There are many reasons to object to diverting public dollars to religious and private schools. One reason is that every dollar that goes to a nonpublic school is subtracted from a public school. A vote for vouchers is a vote to defund public schools and impose budget cuts on them.
One of our readers is an avid supporter of school choice. When he asked why anyone objects to school choice, this was my reply:
“I object to paying for religious indoctrination in any faith including my own.
“I object to my tax dollars paying for schools that discriminate against children based on their race, their sexual orientation, or their disabilities.
“If the Supreme Court eliminates the state Blaine amendments and allows tax dollars to subsidize religious schools, expect that lawsuits will challenge their discriminatory admission policies, and states will begin demanding that their students take the same tests and meet the same standards as all publicly funded schools. Expect states to require the hiring of certified teachers in schools that take public money.
“The religious and private schools that want to protect their autonomy will not accept state money. Only the very marginal schools, those that can’t fill their seats, will take the money.”
What are your reasons for supporting or opposing tax dollars for private school choice?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Peter Greene had a number of very good responses to the (very disingenuous) question about why oppose school choice: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2017/05/religious-voucher-schools.html
“What are your reasons for supporting or opposing tax dollars for private school choice?”
When these ignorant people answer this question, that answer is often if not always repeated and misleading bullet points used by the K-12 autocratic, for profit, often flawed and filled with fraud corporate so-called education reform industry, and these ignorant people never fact check to discover that not one country that is considered to have the best public education systems in the world. according to the results of the International PISA Tests, supports the fascist piracy that is taking place in the U.S. between greedy autocrats and community-based democracy at the local level.
Piracy. Good descriptor for blatant opportunism.
I cannot be certain, but there are probably many readers (“lurkers”) of your blog, who are supportive of school choice . I am only the most vocal. I am deeply touched, that you see fit to post so many of my comments. It takes courage, to publish views which are obviously so totally at variance with your own. Many liberal institutions are shouting down speakers with opinions that differ from the institutions. A true supporter of free speech, supports all types of views.
The US News and World report is a journal of unimpeachable integrity. This article states clearly, that school choice is not ,and need not be a “zero-sum game”. School choice AND public schools can co-exist and flourish.
see
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2017-04-05/education-secretary-betsy-devos-shouldnt-fuel-school-choice-polarization
US News and World Report does not have “unimpeachable integrity.” Its sole interest is selling more magazines. Its rankings of high schools was total nonsense.
C’mon, Charles, you’re usually better than this. You can’t possibly believe that it’s not a zero-sum game as long as public schools, charters and vouchers are all funded from the same pot. Please.
Or are you advocating for new funding sources (i.e., taxes) to fund vouchers/charters?
You have got to be kidding. It sells magazines by inventing ratings for anything it can get away with. If you look at the technical report on the school ratings you will see that is anything but complete, reliable, valid.
Choice has become a euphemism for theft. Totally resent my tax dollars going to any for-profit charter whose overarching goal is to make money off of the backs of students and staff. While some states ban them, a growing number of states permit for-profit schools. And states such as Michigan, Florida & Arizona have a whopping majority of for-profit charters, many with dismal records of success. Schooling should never be about profit – it inevitably skews the purpose of education: The growth of the whole child and the contribution to the common good of society.
The religious and private schools already get tax breaks. They don’t need any more public money, they are private. Why should elite private schools get public money? They are very selective about who enters their well funded schools and they have classroom sizes of 12 or less students. If parents want to send their kids to private schools, it’s up to them to pay for it without any public taxes. Protect our public schools, the real public schools.
But it’s THE civil rights issue of our time. Why shouldn’t poor, homeless, nattily clothed Jimmy, Janie, Juanito or Marcelita not have the same opportunity as the well fed and dressed James, Rebecca, Ricardo or Eva??
Civil rights means good PUBLIC schools for all kids, NOT diversion of public funds to special interest private schools, most of which are religious indoctrination centers.
I guess my facetious font didn’t come through, eh!
I agree with Diane’s post on using taxpayers money to support private education. She missed one important issue. This helps to underfund public education. If a person wants private education, it is their choice they should pay for that choice.
You state ” A vote for vouchers is a vote to defund public schools and impose budget cuts on them”. This is not necessarily true. When parents begin to exercise school choice, some parents will choose to withdraw their children from public schools, quite true. But, when the school student population begins to decline, the funding will decline proportionally. The per-pupil expenditures will not decline, funding will remain the same (per-pupil), and might actually increase.
