Do you remember back in the old days when the privatization movement began that choice was going to “save poor children from failing schools”?
Well, that slogan is now obsolete. Now the advocates say that the purpose of choice is choice, regardless of results.
That subtle shift has happened because of the many recent studies and evaluations showing that charters and vouchers do not necessarily get better results, and that they may even have a negative effect, as we learned from recent evaluations of voucher programs in D.C., Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos sounded the bugle call for retreat after learning of the poor results of the latest evaluation of the D.C. voucher program, funded by the U.S. Department of Education.
In the past, she had said that choice would “save poor kids from failing schools.” Now, however, she says, “When school choice policies are fully implemented, there should not be differences in achievement among the various types of schools.” Parents are satisfied, and that is good enough for her, even if the children’s test scores are falling. If you parse this sentence, what she is saying is that when everyone chooses, none of the schools will be better than any others. They will all get the same results, even if they are dismal. The purpose of choice is choice.
Results don’t matter. Only parent satisfaction matters. If poor kids are moved from a “failing public school” to a “failing charter school” or “failing religious school,” that’s fine. An opinion piece in a D.C. paper suggested that we should not pay attention to those studies, because critics of school choice twist their findings anyway, especially if their findings are negative.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
And coming to DC soon – The federal goverment forbids you from evaluating results by a controled study group.
PROGRAM EVALUATION 9 SEC. 908. (a) REVISION OF EVALUATION PROCE- 10 DURES AND REQUIREMENTS.—
‘‘(2) DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.—The Sec-
7 retary, through a grant, contract, or cooperative
8 agreement, shall—
9 ‘‘(A) ensure that the evaluation under
10 paragraph (1)(A)—
11 ‘‘(i) is conducted using an acceptable
12 quasi-experimental research design for de-
13 termining the effectiveness of the oppor-
14 tunity scholarship program under this divi-
15 sion that does not use a control study
16 group consisting of students who applied
17 for but did not receive opportunity scholar-
18 ships; and
Instead:
‘‘(B) The success of the program under
16 this division in expanding choice options for
17 parents of participating eligible students and
18 increasing the satisfaction of such parents and
19 students with their choice.
20 ‘‘(C) The reasons parents of participating
21 eligible students choose for their children to
22 participate in the program, including important
23 characteristics for selecting schools.
Job well done Betsy!
New Slogan:
Choose. What have you got to lose!
Choice for the chosen.
Choose which corporation to which YOUR children will be sold…
I just discovered a study my nephew Matt and his wife Sarah made together…. “Charter school opponents make less effective arguments than supporters” Among their discoveries….”Non union” was a big help to the charter advocates.
Sarah offered this observation: Sarah Reckhow, the lead author on the study, said the survey split participants into four groups. One was a control group, while the other three were all given facts before being asked a question to see how that fact influenced their response.
Grossman said they found charter school opponents might need to find new talking points in order to make their view resonate with citizens.
“The main thing we found is the argument opponents are making is (against) privatization,” Grossman said. “That doesn’t resonate with citizens, but one of the main arguments of proponents is (charter schools) are non-unionized and allegedly more flexible, and that does resonate.”
“It certainly seems to be the case that they need to switch arguments, but it’s not obvious what the alternative argument might be,” he said. “An effectiveness argument might be more useful.”
“Obama was wrong letting choosing arne Duncan and letting Billionaire Bill Gates dominate the scene” is my favorite argument not being made forcefully enough.
Joe,
Thanks for saying this out loud:
“Obama was wrong letting choosing arne Duncan and letting Billionaire Bill Gates dominate the scene” is my favorite argument not being made forcefully enough.
Joe Prichard,
Please send your email. I want to learn more about St Louis.
A big problem in St. Louis is the stealth of the charter advocates. Given a choice between after having outrageous behavior pointed out, they do not bother to explain or defend, they simply ignore it, confident that no one will demand any follow up. I do not have much credibility, but it seems to be growing…I have the right to post threads at current affairs, a forum at the Post Dispatch, and I do so almost every day. I had a really civilized discussion on April 25th..”Report:: Vouchers would be a disaster–for rural schools” I frequently use material I discover here, sometimes directly, sometimes clicking your link to the original source. 28 responses is good for my threads.
Without telling me, the PD barred all direct responses to stories and editorials. The person who did so (Beth O’Malley) identified herself. I just learned that public radio does the same. I called and asked why, and they said no one in st. louis has anything to do with restricting me. (they still want my money). I suspect it has something to do with my ten years of dedication to trying to talk about education. I would really appreciate it if someone could call public radio or the Post Dispatch, and ask for an explanation of why my comments are barred. The pd is likely to offer a facebook is to blame explanation. There are great people to talk to in St. Louis. The elected members of the board still have monthly meetings, for the tenth year after losing power in a takeover, with three appointed members. The media praises the school for improvement, while not saying much about the loss of 10,000 students, mostly to charter schools for which not much is reported. My e-mail is kjoe7@sbcglobal.net ,and I post under the name kjoe, and my avatar has me with Chuck Berry and his daughter Ingrid. Perhaps someone can discover what is so objectionable about my communication skills.
