Peter Greene here debates a libertarian proponent of school choice–on his blog, not in person.
The debate typically begins with the undocumented assertion that public schools are failing. This is a standby of the school choice crowd. I demolished that particular claim in my last book, “Reign of Error.” The public schools are actually performing (if you mean test scores and graduation rates) better than ever, and in affluent districts, they are doing a great job.
Greene uses the shaky claims for choice as an opportunity to knock them down, one by one. No, educators don’t need to be “incentivized” by competition. No, choice does not “empower” parents. It enables schools to choose the students they want and reject the ones they don’t. It’s most certain result is hypersegregation. By Race, religion, and social class. That’s why “school choice” was the rallying cry of southern segregationists in the 1950s and early 1960s.
He doesn’t mention the fact that none of the highest performing nations in the world have adopted school choice.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
True libertarians — now extinct — don’t believe in taking other people’s money for their personal benefit.
LikeLike
I love Peter Greene! He takes what is basically a very depressing subject and finds the humor in it. It would be so easy to wallow in disgust and despair, but it is very hard to chuckle while doing so. Greene provides the saving chuckle.
LikeLike
Greene makes several legitimate rebuttals to the false assumptions of “reform.” When public schools are called monopolies, he rightly points out that monopolies are not managed by local boards of citizens. Public schools are not monopolies; they are a form of local democratic governance for the most part. We have all witnessed how appointed school boards are more likely to become hijacked by corporate power. The second great rebuttal from Greene is his analysis of the “free market.” Greene claims that the way charters are funded is perversion of free market ideology. In a free market nobody would serve the poor because there is no profit in poor people. Charters siphon money from local public schools. They also get donations from wealthy people that seek to lower the taxes they pay. What Greene does not mention is that the public schools are weakened, and the rest of the community is responsible for the lost revenue, or programs get cut for the majority of students. This has nothing to do with the “free market.” It is a “rob Peter to pay Paul” scheme.
LikeLike
retired teacher: well put.
As I see it, the very way that rheephormsters use terms is often suspect and deliberately misleading.
For example, if public schools were a monopoly then Catholic schools and home schooling and those paragons of past choice known as “segregation academies” and such like never ever existed.
And what happens to “choice” when public schools are robbed of resources (staff, monies, public support) and replaced/eliminated by charter schools? When was the last time folks in New Orleans and Detroit, e.g., were given the choice of well-resourced and well-supported public schools that took in all students in particular neighborhoods?
And if “monopoly” is such a bad word: why do the charter chains act like that is just what they want to establish? Of course, they say it’s “all for the kids” and not the $tudent $ucce$$…
😏
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
“The second great rebuttal from Greene is his analysis of the “free market.”
That vaunted free market, according to Google Earth, is located at 13, 33 14.99 North and 29 29 42.44 West. Pretty hard to drive there.
LikeLike
This is a clear and present danger here in Ohio. My state rep, who is (sadly) the chair of the House Education Committee, last week proposed a bill that would destroy the current public school funding formula. In short, funding responsibility would shift to the state, and it would become a vouchers-for-all scenario. The bill is dead in the water, but he has plans to push aggressively for it next year. Thanks so much for sharing this timely piece from Peter Greene. It certainly helps me further shape my arguments against vouchers and choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I once had an on again off again debate with a libertarian in another blog. To say that it was frustrating and maddening is an understatement. The libertarian kept referring to the government as the gooferment. It was mildly funny the first time but by the 7th usage I was ready to smash my computer through the wall. He actually believes that there should be no public schools, why should he pay for other peoples’ kids. Education, according to him, is the sole responsibility of each parent. He said that parents should home school or send their kids to private schools. Period. He even wanted to privatize the roads, fire departments and police. This jerk actually thinks the Pinkertons are a good idea. I am done with libertarianism. It’s a sick selfish scam perpetrated by the billionaires so they don’t have to pay taxes or abide by any regulations; they want to have free reign to rape the country and the general populace. Libertarianism = goofertarianism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recall seeing Ron Paul in an interview when the ACA was first proposed. He said that we don’t need the ACA because we need to return to the days when neighbors helped each other. It just shows how out of touch these people are, and Paul was an obgyn.