Schools with a lower student population will have to “right-size”, and this will entail staff reductions, both for teaching positions and non-teaching positions. Physical plant, may have to be sold off.
Really, Charles, you’re so much smarter than this. Don’t debase yourself.
I believe sincerely, that school choice/vouchers AND public schools, can co-exist and thrive. Consider this: Not all parents who, when given the option to withdraw their children from public schools, will run down, and pull them out. There are many, many parents who are well-satisfied with their children’s public schools.
When the parents who do exercise school choice, withdraw their children, then the remaining children will have parents who WANT them in the (public) school. Parents who choose to keep their children in the public school, will be more involved. They will push for more funding, and be more willing to support tax increases .
This is not a “pollyanna” scenario. It could happen, wait and see.
It’s difficult for a school to maintain a high level of quality when its funds are being cut.
Add to that the fact that the beneficiary of the cuts will be the competition.
The public schools will become less and less appealing as more and more of their funding disappears.
There’s nothing benign about DeVos’ motives. She wants to dismantle our public education system.
“I believe sincerely, that school choice/vouchers AND public schools, can co-exist and thrive. ”
This is not exactly a matter of belief, it’s a matter of economics. Vouchers take money away from public schools, and this affects them much more than just “a few kids take their own money, and go away”.
Here is what the big problem is for a public school: let’s say, each class originally has 30 kids in it, and the school needed 30 teachers to cover all classes. Now let’s say 10% of the student population takes “their” money in the form of vouchers and go away. So now each class has 10% = 3 less students, so 27 students in it. Does the school need less teachers to teach 27 students per class? Does it need less building maintenance money, less money for janitorial and secretarial services, less books in its library?
No, the school requires the same amount of money to have the school running, except it gets 10% less money. Where can it get the missing 10%?
What schools end up doing is, they reduce the number of teachers and/or up the class sizes to 40 or simply “don’t teach chemistry this year for 10th graders, because we couldn’t afford a chemistry teacher. We hope, things will be better next year.”
I bet most public school kids nowadays tell their parents from time to time “this year, we don’t have … teacher, so we have a sub, and we read books, watch movies in class.”
Vouchers are like drunk drivers: there are few of them, but they can affect a great number of people. This is why drunk driving is forbidden, and so should be vouchers. The same comparison can be made with terrorists.
So no, this is not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of economics, numbers; it’s a matter of thinking things over, making some (very simple) calculations, which women and men of action don’t do. They believe all will be fine.
No, there is no coexistence with drunk drivers, terrorists and vouchers.
Great explanation and analogies, Máté. Now Charles will respond with some simplistic response like, “School districts will simply have to right-size,” as if right-sizing is a benign and easy process.
I don’t consider myself debased.
@Máté Wierdl: Your scenario is interesting. If a hypothetical school system loses 10% of its students, it will be faced with a concurrent loss of revenue. There will be fewer students in the schools, and less work for teachers/support staff. Class sizes will be reduced, and teachers and other workers may face layoffs. There are “sunk costs” like physical plant, classrooms, auditoriums, etc. It costs the same to heat a classroom with 30 students or 27 students. Some maintenance costs for the school buildings will be unchanged. Food service costs, will decline.
You ask: Does the school need less teachers to teach 27 students per class? Does it need less building maintenance money, less money for janitorial and secretarial services, less books in its library?
The answer is: It depends. With a reduction in students, there will be less work for teachers. To maintain a teacher/student ratio, when you have fewer students, you have to have fewer teachers, proportionately. Some teachers will face layoffs. The maintenance costs will mostly remain unchanged, but with less students, classrooms will not have to be cleaned as often, and janitors may face layoffs. With fewer students, the administrative and secretarial costs may decline some. Library books are a “sunk cost”, and their previous purchase does not depend on the student population.
Consider this: When a community faces a loss of employment, and families relocate, the school system must face both reductions in students, and reductions in revenue. When people started using digital cameras, and stopped using film, Rochester NY lost thousands of jobs, when Kodak trimmed operations. The school system was forced to lay off teachers and support staff. Some schools were “mothballed”, and some schools were closed and sold. The school system had to “down-size”, just like the restaurants and retailers in Rochester.
