Nikhil Goyal is a prodigy who wrote his first book when he was only a teenager in public high school. Happily, he uses his considerable skills as a researcher to analyze the Trump “billionaire wrecking crew” that is planning to tear down our nation’s public schools.
Donald Trump, a self-described billionaire, wants billionaire heiress Betsy DeVos to take over the Department of Education. These two ultra-rich people have never attended public schools. Nor have they sent their kids to them. Yet they will likely accelerate the bipartisan dismantling of public education as we know it.
Private foundations, billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers have funneled billions of dollars either directly into the education system or the political process to influence policy. These groups are often staunch advocates of pro-market policies such as charter schools and school vouchers, which allows parents to send their kids to private schools using public money. DeVos has been described as “the four-star general of the voucher movement”…
Over the past two decades, as members of the ultra-wealthy rightwing DeVos family, Betsy and her husband, Dick, have been discreetly using their immense fortune to underwrite many of the major local and state crusades to privatize public education.
They helped pass Michigan’s first charter school law, pushed a failed Michigan school voucher referendum, helped get hundreds of pro-voucher and charter candidates for public office elected, proliferated charters, weakened teachers unions by advocating for right-to-work legislation in Michigan and warded off a proposed Detroit charter oversight commission in a state where 80% are run for profit with minimal accountability.
There are several flaws with vouchers. Their logic is based on empowering the individual over the state, rather than making systemic changes to funding, curriculum, assessment and teaching to achieve a high-quality, humane and equitable public system for all. Vouchers also siphon funds away from a cash-starved public system.
What’s more, studies have shown that school choice experiments in Chile and Sweden exacerbated existing inequalities. If we are to improve educational outcomes for all children, decades of research show that we must address the miserable social and economic conditions that profoundly affect schools: poverty, homelessness, inadequate healthcare, unsafe drinking water, food insecurity and gun violence. Reformers such as DeVos are not keen on the state redistributing their wealth to cure those ills…
The problem with this is that many charters are deeply segregated, push out low-performing and misbehaving students, and have been accused of “financial fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement” totaling more than $200m in a single 12-month span. Moreover, the Obama administration preserved and expanded Washington DC’s private school voucher program, which was originally launched by former president George W Bush.
DeVos will find many allies across the aisle in Washington, from Senator Cory Booker (who served on the board of the Alliance for School Choice, of which she was chairman) to the Center for American Progress to Democrats for Education Reform. At least she is forthright about gutting public education, as she wrote in an editorial urging to abolish and replace Detroit’s public schools with a free-market system, whereas Democrats hide behind the guise of “civil rights” and “educational opportunity”.
Unfortunately, the Obama years sowed the seeds for DeVos to finish the task. Without well-organized resistance, it will happen.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
To answer the question, NO. It’s getting worse everyday. The politicians agenda is to have as many dumb peasants to control as possible. They don’t want the majority of people educated. The army is getting away with going into the public High Schools and feeding juniors and Seniors total lies about the army and misleading these kids to sign on the dotted line and F ing their lives up.
quote planning to tear down our nation’s public schools.end quote. Bravo! and from your mouth to God’s ears.
This new EdSec will probably move to provide US parents will school choice. If these means the end of public schools, then fine.
Which will destroy democracy in the United States. Apparently you want that, too.
cemab4y,
When I worked in the first Bush administration, I made the same arguments for school choice that you make now, but I realized over time that schools are very different from universities. Schools are local and community institutions. Higher education is not. People travel to the university of their choice. Parents prefer to have a good neighborhood school where they meet their neighbors and their children meet children who are different from their own small world. When school choice is instituted, segregation grows by religion, race, and income. People meet people only like themselves. That’s why the Founders and Horace Mann got it right in the first place. The public schools in the 19th century were called “common schools,” because they were places where the banker’s son learned alongside the mechanic’s daughter. They learned they were all Americans, no matter what the family income. The great sin of the American public school was that it was racially segregated. Why would we want to go back to a dual school system?
Public universities are not required to fund private and parochial universities. Public K-12 schools are required to fund charter schools and increasingly are being forced to fund vouchers as well. Since we are unable to adequately fund public schools alone, what would make you think we could fund others as well? Diane has more than covered the importance of the concept of common schools, so I won’t rehash what she has expressed far better than I can.
