David Safier writes frequently about politics and education in Arizona.
In this post, he shows how Governor Doug Ducey’s education plan is moving step by step to create a three-tier system of schools, thus abandoning the Supreme Court’s mandate to provide equal educational opportunity.
He begins:
Are you outraged at Governor Ducey’s “education budget”? You should be. After Prop. 123 passed, he promised some “next steps” were coming soon, but all we got is an insulting 25-cents-an-hour raise for teachers and a little money sprinkled over a few high-profile programs to make it look like he’s doing something. Watching Ducey quacking and smiling as he dubs himself the “education governor” is infuriating. But push aside your anger over those outrages for a moment. Something far more important happened in the Legislature this year, something which could change the nature of Arizona education irrevocably. It’s the one-two-three punch of vouchers for everyone, results-based funding and lowering of teacher certification requirements. Over time, those changes will lead to an increasingly stratified education system, with more money flowing to education for children of higher income families and less going to everyone else.
If Ducey and the conservative majority in the legislature could speak freely, if they knew the voters couldn’t hear what they were saying, their vision for Arizona’s education would sound something like this.
“We should have a three tiered education system,” they’d say. “The top tier has to be the best schools money can buy to supply us with our future movers, shakers and innovators—our captains of industry and the geniuses who help them create better, more profitable products and services. The next tier should be good, but not overly expensive schools to teach children who will become our educated professionals—our doctors, lawyers, middle managers and such. Give those kids a K-12 education that’s good enough to get them into colleges where they can obtain the career training they need. As for the rest, they really don’t need much of an education to perform the tasks expected of them. Their schools should teach them to read, write and do math at a sixth grade level. That’s more than enough from them to wash our floors, change our oil and ask, ‘Do you want fries with that?'”
We’re closer to a codified version of this three-tiered educational scheme than we’ve ever been, thanks to the work of Ducey and his legislative majority.
At the top of the educational hierarchy are the most expensive private schools. Courtesy of the new vouchers-for-all law, taxpayers will be giving the wealthiest Arizonans $4,500 or more to help them pay for their children’s tuition. Call it financial aid for the rich. Even with vouchers, the rest of us won’t be able to afford those schools—they start at $10,000 a year—so the rich don’t have to worry about the riffraff showing up.
What? You don’t think the public should subsidize tuition at private schools for rich kids? That’s old thinking.

I think the voucher plans are written to mostly benefit middle and upper income parents because there’s a recognition in ed reform that middle and upper income parents will never let go of this subsidy once they get it.
It makes vouchers politically bullet-proof. They’ll never be able to pull back that 4500 subsidy from private school parents. It’s in there for good.
Ed reform is as much or more about politics as it is about education. That’s why so many of them are professional political operatives rather than educators. DeVos is the best example. There isn’t a soul in Michigan who considers Betsy DeVos an education expert. What she is and always has been is a very effective political operative and donor. That’s why she was hired.
It will be easier for people to understand this “movement” if they look at the “movement” heavyweights and see them in political terms, because THAT’S their field, not “education”. They’ve adopted this silly posture that they are somehow “above” icky, dirty politics WHILE creating a huge network of donors and operatives. It’s not just that it’s unbearably sanctimonious and self-congratulatory, it’s that it’s blatantly and obviously NOT TRUE.
I don’t have any problem with a wholly ideological “movement” engaging in politics but for God’s sake admit it. They are no different than a labor movement operative, or someone who lobbies to protect Social Security. They are not inherently “more pure” – that’s just nonsense.
LikeLike
Chiara, for once I disagree with you. You say that “ed reform is as much or more about politics as it is about education.” I think you meant to say ed reform is about politics, not education. Anyone who reviews the growing body of research about vouchers would recognize that they do not improve education. They strip resources from schools that most students attend. Poor kids who take vouchers go to schools without certified teachers. The results are bad.
LikeLike
I just find these constant claims that they reject “politics” ludicrous.
Their isn’t a bit of difference between a charter school lobbyist pushing lawmakers in Ohio and a labor union lobbyist pushing lawmakers and it will be the same with voucher lobbyists.
I prefer the labor union lobbyists because they don’t adopt this ridiculous sanctimonious posture that they’re “apolitical” and somehow pure as the driven snow.
Give me a break. White Hat in Ohio is a for-profit company that lobbies its interests. Period. The claim they’re somehow morally superior to a “self interested” public school superintendent is nuts. It doesn’t make any sense and it never made any sense. It’s a self-aggrandizing narrative ed reform created to claim moral superiority.
LikeLike
If I may correct your sentence through a little omission, Chiara:
“What she is and always has been is a very effective political donor.”
LikeLike
“I don’t have any problem with a wholly ideological “movement” engaging in politics but for God’s sake admit it.”
When one is selling snake oil as a wonder cure, one can’t admit it doesn’t work!
LikeLike
According to the website at Private School Review:
Q The average private school tuition is $6,268 for elementary schools and $17,372 for high schools (view national tuition averages). END Q
see
https://www.privateschoolreview.com/arizona
It looks to me, like the ($4,500) ESA will not be able to cover the average elementary school tuition.
