A few days back, I wrote a post about a freshman Democrat in North Carolina, Graig Meyer. Representative Meyer had written a column that seemed to accept the reality (finality?) of vouchers and that called for setting accountability standards for schools receiving voucher money. He noted that many such schools do not have certified teachers and do not take state tests.
Rep. Meyer contacted me and said the purpose of his article was to begin a dialogue about setting accountability standards for the voucher schools, so that children were protected, as well as taxpayer dollars. He emphasized that it was critical to run strong campaigns against legislators who passed the voucher law. I agreed with him.
He wrote:
“My goal in offering the column was to start building some groundwork for adding accountability and measurement standards to the voucher law. I believe that if a private entity takes public funds for education, it must accept public scrutiny in the use of those funds….
“I appreciate you and my other friends who have challenged me this week. I assure you that I have lost no energy for the fight to maintain strong public schools and policies that strengthen families and communities.”
I wrongly accused a good man of “throwing in the towel.” I apologize.
I invited Rep. Meyer to join the Network for Public Education’s third annual conference next April in Raleigh, and he graciously accepted. He will meet hundreds of activists fighting for public education across the nation.
You should join us too. April 15-17, 2016. Raleigh, North Carolina. Save the date.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Voucher proponents are hoping accountability to taxpayers does not apply; only to public schools and teachers. If a private or parochial school accepts any public money or support, all taxpayers should have a voice in school policy, including what is taught, who is hired, and how the tax money is spent. If the schools do not like the arrangement, then private and parochial schools should refuse public money. The Republicans supporting vouchers want accountability, small government, and taxation with representation – until they don’t. .
Absolutely. If schools that accept voucher or tax credit money are required to play the same accountability game, vouchers and tax credits are dead in the water.
Meyer’s quote: “My goal in offering the column was to start building some groundwork for adding accountability and measurement standards to the voucher law. I believe that if a private entity takes public funds for education, it must accept public scrutiny in the use of those funds….”
Yes. The moment a school receives taxpayer money, they should be immediately held to the same accountability “standards” as a regular old public school. The receipt of taxpayer money ends its exclusive use of private donations and tuition.
My conservative friends are very insistent that public schools should be held accountable, and teachers should adhere to these standards, because its taxpayer money. If that’s the case, then the moment any NC school takes a voucher, they are subject to these same rules.
This has been my biggest beef with any school that is not a traditional public. They play by different rules or less rules. They’re given more leeway and “time to get it right.” The combination of ed reform deciding who gets the money and who has to follow whatever red tape is tilted against publics.
For example, I’m tired of hearing how charters run leaner. They should: no veteran teachers, high turnover, no legacy costs (which is always the case because they haven’t existed long enough for people to reach pension status anyway) and no transportation. Those are significant financial advantages. (Not to much charging exorbitant rent for the property.)
The conservatives lack consistency with their arguments. Modern conservative thought seems to be “whatever works for me, the heck with everyone else”. Private and parochial schools NEED public schools. If the private and parochial schools had to play by the same rules and not kick out kids disabled, sick, or with learning challenges, those exclusive schools could not brag about how they “do more with less”.
I don’t mean to tell him his job and maybe he has already considered this aspect, but since my state. Ohio, has had this version of ed reform longer than NC, I would ask that he focus on the effects of “choice” on existing public schools.
Be the lawmaker who asks public school leaders how the programs are affecting their schools and thus, their students. Look at the system. Don’t assume public schools stay the same when these parallel publicly-funded private systems are set up. They don’t.
That’s where the need is, in my opinion. Be the public advocate for the public systems that will be affected but are never consulted or even considered in ed reform “choice” schemes. The existing public schools will be bearing all the downside risk of these experiments because they are, of course, the “default” systems the voucher schools will rely on to take the children they refuse or kick out or otherwise don’t take. Those schools need an advocate in government. Speak for them.
Apparently he is a public school advocate, but since NC has a voucher law, he is advocating for accountability for the voucher schools as well. Rather than devoting all his energies to repealing a poor policy, he is trying to make sure that the current reality doesn’t affect public schools any more adversely than it has to while he continues to advocate for public schools. I think Diane’s apology is a recognition that he is first and foremost totally committed to public schools. Am I putting words in your mouth, Diane?
2old2teach, you are correct. Graig is an advocate for public schools who wants voucher schools to meet the same accountability standards as public schools since they take public dollars.
but what about his comment that things were really more about teachers?
I don’t think that was what he said.
“I have noticed in committee meetings at the legislature that teachers are frequently the subjects of our conversations, but whole meetings can go by without a single use of the word “students.”
Systems, schools, leaders, teachers … they all get more attention than the kids themselves. Unfortunately, that attention is often negative, including some statements that cast teachers as the problem and not part of the solution.”
He is commenting that the focus in the end should be on the students, but the talk tends to center around “Systems, schools, leaders, teachers…” However that attention on teachers is frequently negative, to his regret. Of course if you underpay your teachers, micromanage them, and under resource your schools, it is hard to figure out how children are of prime concern. His wife is a teacher in a struggling community; I think he understands the perspective of the teacher. However, he has to speak to people whose mantra is “It’s for the children.” His advocating for the same accountability for voucher schools is a way of saying prove it’s for the children.
I may have been too quick to apologize to Graig. I heard from a parent leader in North Carolina who is a Democrat and lives in Graig’s district. She said he is always looking for the middle ground with the extremists on the other side, so he supports the abominable “achievement school district,” TFA, and Jeb Bush’s A-F school grading plan. Oh, well, I hope he comes to our NPE conference and meets activists who have been fighting these failed ideas across the country.