Consider this: When a community faces an increase in employment, and families relocate into the community, the school system must face an increase in student population, and an increase in teacher/support employment. New staff must be hired. New physical plant must be purchased, leased, or built. This is what happened in 1981, when General Motors closed the Corvette plant in St. Louis, MO, and moved the operations to Bowling Green KY. The school system in Bowling Green, had to hire additional staff. The school system had to purchase trailers “portable classrooms”, and bring them to the lawns of existing schools. The utility bills increased, food service costs increased. The state of KY, increased the funding proportionately with the increase in student population. The school system had to “up-size”, just like private industry.
The bottom line to all this discussion, is that in a dynamic economy, all government operations, including schools, have to face the dynamism of the marketplace. School populations increase and decrease all over the nation, and school systems have to cope with the changes. Staff is hired (and laid off), Buildings are purchased (and sold off).
What school choice/vouchers will do, is introduce a new “dynamic” into the public/private school economic equilibrium. When families withdraw their children from a public school system (for any reason, whether relocation to a new city, or relocation to a voucher school), the public school system will lose BOTH the student and the revenue. If 10% of a school system’s population is gone, the school system will have to make the necessary adjustments.
In 1967, my family moved from Lexington, KY to Bowling Green KY. My parents selected a house, in a district with a superior public school. The school in Lexington, KY was faced with the loss of revenue. The inferior schools in other parts of Bowling Green, did not get the revenue that would have come with me (and my siblings). The superior school “won”, and the inferior schools “lost”. My parents exercised school choice.
And I think your comparison of school choice to drunk drivers and terrorists, is obscene, and beneath contempt.
Charles “Does the school need less teachers to teach 27 students per class? Does it need less building maintenance money, less money for janitorial and secretarial services, less books in its library?
The answer is: It depends.”
Huh? Are you serious? Can the school use only 27/30 = 9/10th of a teacher, will the library have 9/10th of Hamlet, will the janitor clean only 9/10th of the building?
Charles ” when you have fewer students, you have to have fewer teachers, proportionately. ”
Besides the indivisibility of a teacher, a book and a building, the school doesn’t have to have less students, nobody is moving away, none of the changes you are talking about are necessary. The changes in student population are artificially introduced by promoters of fake school choice. No, we are NOT talking about necessity at all.
I really do not understand your answer: the basic issue is why should we allow the wish of 10% of parents screw up the education of the remaining 90%?
Saying (as you are doing) that “that’s the nature of the beast, that’s how America is, that’s how the capitalist economy works” is not some kind of objective evaluation, but the echo of the billionaires’ voice
I, the 1%, want a yacht, a private plane, a castle in Monaco, hence you, the 99%, should change your life around to support my life style.”
Education is not owned by the billionaires and, for that matter, neither should they own the economy.
I have to say that I respect you for hanging in there, Charles. Many people would have quit by now.
And I don’t believe that you’re a troll. I think you’re sincere in your convictions.
Janitors: less kids does not equal less mess, unless you’re talking a mass exodus, in which case the school will end up being closed. I’ve worked as a custodian. It’s hard work.
Teachers: less kids, when we’re talking about classes going from 30 to 25, doesn’t mean less work. 25 kids is a handful. 30 should be against the law. And in the case of a charter, parochial, or private school picking and choosing the kids that leave the public schools, the teacher will invariably end up with the kids with behavioral issues and learning disabilities. The ones that weren’t accepted to the other schools. You’ve taught, right? Can you imagine a scenario of 25 kids who need remedial services and behavioral specialists?
@ Gitapik. Thanks for your civility. I am definitely not a troll, and I am sincere (though not concrete-bound) about my convictions. I am always willing to compromise. I do NOT want to destroy public education in this nation.
As far as school clean-up and housekeeping, I was only speaking in generalities. I have buffed floors, and scrubbed toilets (when I was in the Air Force). It is difficult work, no doubt. But it would seem, that when a school has a decrease in students, that there would be a similar reduction in at least some of the housekeeping chores.
I do not know the ideal teacher/student ratio, but for an elementary or middle school, 30 kids sounds like a lollapalooza. Many states have a mandated ratio, I would guess. Common sense, would tell anyone, that a lower ratio, would enable more attention per child.