The ESA is not adequate to cover the average high school tuition. At least not yet. But, when the program ramps up, I can almost guarantee, that there will be some schools begin to open up, so that private/parochial school operators can get in on the new available demand.
Once families discover the benefit of choice in education, the legislature may possibly increase the amount of the ESA, when the citizens demand the increase.
Some families, will be able to cover the difference.
Additionally, some of the private/parochial high schools will possibly offer some scholarship money, or other tuition assistance.
And since the children of the wealthy, who are not going to utilize the public school system (since they are in alternate schools), the answer is a definite yes. It is no more fair to have the wealthy pay twice for their children’s education, than it is for families lower on the economic scale.
LikeLike
Charles, the rich don’t send their kids to those schools.
LikeLike
According to the website:
Q There are 478 private schools in Arizona, serving 64,408 students. END Q
Which schools do you mean by “those schools”? There are 478 private schools in the state of Arizona. Although there are certainly wealthy people in Arizona, who send their children to expensive boarding schools out-of-state, I would think that other wealthy people utilize the alternate schools in the Grand Canyon State.
BTW- If you would like to get a chuckle, go to this website
https://www.c-span.org/video/?428800-4/washington-journal-ken-hughes-discusses-history-presidents-taping-conversations
and go to 01:09
LikeLike
Charles,
The low-cost schools that will take voucher students will not be high-end schools. They will be bargain basement schools. That’s why the last several voucher evaluations have shown that the public school students who didn’t take the voucher outperformed those who did.
I have a sense of deja vu with everything you write and everything I write in response.
LikeLike
If lower income parents were excited about the opportunity of sending their kids to private school, you would expect a growth in the number of private school enrollees since 1997 when Arizona began its private school tax credits, especially considering the rapid expansion of the state’s population. But today there are 2,000 fewer students in Arizona’s private schools, compared to hundreds of thousands of students added to district and charter schools during the same time period. If vouchers are intended to offer greater opportunity to attend private schools, it sure isn’t working in this state. If, on the other hand, the intention is to make it easier for high income people to send their kids (many of whom would send their kids anyway), it’s a huge success.
LikeLike
Point well-taken. People who are on food stamps (SNAP) cannot afford to buy filet mignon and caviar. That does not make it bad program. Nevertheless, I still feel that families should have the option of pulling out of bad schools, and selecting a school that they feel is appropriate.
This is the ultimate bottom line.
Should parents be empowered? Or should they be locked into failing public schools?
The train-wreck of California schools is a good example. The schools are especially failing the Hispanic and African-American children.
Sad.
LikeLike
Sadly, Arizona ranks near the bottom in per-pupil expenditures. see
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2016/03/01/arizona-classroom-spending-fiscal-2015/81154290/
Per-pupil expenditures are an imperfect barometer of educational spending. Overhead and administrative costs are lower in rural Idaho. than in mid-town Manhattan.
I sincerely believe that Arizona should be spending an adequate amount on education. Failing the state’s children, is inexcusable.
LikeLike
@David Safier: I accept your statement, that enrollment in non-public schools has declined in Arizona, since 1997. This is a good thing. It shows that the parents in Arizona are well-satisfied with their public/charter schools.
Choice works both ways. When public/charter schools are delivering a satisfactory education, and parents/children are satisfied, the public is well-served. Good public schools have nothing to fear from choice.
If you extrapolate your statement, the expansion of ESAs in Arizona, will result in even lower non-public school enrollment.
The parents/students win, and the public schools win.
LikeLike
If the ultimate goal is create options for the poor, it is clear that a voucher will fall short. Also, the research is rather clear that vouchers are a waste since the quality of education is worse than that in the public schools. If the middle and upper classes get a subsidy for education at the expense of poor students, this form of “choice” is a travesty. The poor will be left in under resourced, depleted public schools. Even with charters we see the problems of privatization with different tiers of options. The cheap charters are for the poor, and the selective charters serve those that want to avoid attending schools with poor, minority schools. Choice results in another form of de facto segregation.
LikeLike
There will be no options for the poor. Private schools will just raise tuition, keep the voucher $$ and laugh all the way to the bank. THEIR children will get even MORE in resources while we take more out of the hands of the rest of us. I have finished reading What Happened To Kansas- how the republicans got their own party to vote against their best interests. Make it a summer read.
LikeLike
“Once families discover the benefit of choice in education. . . ”
Ha ha ha ha he ha heh hehe haha ho ho holey schmoley, that’s a good on Chas!
LikeLike
Chas,
How does that “choice” help the children on the rez?
LikeLike
“It is no more fair to have the wealthy pay twice for the roads they don’t use, nor the parks they don’t use, nor the fresh air they don’t breath, nor the water they don’t, nor the ground they don’t use to bury themselves in than it is for families lower on the economic scale.”
Yep, I understand!