(possible duplicate post)
I appreciate your service. You miss on a couple of points. I lived in Bowling Green KY, and I attended Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. It is the local college, publicly supported. Yes, there are dorms where students live who come from all over the USA, and foreign countries. But a large number of the students at my alma mater, live off-campus and commute.
K-12 schools are most often located in the community, and the students live at home with parents. The rich, liberal elites get to attend Choate, and Phillips Exeter, and Andover and exclusive residential “prep” schools. Illinois has the Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA), a three year residential prep school for gifted and talented students (publicly supported). The legislature got this school started, and the teacher’s unions in Illinois fought it tooth and nail, calling it “elitist”. In 1983 in Maryland the governor attempted to start a four-year residence prep school for gifted/talented. The NEA/AFT fought it, and the idea perished.
You say Q Parents prefer to have a good neighborhood school where they meet their neighbors and their children meet children who are different from their own small world. END Q This seems antithetical. You say the kids will be from their own neighborhood, but different from their own small world. If the school is located in the neighborhood, then how can the kids meet and interact with children from different neighborhoods and backgrounds from their own?
If the government feels that neighborhood schools are so great, why did they institute cross-town busing for racial balance? This insanity ripped kids out of the inner-city, and put them in the suburban schools, and ripped kids out of safe neighborhoods, and planted them in dilapidated ghetto-schools. See Swann v. Mecklenburg
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/281
You say Q When school choice is instituted, segregation grows by religion, race, and income. END Q. I disagree. What we have now, is a system of quality private education for the rich liberal elites, and the rest of the school kids are condemned to a wretched existence in failing, lousy, dilapidated schools. The rich can afford to pay for a quality education for their kids, and also pay for a school education that they do not use. The rich can afford to pay twice, and everyone else is told to stay put in the crappy schools.
There are only about 174,000 children in the USA receiving school vouchers, out of over 50 million kids. I would like to see what data you have to support the assertion that school-choice leads to racial segregation.
I believe that empowering parents to select alternate schooling is inherently democratic. Private/parochial schools will be able to accept more students from a more diverse socio-economic background, and the result will be more diversity in the private/parochial schools.
The history of “common” schools, is that they were to be publicly supported through the public purse. See
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1871/Common-School-Movement.html
My understanding of the word “common” : from dictionary.com
“of mediocre or inferior quality; mean; low:
a rough-textured suit of the most common fabric.”
Many (NOT ALL) of the public schools in this country are indeed “common”. Cheap, mediocre, of poor quality and low. My feelings exactly. I want America’s children to be in excellent schools, not common ones.
I am not convinced that the Founders wanted all of America’s children to be shoved into failing schools, run by the government monopoly. It is fair to agree that they supported an educated populace
See
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1/27/1360440/-7-things-our-founders-believed-about-public-education
Children from different socio-economic backgrounds attended (and still attend) the publicly-supported schools. And before 1954, there was racial segregation, no dispute. It took the Supreme Court to officially end it. See Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
No sane person wants to have a school system for “colored” and “white”. BUT- What we have now is a dual system. The rich liberal elites can send their kids to any school of their choice. People who cannot pay twice, are condemned to government-monopoly schools. If one spouse can afford not to work outside the home, the family can home-school, and still pay to support the schools their kids do not attend. One fact that is roaring down the track like a freight train, is on-line schooling for K-12 at home. This will help to break the back of the government monopoly.
cemaby4,
Do you think there is something “mediocre” about “common dreams,” “common ideals,” “common goals.”
Common is the root of community. Are you opposed to community? Should everything be in the marketplace to be bartered?
I recommend you read Mercedes Schneider’s book on “School Choice.”
Q cemaby4,
Do you think there is something “mediocre” about “common dreams,” “common ideals,” “common goals.”
Common is the root of community. Are you opposed to community? Should everything be in the marketplace to be bartered?
I recommend you read Mercedes Schneider’s book on “School Choice.” END Q
Fair questions, which deserve fair answers. I do not believe that there is anything mediocre about having common dreams and goals. Our nation dared to “dream” the “goal” of landing a man on the moon. We grabbed hold of that dream, and made it reality.
I am certainly NOT opposed to communities. I live in a community.
I am strongly in favor of the free market. I have lived in a communist dictatorship, and seen up close and personal how socialism and planned economies fail.
Should everything be in the marketplace? No. Certainly not. We have community police forces, and fire protection. We have an Army, a Navy, and an Air Force. We formed a federal government to do (among other things) provide for a “common defense”.
