the Dem party gone over to the bad side already? (Obama, Hillary, Emanuel, Duncan, Cuomo, Hedge-fund Dems, Klein, the DLC generally) One reason Bernie Sanders is an Independent is because the Dem leadership is anti-New Deal and anti-Great Society, as sad as it may be to admit.
Education “reform” is bi-partisan; the conflict is “state” education versus “public” education, not Dem v Rep.
LikeLike
I’m with you. I just don’t hear any particular passion or commitment around existing public schools from either side. The only time they appear energized or even interested is when they are talking about replacing schools or whole public systems.
I listened to parts of the Senate debate on the re-write of NCLB and the entire public school portion was centered on standardized testing. I recognize that’s partly a function of the (limited) federal role and the threat of the opt-out movement, but, boy, there was no joy in DC around our schools.
The whole subtext of the DC debate was federalism- two sides essentially arguing over the proper federal role. When they were forced back into discussing actual, existing public schools it was all doom and gloom for publics.
My own state is the same way. Our legislature seems to devote 90% of their time to debating “choice” while 90% of the kids in this state attend public schools. I don’t know what one does with that. There’s just not a whole lot of interest in politician circles 🙂
LikeLike
It’s just very disheartening. I have a 6th grader. My youngest, and the last thru public schools. He spent all of last year on the Common Core and now Ohio is changing the tests again. God knows how much time and effort people put into those tests in our schools and we will have an entirely new scheme next year, along with whatever other experiments catch lawmaker’s fancy. Why were our kids volunteered for this experiment if there’s now consensus (as their seems to be) that the tests are “too long” and no one in this state likes them? This was thrust upon him halfway thru school and now I suppose he’ll get whatever some contractor comes up with. Is this what it will be like for his entire time remaining in school? Why do they scale these experiments up if they know they’re experiments? How does that make any sense?
LikeLike
It is tragic that our children are being used like guinea pigs caught in the middle of political a tug of war. Parents should become thorns in the sides of those elected to serve the public. Let them know that public education is important to you, and stability without more testing is important to your children.
LikeLike
“Why were our kids volunteered for this experiment if there’s now consensus (as their seems to be) that the tests are “too long” and no one in this state likes them?Why do they scale these experiments up if they know they’re experiments?”
The blame rests squarely on the USDOE NCLB waiver plan, courtesy of the Duncan/Gates cartel. Arne’s Folly was a solution to the impossible NCLB requirement of 100% by 2014. The excessive length and difficulty of the tests was a feature not a bug. Parent outrage and opt out backlash left them no choice but to respond.
The tests are just getting a make over to appease, results will be no different.
LikeLike
I feel as if the “scaling up” was politically-driven. That they didn’t trust parents (and some or most teachers) to embrace this thing if it were adopted gradually beginning with the lowest grade and adding each year, so the objective was to put it in for tens of millions of kids so there would be “no going back”.
It’s funny because I think people MIGHT have been more open to it if it had gone more slowly. I really don’t get this management mindset where people have to be manipulated like this, where there’s SO little trust that people have to be overwhelmed or they won’t support something. Why don’t they have more confidence in what they’re doing? It’s really a rigid management approach- there’s no trust in it.
LikeLike
Read THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. It’s all part of “shock therapy”. Of course, if any actual therapist used such a technique s/he would (rightly) lose his/her license.
LikeLike
It is really not the purview of the federal government to test our students. My understanding is that should be a state responsibility. The federal government should only be involved for issues of civil rights or equity, not testing.
LikeLike
If choice is truly an inalienable right when it comes to public institutions, why stop with schools? Shouldn’t every public service be offered with a choice? Free library choice!
Law enforcement choice! Fire service choice! Snow plowing choice! Waste management choice! Military choice! Postal service choice! Public utility choice! Public road choice!
Town planning choice!
LikeLike
I always think about it with the public senior center here. They periodically have to levy taxes to fund it, it’s always a fight, and I could absolutely imagine a set of seniors saying they want a voucher to go elsewhere.
They could all split off to their respective churches with their voucher for 175 dollars or whatever, but I’m not sure they’ll get enough public support to fund that.
LikeLike
Just think, every citizen with a voucher to hire a security guard instead of police; every citizen with a voucher to choose his or her own fire department; and his or her own military organization (Blackwater, anyone?)
LikeLike
Our talking point response should be, “Why just schools?”
They have no answer.
LikeLike
Just what old Milton Friedman argued for sixty years–and he earned a Nobel Prize in economics! We must begin to admit that from Reagan onwards, these guys have told us exactly what they wanted to do, and that they would do it as soon as they got the power. Why the hell are we surprised?
I bet many folks STILL do not believe Social Security, Medicare, public pensions, student loans will go the way of public education. I guess the prospect is just too scary to admit.
Admit it or not, it’s coming unless we stop them. We will not be able to say we did not know.
LikeLike
There was actually a case a few years ago where a guy lived in an unincorporated district, so he wasn’t entitled to municipal fire protection, but there was a small annual fee ($75 or something I think) to be included in the municipal system if you wanted, which most people did, except this guy. His property caught fire so the municipal fire department showed up and watched it burn (having checked to make sure no one was inside) and only stuck around to protect his neighbors’ property. The guy tried to sue, but I don’t think he was successful.
LikeLike
My daughter has public utility choice in Texas; competition is supposed to drive the price down. It really doesn’t; my rates for a property that has a co-op plan are less, and there are no gimmicks as in the market based plans.
LikeLike
There’s a move away from privatizing essential services internationally. It’s pretty interesting:
“The MSP is conducting comparative studies of instances where municipal authorities have taken water and other services back under public control after they were privatized. This remunicipalization trend is taking place around the world and our objectives are to understand why it is happening, how it has been carried out, how services may be run differently by municipalities, and to what extent remunicipalization has been successful.”
– See more at: http://www.municipalservicesproject.org/remunicipalization#sthash.Ascm9nMX.dpuf
I’m waiting to read the super-secret trade deal they just rubber-stamped to see if there’s any provisions barring countries from doing this 🙂
LikeLike
Were they to build it, kids would come. So much time with myths, hyperbole, specters (trickle down/free market/deregulation; college and career; failing schools…), yet no one is talking about the fact that we need middle class jobs, family-sustaining wages, more forgiveness programs for student loans (less for shaky speculations and investment/derivative losses that are fueled by public pensions). When there is security and promise in the job market, employees appear out of the cornfield. When “investors and job creators” look to grow their economy by undermining our workforce and families…Our communities suffer, the kids suffer, our schools struggle.
LikeLike
dmaxmj,
Well said in exactly 100 words
LikeLike
I think public school advocates should know most parents do not understand that charters draw funds away from public schools. We have been in the system for five years now and only as a result of this blog did I learn that charters suck up funding which would otherwise go to public schools. The public needs to know.
LikeLike