If he is willing to come to NPE, perhaps he can be educated.
And wasn’t the qualifier of “more about teachers” sort of a blame kind of statement? (an extreme comparison might be):
“well if you’re going to cheat on your wife, then the girlfriend needs to have the same standards as the wife. And anyway, not cheating is really more about the interest of the first wife and her selfish needs.”
??
“but I just want there to be a dialogue about the cheating.”
It seems like a conversation like that. Where as before the cheating was ok’d by the courts, it was bad. But then it was ok’d so now the rationalizing starts. (if you take the view that vouchers are like cheating on the public school because they detract from the public school as Chiara notes above).
??
To be fair to the position he is in as a legislator in the minority party, would it be better to just ignore the subject? Or do they have to rationalize?
It seems like the view of public schools in relation to vouchers is that public schools stymy the development of SOME children and so they need a voucher to go to a community of learning that doesn’t stymy them. But I was thinking public schools were doing a pretty good job of making sure to offer the least restrictive environment for learners. Are the concerns leading to the push for vouchers social or academic? (actually, I think the real impetus is money saved by the state, which is why Meyer’s ideas will get shot down by the Republicans who put vouchers in to begin with because then vouchers will get expensive in providing accountability for making sure voucher schools provide accountability).
I think the true believers in vouchers have gotten caught up in the choice rhetoric and have forgotten that public schools serve the common good. Some will be pleased that they can send their children to a school that supports their religious beliefs and forget that there are/were good reasons to separate religion from the state. I don’t know how they justify everyone’s tax dollars being used. Then, of course, there are those who advocate for vouchers for purely mercenary reasons. It is hard to justify weakening the public schools by allocating already scarce public school funding to vouchers for either of these reasons.
It sounded like to me in the original article that he was rationalizing how vouchers would impact public schools by saying that when we give that consideration we are only considering teachers.
It’s good to hear that he hasn’t given up the fight. In the future, he should take care how he words what he shares with others through print or orally to avoid being misunderstood.
I think that’s the best place to leave it. Exactly.
Public money plus accountability equals public school.
Dr. Ravitch,
I think it’s good that the dialogue included you saying something provocative enough to get him to reach out.
“it’s important that we have a dialogue” is relevant and something I hear a lot in academic circles, but also you can’t sit on a fence forever. Dialogue is a first step in accountability, but it’s not enough. If you are against something and it passes anyway, it doesn’t sound like strong leadership to then begin listing why it was probably better that it passed—which is what it seemed like he was doing when he qualified things from previous concerns with “seems like it was all about the teachers.”
I do know people respect Meyer quite a bit. But on FB posts of the same article I read gave ridicule of his statement by public school supporters (same as you interpreted it) and support only by those who would support vouchers anyway. I think it’s great that you apologized, but I also think he was on the verge of condoning something that is clearly not in the interest of a strong state and in direct opposition to the stance of the Democratic caucus, at least (by strong state I mean a belief that a collaborative, cooperative community of folks defined by a common geographical area governed by elected entities) as represented by how it educates its young citizens.
Two things I came across in comments in other posts this weekend stand out to me here:
1. Accountability is more about relationship and we use performance to measure accountability—but accountability is not only about measuring up; accountability is about collective ownership of our state, its resources and its future. We have gotten way away from that comprehensive understanding of accountability.
2. Bargaining is part of grieving. Many more progressive North Carolinians are grieving right now—-and many of us might end up doing so out loud—–and if we do, then yes, the dialogue is about all we can hang our hat on, and I think that is what Meyer is doing.
Other points I want to make (maybe they will be discussed in Raleigh in the spring):
1. Thank goodness for NPE!!!! It is taking vocal grieving and giving it a chance for dialogue.
2. Is “state” a bad word? (all the more reason for good liberal arts behind being educated so that we will have read age old philosophies on this very notion—-it ain’t new, that’s for sure)—-It’s not a “21st Century” issue (gosh I despise that phrase)
3. Until the dedicated church-goers in our state understand that we have the freedom to build up strong faith communities BECAUSE we keep it separate from the state business as much as we can (even JC himself said to pay God what is due God and pay Caesar what is due Caesar—-even he understood there was a dichotomy that should be maintained here), we are shifting so far to the right that it is scary. I see FB posts from dedicated public school employees here in NC (from teachers all the way to cafeteria workers and TAs) that say things about putting God back into our schools and so forth. Where is the statement or the right words for them to see that putting religion into schools or funding such is exactly how you kill it. . .because then we have to have consensus and accountability on our religious beliefs. Yikes!! So to hear Meyer saying that vouchers will need accountability could be a way to sink the idea with its very own poison. . .but I think better to shoot straight if that’s what he means and not suddenly act like any concerns in the interest of public schools voiced heretofore were just about teachers.
I am a parent. I go to church. I don’t think vouchers are prudent or wise for the future of educating our students. I also don’t believe in the lottery and so I don’t play it. Even though we have it—I don’t play it. I think people were probably looking for Meyer to stick to the original opposition and not try to find its virtues just as a way to put sunshine on a cloudy day.
Good dialogue. But then what? (oh, and actually my main complaint about our current legislators is that they don’t discuss stuff, I suppose because they are taking it from ALEC. So kudos to any leadership who will). Kudos to Meyer for agreeing to come to NPE in April.