Our nation, our states, and our communities join together for the common good. “If all men were angels, there would be no need for government” – James Madison
I would be delighted to read the book you suggest. Like you, I want to see all points of view.
cemab4y, I have seen all points of view. For many years, I was a member of prestigious rightwing think tanks.
cemab4y, 90% of US K-12 students attend publically-funded schools (50 million, vs 5million private school students). Of that 50 million, 94% attend trad’l pubschs (i.e., not quasi-pub charter schools, pd w/ pub taxes but in most states de facto unmonitored as to finances or acad results)– all 94% of which are run by elected officials, & the great majority of those by locally-elected boards.
Now it’s your turn to tell me why there is no fed interest in the trad’l pubschs attended by 94% of 90% [85%] of our nation’s K-12 students.
Q: Now it’s your turn to tell me why there is no fed interest in the trad’l pubschs attended by 94% of 90% [85%] of our nation’s K-12 students. END Q
The Federal Government has NO specified authority in the US Constitution, to become involved in education. (other than the “general welfare” clause in the preamble, and that is debatable). The specific powers and duties of the federal government are spelled out in the Article I, Section 8.
For over 150 years, federal involvement in education was non-existent or limited. The states and municipalities ran the public schools.
Will there be a thing in our society remaining after Trump called “public school?” Probably.
Will that thing called public school be more damaged and invaded by corporations? Of course
Will the devastation be equal across the country? Probably not. The few remaining blue states will have the ability to resist DeVos and whatever her carrots and sticks are. Will they? Who knows. Dems are just as bad on education as Republicans.
The real question:
Will teachers unions survive a Trump Administration?
Probably not.
Leadership is in no way up for the fight that is required.
Membership is generally in no way up for the fight either.
Will there be a thing in our society remaining after Trump called “public school?” Probably.
Will that thing called public school be more damaged and invaded by corporations? Of course
Will the devastation be equal across the country? Probably not. The few remaining blue states will have the ability to resist DeVos and whatever her carrots and sticks are. Will they? Who knows. Dems are just as bad on education as Republicans.
The real question:
Will teachers unions survive a Trump Administration?
Probably not.
Leadership is in no way up for the fight that is required.
Membership is generally in no way up for the fight either.
Public schools have existed for over 250 years. Giving parents choice to withdraw their kids from failing public schools, will not end public (tax-supported) schools.
I live in Fairfax County,VA. The public schools here are excellent, some of the finest in the USA. The public schools across the river in DC are lousy. Good schools will survive choice, bad schools will not. What’s wrong with that?
I agree, in some states, with strong teacher unions, and with the politicians in the pocket of the NEA/AFT “Like so many nickels and dimes”, opposition to school choice will be furious.
I agree that Dems are just as bad on education as the Reps. All the more reason to get government out of public education.
Will teacher’s unions fight for the status quo? YES, everyone who has their jaw in the trough of the public treasury, will fight to keep lousy schools.
The leadership/membership of NEA/AFT do not have the power to hold back the push for school choice. Good.
Public education is a pillar of democracy.
Only two nations have privatatized their schools–Chile and Sweden. Both experienced intense segregation. Swedens scores on intl scores fell.
Parents have always had the choice to withdraw their children from public schools. What they don’t – and shouldn’t – have is the choice to make the public pay for their alternative choice. And everyone else’s alternative choices. Public schools are for the public good. You want something else, fine – pay for it yourself.
I’ve worked besides many truly excellent educators (who are also union members and leaders) during my career. And, they have certainly NOT been dedicating their lives to “fighting to keep lousy schools” as you put it, cemab4y.
History shows that unions help families, they help children, they help communities….they are one of the factors that’s made America truly great.
cemab4y,
You’re wrong to say DC schools are terrible. What you should say is that the students there perform terribly on tests (and maybe behave terribly in the classrooms). If you send those same kids to different schools en masse, the new schools will become “terrible”. Fairfax schools are not necessarily excellent. What you should say is that the students there perform well on tests and behave well in the classrooms. This is largely a function of parents’ class, not superiority of their teachers. No one wants to say or admit this, but it’s the truth. Unfortunately, public schools are about to be dismantled because of misconceptions like yours.
QUOTE: Dienne
December 1, 2016 at 12:34 pm
Parents have always had the choice to withdraw their children from public schools. What they don’t – and shouldn’t – have is the choice to make the public pay for their alternative choice. And everyone else’s alternative choices. Public schools are for the public good. You want something else, fine – pay for it yourself.