LikeLike
I genuinely struggle with whether it would be better for public schools if ed reform dropped any feigned interest completely and just focused on their chosen schools- charters and vouchers.
We would have less representation in statehouses and DC, but we don’t have good representation anyway. Maybe it’s time to just cut them loose and let public schools be a wholly separate “sector”. The upside would be we wouldn’t be subject to the constant chaos and whims and fads.
They discuss public schools less and less often in ed reform. They’re moving to marginalize and “disappear” our schools anyway. They spend 90% of their time on “choice” plans and market creation and promotion. What if public schools just went their own way and stopped playing along? Stopped hiring them as consultants and stopped allowing them to use as schools as political levers. Just focus on existing public schools and how to improve them.
There has to be a better way. Playing on the terms ed reform has set up doesn’t benefit a single kid in any existing public schools. It’s an abstract exercise in “governance” and meanwhile our schools get hit each and every year.
LikeLike
Public schools matter to the privateers. They serve as the host for their parasitic ventures. Of course, they don’t care about students in public schools; they care about access to public funds. Privateers count on complicit representatives to clear a path to the funds for them.
LikeLike
Sometimes things CAN go in the other direction, which I find hopeful.
Ohio was utterly dominated by ed reformers for 15 years. Public schools were all but abandoned in Columbus. Then there was an ed reform scandal, the state cleaned house, and there’s been a shift back to public employees at the state level supporting public schools.
I know from the outside it may look like Ohio is dominated by this “movement” but it is no where NEAR as bad as it was at the anti-public school height, which was 2010 or thereabouts.
States CAN shift. DC is a lost cause but states can shift. Ohio has quietly and without fanfare begun supporting the 90% of students who attend public schools again. That’s a change from the status quo.
LikeLike
Chiara,
That is a hopeful sign!
2010 was the apex of the “reform” movement, with the debut of Waiting for Superman, Rhee, Klein, etc in full battle gear.
Maybe in retrospect, it was the beginning of the end.
LikeLike
Several black socio-political groups like the NAACP and Black Lives Matters now support investing in strong public schools. Charters have failed to deliver on their promise. They have seen that “choice” often is no choice for poor, minority students. They get assigned to a cheap charter far from where they live while developers move into their old neighborhood. Poor families lose the sense of community that neighborhood schools provide.
LikeLike
I don’t think I have seen this mentioned here.
NAACP ANNOUNCES NEW DIRECTION, FOCUS AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-announces-new-direction-focus-accountability/
n keeping with its longstanding history, and legacy, the NAACP Board announced today a transformational, system-wide refresh and strategic re-envisioning. The objective is to best position the respected national organization to confront the realities of today’s volatile political, media and social climates.
Board Chairman Leon W. Russell and Vice Chair Derrick Johnson, who were elected to their current positions in February 2017, will manage the organization on an interim basis until a new leader is named. Current CEO and President Cornell Brooks, will remain at the organization until June 30th, the end of his current term.
LikeLike
The 74Million website has been promoting the idea that charter lobbying needs to move to suburban districts in order to get political support.
This narrative suggests the charter industry intends to move away from claims about “civil rights” and the practice of scooping up land and students from high minority, low income neighborhoods.
The charter industry, no less than public schools, are likely to find that vouchers diminish resources for school-based programs, especially when there are no formal restrictions on how parents spend their money or what counts as a “legitimate” educational expense.
LikeLike
Here in suburban Washington DC, there is almost no desire for any school choice. The public schools in Fairfax (and the adjacent jurisdictions) are so excellent, that school choice is a “dead letter”.
I call this the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.
Nevertheless, if school choice advocates wish to get the political support necessary to effect change, they will have to go to the people who have the “juice” with the legislature and the governor.
Politicians (generally) could care less about poor people, and the children in bad, union-run, inner-city schools. The citizens in these areas vote at a lower rate than suburban whites. (see the recent election in Los Angeles).
School-choice advocates are beginning to realize, that they need the support of more affluent people (suburban whites), if they wish to effect any change.
LikeLike
“That’s old thinking.”
At first reading I read that as “That’s odd thinking.”
I think I’ll go with my initial reading.
LikeLike
AZ Republic examined who uses vouchers. It’s overwhelmingly the well to do in A or B districts. It’s phony ruse that this is for poor kids stuck in “failing schools.”
“This year, more than 75 percent of the money pulled out of public schools for the Empowerment Scholarship Account program came from districts with an “A” or “B” rating, the analysis showed. By contrast, only 4 percent of the money came from school districts rated “D” or lower. The findings undercut a key contention of the lawmakers and advocacy groups pressing to expand the state’s ESA program: that financially disadvantaged families from struggling schools reap the benefit of expanded school choice.”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona-education/2017/03/30/arizona-taxpayer-funded-vouchers-benefiting-students-more-affluent-areas/99707518/
LikeLike
Thank you, Pat! I will post this tomorrow morning.
LikeLike
Sounds like Huxley’s Brave New World to me….
LikeLike