One of the best people in St. Louis is Peter Downs. When he was elected to the board in 2006, the wheels were immediately set into motion to take over the schools, and remove all power from the elected board. A couple of weeks ago, I asked public radio why Peter’s negative review of Waiting for Superman had been removed…no reply (except a notice that my comments are no longer allowed)Peter writes about a lot of subjects, but he really zeroed in with “Schoolhouse Shams: Myths and Misinformation in School Reform”. “Written by a parent and school board member, who first embraced many of the ideas of the modern school reform movement, Schoolhouse Shams lays bare much of the mythology and misinformation that underpin many of the failed school reform policies of the last decade. Many of the top strategies of the highly publicized school reform movement already have been tried out in St. Louis with disastrous results. Along with demonstrating the failure of school reform prescriptions to improve education, the experience of St. Louis demonstrates that the ideological premise of the reform movement, that a focus on providing opportunities for private profit-taking will necessarily improve schools, is both wrong and conflicts with the ideals of democracy, accountability, and justice”.
Joe,
I have Peter Downs’ book. Do you have an email for him?
In theory non-union increases flexibility. In practice this belief is not necessarily true. If there were tremendous benefits to a school being non-union, where are the benefits from all those “laboratories of innovation?” The fact that many of the non-union employees are minimally trained novices to education that frequently leave after two years of service creates less stability, not more. The wonders of a non-union school are another charter myth along with the inherent value of “choice.” We have learned nothing new from non-union charters, except that many of the teachers learn to understand the value of collective bargaining because they are seeking to join a union too. Most charters offer one size fits all instruction, and there is nothing remotely flexible or interesting about that. Some charters use scripted lessons to micro-manage instruction , and there is nothing flexible or creative about scripts driving instruction.
Some people have been misled by anti-union propaganda. In my small suburban district, the union rarely interfered with the school’s operation. Many unionized teachers do not clock out at the blow of a whistle. Many teachers arrived early and stayed late because they they had work to complete. Some people served on committees after school or during the summer without remuneration for their time as they considered themselves to be salaried professionals. We need to answer all the lies that are told about public school teachers. Most of my colleagues care deeply about the work they do, and, yes, they belong to a union.
What’s that, you say? Privatized, unregulated voucher schools funded with public money deliver poor results?
Who could have guessed that staffing schools with untrained, uncredentialed teachers, and having those schools be totally unregulated and non-transparent to the government and the public, and having those schools run by non-educators and/or relative novices who, because of a non-union contract, can abuse and fire teachers with impunity … gee, who would have guessed that such a framework would lead to failure?
Go figure.
Reformers have a great response to that.
If the school is public and it has low test scores, close it and turn it over to the private sector.
If, after doing so, the new privatized entities — AKA charter schools — deliver worse results than the school which they replace, then … well, just let them not only stay open, but expand indiscriminately because well, choice is everything.
That underlies the double standard of accountability that Secretary Devos copped to when questioned by Senator Tim Kaine. She’s like one of those talking pull-string dolls that repeats the same words — “I support accountability” — every time you pull the string.
Watch this infamous “I support accountability” moment during her senate confirmation hearing:
Secretary Devos’ parrot-like response statement …
“I support accountability.”
TRANSLATES TO …
“I support accountability … two standards of it, actually, when it comes to different types of schools that take government funds:
“one for traditional public schools that leads to their being closed and turned into charters based on low test scores;
“AND
” … another for ‘choice’ schools — charter schools and voucher schools — that leads to them staying open forever, regardless of low test scores, because well … choice — and concurrent union-busting and privatization — is really all that matters to me and my reformer allies.”
Definition- A ventriloquist’s doll is a dummy.
So, we have spent years of wasted time with instruction focused on test results. Untold numbers of children were robbed of meaningful learning. The tests, all along, were meant to discredit teachers and schools, never to improve instruction. This and all the other reforms were/are a sham, but I bet they won’t go away, too much money to be made. Public schools have to fall for the reformers to succeed. This “retreat” ought to make it a little easier to fight them, we”ll see
“twist their findings” -would that be like adding an unsubstantiated finding for the benefits of competition, to a voucher study foreword, when the study found vouchers were a failure? If the foreword authors then focused media attention on the nonexistent finding, what would that be called?
So when people are satisfied with a rheephorm choice (regardless if it is accompanied by excellence and verifiable good results) that’s good enough for Betsy DeVos & Co.
But when so much of the staff of charter schools has no choice in how they do their jobs and what their benefits and wages are, as well as no effective means to protect themselves from arbitrary and unfair management practices—well, the dissatisfaction of those doing the actual work doesn’t count for anything so they should be denied the satisfaction that comes with being unionized.
Which goes back to one of the Golden Rules of corporate education reform [from a cartoon many decades ago]: “He who has the gold, rules.” And those few that have the gold also want to decide which choices the many can and can’t have.
For those all in for corporate education reform, choice for the few comes at the expense of the many. How else to protect their $tudent $ucce$$?
😎
If you took away the PRIMARY impetus for charters, vouchers, and the like, they would rapidly shrivel up and blow away. What is that primary impetus? PROFIT. It isn’t that everyone connected with charters, vouchers and the rest are in it to make $$$. Not everyone. Bill Gates already has his suitcase full. But to turn such “reforms” into a movement, you need lots of folks who see it as an opportunity–an opportunity to make a buck or three. Check out Ohio and Florida and on and on.
What’s the meaning of “privatization”?– having private access to the public trough.
Look around the world, at water companies, transportation companies (e.g., British Rail), increasingly schools. “Choice” disappears as soon as the goal of insuring profit is met.
I know this sounds old-fashioned. It just happens to be true.
I hope the change means that the villainthropists will stop paying the pseudo civil rights guys, to work the halls of Congress.