LikeLike
Yes, exactly. When I quizzed dopey libertarian about what he would replace Medicare and Medicaid with, which he of course opposed, he responded that charity would take care of the poor people! It’s such a stupid concept. Charity will not even come close to taking care of people with severe heavy duty illnesses that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. No to mention all the elderly and even not so elderly people in nursing homes funded by Medicaid. My late cousin was on dialysis which he told me cost about $150,000 a year. Who can afford that, what damn charity will foot that bill? NONE. He was on disability insurance which libertarians hate and are opposed to.
LikeLike
Just like the billionaires have their bubble. the libertarians live in a “pioneer bubble.” Today lots of people barely know their neighbors. Even if they were friends with neighbors, you can’t knock on someone’s door to help you pay for cancer treatments. That might work if doctors worked on a barter system of chickens and eggs. Those days are long gone.
LikeLike
Democrats are living in a bubble too. They think they can carry on in their merry way and the ship will right itself. All that is needed to be done is reenergize identity politics. What a joke.
LikeLike
“He actually believes that there should be no public schools, why should he pay for other peoples’ kids.” You’ve also caught the underlying sound of the racist dog-whistle: there are growing powers fully against the spending of money on “other people’s children.”
LikeLike
Should we spend money on other people’s fires? How about other people’s police emergencies? Like a chicken in every pot, there must be an ambulance in every driveway. Restaurants could be abolished because everyone could cook his own food.
LikeLike
Joe, this might help in your argument:
What is that fundamental purpose and where can it usually be found? Is there even a fundamental purpose? To answer the last question first, it depends! Well, what does it depend on then? In answering that question we also answer the where question—the constitution of each state.
But there’s a catch, not every state gives a purpose for its authorization of public education. It’s a 50/50 split with 25 states not giving any purpose such as West Virginia’s authorization “The Legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of free schools.” (Article XII, Sec. 12-1) and 25 states providing a rationale.
The rationales can be divided into three types. Those that declare that the purpose of public education is to ensure that the state’s form of government will continue, such as South Dakota’s “The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools. . . .” (Article VIII § 1). Those whose fundamental purpose focuses on the individual and his/her rights such as Missouri’s “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools . . . .” (Article IX Sec. 1a) And those that are a combination of both. As it is, fifteen mainly focus on the benefits of public education to the individual citizen and the preservation of his/her rights, five on the benefit to the state and five that state both citizen and government benefits.
All together then, there are 25 states with no stated fundamental purpose, five with a purpose that extol the benefits of public education to the state, fifteen commending the benefits to the individual and five a combination of benefit to both state and individual, resulting in that 80% of those with a stated purpose having the benefits for the individual as primary. Is it possible, then, to discern a fundamental purpose of public education? Yes, I believe it can be discerned, first by starting with the fundamental purpose of government in this country as stated in each state’s constitution (sometimes as troublesome to recognize a stated purpose as that of public education). Since public education is a function of each state and not the federal government we must begin at the state level and determine what is the fundamental purpose of the state? In examining the constitutions one finds that there many and varied exhortations.
For example Alabama’s constitution states: “Objective of government. That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” (Section 35)
And this from Nebraska “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Art. I, sec. 1)
All well and good, eh! Quite compelling is Missouri constitution’s wording on the purpose of government: “That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” (Article. II, Sec. 4. § 3.)
Tying together the aims of our constitutional government with the purpose of public education as stated in some of the state’s constitution allows us to propose a common fundamental statement of purpose. Since 20 of the 25 state constitutions give a reason attending to the rights and liberties of the individual through public education combined with the mandate of state constitutional government as reflected in Missouri’s constitutional language of “That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry. . .” it follows that the rights and liberties of the individual in being educated as each sees fit supersede those of supporting and maintaining the government. One can logically conclude that if the educational wants and needs of the citizens obtain then those of the state will follow. But without an educated citizenry who can promote their own interests and understand and tolerate others thoughts, opinions and desires the state would surely be subject to tyranny by those whose knowledge and wants exceeds most.
I propose, then, the following concise statement of the purpose of public education with which, hopefully, most in the United States could agree:
“The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
LikeLike
I always wonder what libertarians make of our national parks. Should they be sold off?
And, after a recent trip to polluted Mexico, I wondered what libertarians think of the Clean Air Act and the agency that enforces it. Our air is so clean compared to most countries.