END QUOTE
Of course, parents can withdraw their children from public schools, and then enroll them in private/parochial schools. Only parents who can afford to pay for schools twice, (like the rich liberal elites) can do this. Most people cannot do this. It is like buying two insurance policies on the same car.
What vouchers will do is, rebate the tax payments back to the original payer (the parents). The parents are then free to utilize this money (which was theirs in the first place), to enroll the child in the school of their choice.
The “public” has no money. The only money the public treasury has, is the money paid into it by the taxpayers. Rebating some or all of the original money back to the payer, is a “wash”.
Public schools are set up for the public good. Agreed. In many cases, the public schools are not delivering the “product” (education) to the satisfaction of the public (the customer).
People, more and more, are clamoring for something else. Either Private,.parochial, charter, or even home-schooling. Rebating tax payments back to the original tax payer, will put the power to choose in the hands of the parents. Where it belongs.
cema4y,
If you choose to send your child to religious school, that’s up to you. I choose not to pay for your child’s religious education. You should be forced to pay for my grandchildren’s religious education.
Where are the unions anyway? AFT and NEA have been very quiet. I wonder if they are still trying to figure out how to sit at the table, the fools. Maybe they will do something novel like begin to act like union leaders, but there is little reason to think that they have the stomach to actually lead. Dare we hope that they will have the ability to help nurture new leaders who will actually pay attention to their membership?
Trump and DeVos are rich. They have school choice. They do not have to send their kids to lousy public schools. They are going to extend school choice to all parents.
quote
school vouchers, which allows parents to send their kids to private schools using public money. DeVos has been described as “the four-star general of the voucher movement”…end quote
How does private money become public money? People pay taxes. Vouchers work in reverse. The money that people have paid in taxes, will be rebated to them, so they have school choice.
If Ms.DeVos is a four-star general, then I want to enlist in her Army!
Q:There are several flaws with vouchers. Their logic is based on empowering the individual over the state, rather than making systemic changes to funding, curriculum, assessment and teaching to achieve a high-quality, humane and equitable public system for all. Vouchers also siphon funds away from a cash-starved public system.END
The individual should have power over the state. In a republic, the state is servant to the individual.
Cash-starved? Spending on public education (K-12) has been exploding for decades. In WashDC, the school system spends over $10k per student/year. Still, schools are lousy, and 79% of DC kids do not attend these lousy schools.
QUnfortunately, the Obama years sowed the seeds for DeVos to finish the task. Without well-organized resistance, it will happen.END
Hooray! The Democrats have managed (with their allies, the NEA/AFT) to ruin our nation’s schools. The time is now, bring in school choice.
Oh please, cemab4y, do you actually think you are going to get a $40,000 voucher to go to an elite private school? The tax payer would be on the hook for bussing also. What a vile, nasty and wasteful idea (vouchers).
Oh sure, cema, as if you will get a $40,000 voucher to send your kid to an elite private school, plus a voucher for the bussing.
Chris Christie sent his kids to the Delbarton School. It’s tuition is $36,900 and that does not include transportation, books and expected giving/donations which pushes costs over $40K. You will not get a voucher for $36,900, not even close, and the average parent would not be able to afford all the other costs associated with the elite private schools that Trump and DeVos attended or that their children attended.
No, but Christie will get a voucher to help him pay for his kids schooling. Just what we need: a system of subsidizing schooling for the wealthy. After all they will become our natural leaders by right of birth, correct?
Quote:
Dienne
December 1, 2016 at 12:34 pm
Parents have always had the choice to withdraw their children from public schools. What they don’t – and shouldn’t – have is the choice to make the public pay for their alternative choice. And everyone else’s alternative choices. Public schools are for the public good. You want something else, fine – pay for it yourself.
End Quote.
Of course, parents have the option of continuing to pay for failing schools, and withdraw their children from these bad schools, and then also pay for the private/parochial schools they will then send their kids to. This is exactly what the rich, liberal elites are doing! The rich can afford to pay for school twice. Middle-income and poor parents cannot. Some people want to ban private schools entirely.
see
http://gawker.com/5943005/theres-a-simple-solution-to-the-public-schools-crisis
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/warren-buffett-is-right-ban-private-schools_b_1857287.html
As to having the public pay for school choice: Who is the public? We are. The only money the government has, is the money it takes from the public.
Consider Pell grants (also known as BEOG, Basic Educational Opportunity Grants). These are paid for by the public (us). The money is given to individuals to spend on university-level education. (and also vocational/technical education). The recipient can take this money and attend the public/private/parochial school of their choice. If a recipient wants to go to Notre Dame, or a Jewish Yeshiva college, or Brigham Young University (run by the Mormons), no one will say them nay.
Why not extend Pell grants downward to include K-12?
If public schools are for the public good, then the public good is not being adequately served.
Cema, during the Vietnam War, opponents of the war refused to pay taxes, because they did not support the war.
The courts ruled that they did not have the right to refuse taxes because of a war they did not approve of.
You pay taxes for public schools, not for religious schools.
If you don’t like the excellent schools of Fairfax County, pay for your own private or religious schooling.
Shall we also privatize public beaches, public parks, public libraries, public highways? That’s already happening in some areas. It doesn’t end well. We will be paying for all religions–fundamentalist schools that teach creationism, Catholic schools, Jewish schools, Islamic schools, atheist schools, schools invented just to get money. A crackpot idea.
If a person refuses to pay taxes, they are breaking the law. They should be prosecuted and incarcerated. Good.
I pay taxes to the public treasury, and the funds go to various programs, including education. Good.
If a portion of my taxes go to recipients, who then spend the money at religious organizations, for non-religious purposes, then also good. If a person who receives SNAP (food stamps), and then redeems them at a food bank run by Catholic charities, then also good.
I like the schools here in Fairfax county, VA. If I had school-age children, I would gladly send them to the excellent public schools here. Good.
I have no problem with privately funded infrastructure projects. One example is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. It is a marvel of engineering, and it was built without one cent from the public purse. Good.
The state of New Jersey is the most urbanized state in America. The state has several tax-incentive programs for “open space”. Private owners of property are incentivized to put a brake on urban sprawl. Good.
I do not agree that citizens will be paying for religious schools. (See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 2002). If a portion of my tax contributions go to a parent who has enrolled his child in a religiously-affiliated school, then I am delighted.
I am already doing this at the university level. My federal taxes go to recipients of Pell Grants. These families send their children to Notre Dame, Brigham Young, Yeshiva, and the Islamic universities of America. My tax dollars may well be paying for the education of the next Islamic jihadist-terrorist. Good.
I don’t really like the failing library in my town. Not enough resources, the staff are pretty disinterested. But, y’know, I have a pretty good book collection myself. So maybe I’ll admit a few select members of the public to enjoy my private collection. I think the government should reimbursement for each such patron – maybe $8,000/patron? What do you think? Do you support library choice?
The scenario you describe is possible. If a person has a book collection, and he decides to open it to the public, and charge a fee for entrance, that is fine.
If a community decides that instead of supporting a publicly operated library, to instead give each citizen who holds a library card, a voucher payment, equivalent to what the per-capita expenditures would have been then I am fine with that.
The citizens who decline to use the public library,could then redeem the vouchers at the private library.
If the private library charges $8000 per year, and the voucher payment is less that this amount, it will be the responsibility of the citizen to make up the difference.
Good arrangement. I am fine with this.
So, you can say, that I support library choice.
You don’t pay for your children’s education; the community does. You cannot carve out a per pupil cost that you should receive. The buildings still need heat and electricity as well as maintenance; they still need staffing, administrators, support staff, and teachers. Education is a public good not a commodity that you are purchasing. An educated populace benefits the community as a whole. As a member of the community you are responsible for contributing to providing that public good whether you choose to use it or not. FYI: the amount spent on public education has been going down for a number of years.
If a person has a problem with school vouchers, then a way around it, is with tax credits provided to the family of the student, who opts not to attend the government school. The state of Arizona has a school choice program which accomplishes exactly this. And the Arizona supreme court has upheld the program
QUOTE
the Arizona court upheld the state’s school-choice tax-credit law because tax credits do not constitute public funds. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled likewise in ACSTO v. Winn (2011), holding that funds do not become “public money” until they have “come into the tax collector’s hands.” In that sense, tax credits are constitutionally no different from tax deductions or exemptions. For example, no reasonable person believes that a church is “publicly funded” because its donors receive charitable-donation tax deductions or because the church itself receives a 100 percent property-tax exemption. END QUOTE
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/education-week/389785/lefts-legal-war-children-jason-bedrick
BTW- No state has ever brought in a voucher program by referendum. But, no state which has a voucher program has ever repealed the program either.