LikeLike
At best, wishful thinking versus verifiable facts on the ground.
What do I mean?
Remember that classic of rheephorm-minded critiques of public education, A NATION AT RISK [ANAR] (1983)? Ah, its memorable chicken-little bellowing: “Our nation is at risk…From a rising tide of mediocrity…If an unfriendly foreign power had imposed our education system we might well have considered it an act of war.” [quoted from below, p. 24]
From the late Gerald Bracey, READING EDUCATION RESEARCH: HOW TO AVOID GETTING STATISTICALLY SNOOKERED (2006, pp. 24-26).
ANAR asserts re National Assessment of Educational Progress {NAEP] results: “There was a steady decline in science achievement scores of U.S. 17-year-olds as measured by national assessments in 1969, 1973, and 1977.”
Perhaps recalling Ionesco’s observation that “[i]t is not the answer that enlightens, but the question” Bracey then writes:
“…we should ask why the commissioners selected only science and why they selected only seventeen-year-olds to make their point. NAEP also tests nine- and thirteen-year-olds. NAEP also tests reading and mathematics at those three ages. So if the decline is widespread and awful, why weren’t the other ages and other subjects included?”
The answer is not kind to those in the “new civil rights movement”:
[start]
If we look at all nine trend lines (three subjects tested at three different ages), as shown in Figure 2, we quickly see that the science trend for seventeen-year-olds is the only one that shows a “steady decline.” It is the only one that will support the report’s crisis rhetoric and it was the only one mentioned. (Terrel Bell, the secretary of education who commissioned A Nation at Risk, was quite candid in his memoir The Thirteenth Man about how he had heard many stories about the terrible state of public schools and had convened the commission to document the stories.)
[end]
The numbers & stats that undergird the narrative of corporate education reform and produce $tudent $ucce$$ for its chief beneficiaries and enablers and enforcers follow Mark Twain’s lead:
“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.”
😎
LikeLike
One of the Peter Greene’s best observations about choice.
Greene’s Law– the free market does not foster superior quality; the free market fosters superior marketing. Students and resources will gravitate toward the schools with the most attractive marketing. Or are located closest to home.
LikeLike
That’s so true. Public schools have zero dollars to spend on advertising to join in the “competition.” If they have been stripped of resources, public schools are unable to compete. Many parents are not that involved with test scores either. They want a local, convenient school that meets the needs of their children.
LikeLike
Laura H. Chapman and retired teacher:
If I may riff off of your remarks: the libertarian/free marketeer/Friedmanesque approach to education and just about anything else relies, in public at least, on the supposed availability of trustworthy and accurate information that is “consumed” [bidness lingo!] by prospective consumers.
Trouble is, the purveyors of the eduproducts put out by corporate education reform do anything but dish out good info. Just look at the postings on this blog over the last several days re Success Academy in NYC. Just the attempt to bring transparency and accountability and the free flow of information (including from ex-employees at almost all levels) to the public is vigorously opposed with a fury that matches that of the Furies. With the caveat that the Furies of ancient Greek mythology punished the guilty in the spirit of justice, not the innocent in the spirit of $tudent $ucce$$.
And this from one of the paradigmatic heavyweights of rheephorm.
Plus they are hypocrites in the most casual way. Supporters of public education are, as evidenced on this blog and in many other places/situations over my lifetime, not afraid—in fact, feel compelled to—speak out about the shortcomings and problems, however serious and troubling, of public schools. Rheephormsters feel no compunction in using those remarks, as well as making up landfills full of twisted falsehoods [see my above response on this thread of 10:32 AM], in order to make their sales pitches to promote their eduproducts. But when it comes to the beams, might beams of Sequoias in their own eyes—
Move along. Nothing to see here. Just the rantings of folks like a shrill and strident woman that leads a band of vile and racist Ravitchbots. Oh, but we don’t think your special needs child is a “good fit” here in our Charter School of Excellentness so perhaps you should leave and go to that failing big gubmint monopoly school down the street that we are putting out of business posthaste…
Rheephormistas. Their words. Nailed to the wall by an old dead French guy:
“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” [François de la Rochefoucauld]
Rheephormistas. Their deeds. They won’t stop until the vast of majority of us have no choices left but what they provide. Because, as a very dead and very old and very Roman guy said:
“For greed all nature is too little.” [Lucius Annaeus Seneca]
$tudent $ucc3$$. Ain’t it grand?