Tax credits and Education Savings Accounts are a disguised vouchers. Arizona is overrun with charters and tax credits for religious schools. They have made no difference in student achievement, but it allows the state to underfund its public schools while pretending to do something for students.
Vouchers have never been approved by a popular vote; whenever they were submitted to popular vote, they are defeated. Tax credits were not approved by voters in AZ. AZ is a red state. Red states are hell bent on destroying public education, like Trump and DeVos.
“BTW- No state has ever brought in a voucher program by referendum. But, no state which has a voucher program has ever repealed the program either.”
Gee, what a surprise! The legislators who instituted voucher programs have never repealed the programs they voted for against the wishes of their constituents.
( please post this. I researched it thoroughly with the Census Bureau, and the National Center for Education Statistics)
I agree with some of your points, and disagree with some. True, expenditures on public education have been declining (in constant dollars). There are many reasons for this, fewer students to educate, and other demographics.
cemab4y,
I told you that I would allow you one comment a day to describe why you love vouchers.
You have already posted five comments, and I posted the most substantive.
Save this one for tomorrow. I will not let you flood the blog.
You are not paying a fee for each of your children to be educated in the public schools. You could have ten children and your tax for schools would be the same as if you had none. Are you suggesting that you should be able to pull the education dollars for ten children?! Your tax dollars are combined with those from the rest of the community to provide an education for all the children. Per pupil cost is a figure that gives an estimated $ amount for the purposes of budgeting NOT to determine your fair share of tax dollars. There is no such thing. My children are long gone from the public schools and I keep paying. What’s my fair share? The public’s money is collective. You are not entitled to a portion of it for your personal use. We can not/do not fund a fair number of our public schools adequately now. What would make you think that we can afford to support private schools as well (I include the vast majority of charters as private)?
You can call a tax a “fee” if you like. The fact is, money is paid in by the public into the public purse (treasury). I pay taxes in Fairfax Virginia, which are spent on education. I have no children. I am delighted with this arrangement. I get to live in an educated society. Fairfax County Virginia has excellent publicly-supported schools.
Agreed, I could have ten children, one child, or no children, and my tax contribution is unchanged. Agreed 100%.
I am proposing, that a person with children, who chooses not to send his child/children to a publicly-supported public school, should be able to withdraw his child(ren), from the publicly-supported school. And then he should be able to apply the public money which would have been spent at the school that his child(ren) are NOT attending, then go to the school that his child(ren) ARE attending. Just as if he moved to another school district or another state.
Agreed, my tax contributions are pooled with tax payments from other citizens, and then the money is disbursed for education.
Disagree, though, that the per pupil expenditures are not a determination of how much money is spent for each taxpayers child(ren).
I contend, that that is exactly what they are. A person with no children, will have no tax money spent on his (non-existent) children. A person with one child will have the public treasury spend exactly one per-pupil expenditure on his one child. A person with 10 children will have the treasury disburse 10 per-pupil expenditures. A person with x children, will have the public treasury spend x per-pupil on his x children.
The person with no children, pays into the public purse exactly the same as a person with 10 children. The person with 10 children will have the public spend money on his children, while the non-parent enjoys no such benefit.
You ask “what is your fair share?”. Easy question. Since you have no children in public school (neither do I), then you are NOT entitled to receive a voucher payment, to send your non-existent children to alternate schools.
The public’s money is indeed “collective”, and it is pooled in the treasury. The government is already spending an amount on publicly supported education, and I receive none of it. If I had a child in a publicly-supported school, then I would be.
I agree, that publicly-supported education is not properly funded. See the amount of debt, that (college) students are graduating with. I would be delighted to spend a more appropriate amount from the public purse, to deliver excellent education to all of America’s children. Even though none of them are mine. I have to live in the world, where these children are going to be working.
Of course, our society cannot afford to support a dual system of education. Only the rich can do this. That is why many (NOT ALL) wealthy people, pay public school taxes, then pull their children out of public schools, and send their children to alternate schools. (See Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, and what many other of the most fervent opponents of school choice do) .
Returning the funds, that would have been spent on a public-school education, and infusing the control of these disbursements to parents, is inherently democratic and empowering. With a voucher/savings plan, only ONE education per child will be supported by the people, through the public treasury.