Not!
😡
Thank you both for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
Again, as usual, well stated KTA!
LikeLike
True libertarians pay their own way. They do not believe in using other people’s money to pay for their personal benefit. What we have here are not libertarians but people who want to use public funds and public resources free of responsibility to the public.
LikeLike
With little accountability and oversight, that is what they are getting. It is more like corporate welfare than a “free market.” It will get worse under Trump and DeVos.
LikeLike
Not only are they not libertarians but they also are not conservatives but regressives who want to go back to a time that never was except in their own mind.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on BLOGGYWOCKY and commented:
Apparently, the libertarian Peter Greene debated with has read way too much Ayn Rand, and has also never come across Warren Buffett’s statement about winning the “Ovarian Lottery.”
Here is what Buffett said:
“I’ve had it so good in this world, you know. The odds were fifty-to-one against me being born in the United States in 1930. I won the lottery the day I emerged from the womb by being in the United States instead of in some other country where my chances would have been way different.
Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb, both equally bright and energetic. And the genie says to them, “One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be the one that is born in the United States?” It says something about the fact that society has something to do with your fate and not just your innate qualities. The people who say, “I did it all myself,” and think of themselves as Horatio Alger – believe me, they’d bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh. That’s the Ovarian Lottery.”
http://blog.bradleygauthier.com/congratulations-youve-won-the-ovarian-lottery/
Exactly. I am betting that this libertarian would not want to have been born in Bangladesh. Or in Afghanistan. Or Somalia. And so on.
LikeLike
Libertarian thought is guided by the belief that government stymies personal responsibility. Since one of our personal responsibilities is to each other, this appears an apparent contradiction to this observer. Government is defined as the way we work us together in community. Thus government cannot crush the individual unless it is tyranny. At its best it is a fair arbiter of disputes among interests.
Absent democratic constraints on government’s role as a referee, money has been shown to corrupt government, making it little more than an extension of personal interests, be eynindividual or corporate. It is understandable in this day when government at many levels are forced by powerful individuals or groups to behave a certain way, that some would become disillusioned with government and think that we could do better without it. That is why libertarianism appeals to many today. That is also why modern libertarians are without a philosophy. In the absence of strong government regulation, corporations become government itself.
To desire an absence of government is to return to a feudal society where strong men dominate for their own good. We rejected that in forming the constitution. Now we must fit for our constitution.
LikeLike
Well stated, Roy! Gracias.
LikeLike
Peter Greene, you are guilty of generalizing. One of the first things I learned in my first philosophy course is that there are very few absolutes; statements need to be qualified. God exists is one absolute. The Catholic parochial schools- schools of choice- accept all races, religions, and social classes. A near by Catholic high school accepted a Muslim family. They have always accepted all races. The one hitch, every student must accept the curriculum as it is; the students can’t pick and choose their curriculum. They must attend all the classes of a specific curriculum. There is an exception. Students who qualify for AP classes can choose not to attend those AP classes.
LikeLike
Peter Greene is making statistical generalization, and I think people who base their generalizations on real-world data rather than ideology will find them to be fair.
LikeLike
Jon, the fact that it is a generalization means that it is not always true.
Generalization by definition, “a general statement : a statement about a group of people or things that is based on only a few people or things in that group; the act or process of forming opinions that are based on a small amount of information.”
LikeLike
A statistical generalization is not based on only a few cases from a class of cases, it is based on the preponderance of the cases from that class and no one gets through a day alive without operating on the basis of many such generalizations from personal experience or formal study. Yes, there are such things as prejudices and superstitions, but those are the result of not getting out much and acquainting oneself with what is called a “fair sample” of the relevant cases. I do not think that is the case here.
LikeLike
Jon, my contention is that Peter Greene, like all people, should qualify his statements.
You like to slip the terms superstitions and prejudices into your discourse implying that the one you are debating is either superstitious or prejudice. When it comes to ad hominem attacks, we are not on safe ground.
Jon, I am sure that you are so good at manipulating of words that you win debates but that doesn’t mean you are right. My son is so good at casuistry that he can take any position on any topic- right or wrong He dances around with his words and logic that his position sounds right regardless.
LikeLike