Goyal states,”Progressives need to collaborate on a platform that we can rally the public behind. Some of the items should include: a “New Deal” for public education: a multibillion-dollar investment into working-class communities; creating thousands of community schools which offer a whole child pedagogical approach and provide wrap-around services; end to high-stakes testing, abolition of corporal punishment and implementing restorative justice.”
Clearly, the best path to resistance is to forge an alliance with parents, unions and social justice groups. This is not just a union issue. This battle is about the foundation of our democratic principles. This battle is about the collective futures of our children and grandchildren. Privatization does not represent the will of the people; it represents the interests of the oligarchs.
NYSTEACHER stated that there little appetite to fight. I taught in New York in the seventies and eighties. We struck; we walked out; we picketed. We woke up at five in the morning to do picketing duty in neighboring districts before we taught. We traveled to neighboring districts after school to support other neighboring districts to do picketing duty after school. It was hard, but sometimes things we must do are hard. We fought for our rights, and the issues were not as fundamentally offensive as today. I can’t speak for others. but If someone is attacking me and a generation of children. I will go down swinging.
RT,
The true badass teachers of the 70s-80s generation are why we are able to have the stable career we now enjoy (though probably won’t for much longer).
That generation of teachers had a fairly solid grounding in the humanities, labor, labor history, and grew up in a culture of strong union membership and ethos. They were also part of that mid-century American culture that, while usually culturally conservative generally was always resistant to fascism. That generation of teachers were the children of he Great Depression and WW2 generation. They saw and experienced the value of unions daily, and were well aware of the problems of fascism. They were also steeled with the militancy and activism of the 1960s. At bottom, a true badass set of teachers!
Today: not so much. Few teachers have any real grounding in the humanities (even ones that teach English, history, etc). Few if any have any knowledge of labor history or labor philosophy. Few if any grew up in a union household. Few if any can differentiate fascism from Buddhism.
Most were education majors of the worst kind….indoctrinated, with no philosophy, towards the virtue of technology in the classroom, a general distaste for teachers unions, and an embrace of the corporate classroom…..all as a given. They are ripe with the corporate-lingo-ization of the profession, and are unaware of it.
Most see, treat and respond to administrators or any percieved authority figure with a dutifulness and earnestness that would seem remarkable even in totalitarian states.
Most can speak ad nauseum about baby and parenting culture, but with no depth beyond their own infantilization.
Of course, there are numerous exceptions…..and if you are looking at this blog, you are one of them. But the vast numbers of teachers are closer to the above.
A fighting union membership, broadly, is not made of such stuff. Good union militants generally don’t have daddy issues.
And don’t even get me going on union leadership……
I should say that I am not necessarily advocating for teachers to strike. This would probably backfire in today’s climate. Doing nothing also makes little sense. I do believe in organizing and collaborating with parent and social justice groups. There is strength in numbers. Pro-public school forces need to unite to try to change the narrative. The message should be about asserting our right to free public education as a building block of democracy. It should be about how the governance of schools belongs to the local community. The message should be about investing in the common good in schools that attempt to be the great equalizer. The clear message should be that corporate run schools are not adequate as they do not put the interest of students first.. They cannot teach civics and prepare students to live in a democratic society. Local communities should band together and reject charters and vouchers.
To add insult to injury, now and the near future, NM Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera will probably leave her position and go to work for DeVos in DC. Skandera work for Jeb Bush when he was Governor of Florida and was appointed as NM Sec of Ed when Martinez was elected as NM Governor. Basically it was payback to the Republican Party for helping Martinez get elected. Skandera NEVER worked in any school as a Teacher or Administrator. She has been the NM Sec of Ed for six years and has accomplished very little to improve education in this state. The six years of the Martinez-Skandera agenda has had limited impact on the state’s traditionally poor performing public schools.
Skandera has very strong ties to the PARCC, strong ties to Pearce (the educational company headquartered in London), strong belief in charter schools, is a member of Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Educational Excellence — list goes on and on. A person who could have a great deal of conflict of interest if she is hired by DeVos. Skandera will definitely be a strong supporter of privitization for public schools.
Good luck Public School Teachers. Life under DeVos and Skandera will get worse in the near future.
I am grateful that you are publishing my comments. It is obvious that you cherish our free-speech rights, as much as I do. It takes courage to publish comments that are obviously at variance with your points of view. I am in your debt.
ditto