Q And in the case of a charter, parochial, or private school picking and choosing the kids that leave the public schools, the teacher will invariably end up with the kids with behavioral issues and learning disabilities. The ones that weren’t accepted to the other schools. You’ve taught, right? Can you imagine a scenario of 25 kids who need remedial services and behavioral specialists? END Q
I can imagine non-public schools, accepting children, who for some reason, are dissatisfied with the public schools (or at least their parents). I can also imagine, that private sector operators, would be willing to set up schools to deal with special-needs children (and this includes gifted/talented children). I do not believe that school choice/vouchers will result in public schools becoming a “dumping ground” for special-needs children. But this is a bogus objection. Public schools already have to take special needs children, and provide the resources to educate them. I believe that private schools can provide a proper education to special-needs children, as well.
See
http://www.paxtoncampus.org/
I have taught electronics (as a volunteer), at our community center. Most of my students were adults, and they all wanted to learn the material. I am accepted by the Fairfax County school system, as a substitute teacher. I have worked as a curriculum development specialist, at a vocational/technical school in Saudi Arabia (I wrote electronics instruction textbooks, in English, which were translated into Arabic).
@Mate: As far as if a school needs less money for teaching/support/maintenance, etc. Of course it depends, on the specific situation. When there is a reduction in student population, for any reason, whether it is for move-outs, transfers, or voluntary departures, there must be an adjustment in the school.
Example: Hurricane Katrina. The school-age population of New Orleans, declined because of the event, and the schools had to down-size and rebuild.
As far as 9/10 of a teacher, that is ridiculous. But with a reduction in students, there must be a concurrent reduction in teacher work load. Teachers can be laid off, or have their hours reduced. The mandatory student/teacher ratio can be maintained, when there is a reduction (or an increase in student population).
When a student count goes down, the support staff can be adjusted downward. As classrooms are closed, the need for frequent cleanings can be reduced.
The bottom line: Less students ,less work.
I disagree, that 10% of students will “screw up” the other 90%. In Indiana, which has the highest number of voucher participants in the nation, there are less than 3% of the parents participating. The public schools still have 97% of the students and the money.
Charles “I disagree, that 10% of students will “screw up” the other 90%. In Indiana, which has the highest number of voucher participants in the nation, there are less than 3% of the parents participating. The public schools still have 97% of the students and the money.”
My numbers were made up just for the illustration, but here are the concrete ones. Instead of 25 students, a class has 24. Is that less work for the teacher? Can the school afford to let a single teacher go? Nope, though the 3% budget reduction would force the school to let 3 of its 100 teachers go. And this may mean no chemistry or math for hundreds of students. Why? Because this is what 3% of the population wants.
Or should the teachers take a pay cut? Why? Because this is what the 3% wants? How many teachers will leave the profession after such a pay cut? How many students will then be without teachers, without means to “prepare for college”?
Again, vouchers are NOT necessity, unlike the scenarios you describe, like the effect of Katrina. Schools have to, and will deal with a hurricane, and nobody in the 97% will be surprised if they encounter budget problems while doing so. But vouchers are not natural disasters, and nobody in her right mind in the 97% will want to tolerate the abuse of the 3%.
Because that’s what vouchers are: the abuse of the 97% by the 3%.
Instead of the false equivalences with reduced populations and natural disasters, the following conversation indicates better why this whole “sacrifice the masses to ensure choice for the few” idea makes no sense whatsoever even for kids.
“Hey guys. 3 of us really love chocolate, so we decided that from now on we’ll double our daily chocolate intake. This means, all 97 of you will eat 3% less chocolate from now on.”
“But why?”
“Because this is what we choose to do, and in this country, we should be free to make choices.”
“But only the 3 of you get to make such a choice in this camp, while all 97 of us actually will not be doing what we like to do, namely we won’t be able to eat all 100% of our chocolate.”
“But then we won’t have our choice! Don’t you like to give people choices?! Only communist countries won’t give people choices. I can assure you, we really, really love chocolate, and to ensure our choice, you only have to give up a square of your chocolate each day. What’s the big deal? You won’t even notice.”
“Now you start sounding whiny, plus all this talk about chocolate has made me want to eat all of my chocolate. I certainly cannot imagine being able to eat one less square of it, and frankly, it would surprise me if any of the 97 of us would want to make chocolate sacrifices to ensure your freedom to choose.”
“You know what you just did? You refused children to make their choices. The 3 of us now will seek the help of politicians, billionaires and the courts because we feel very strongly about our conviction that we need twice as much chocolate as the other 97% of the camp population, and not giving us a choice in the matter cannot be tolerated in a country that values equality and democracy. Even us, children, should have the freedom to choose.”
You have the mindset that market-based solutions are fair and ( subsidized) customer choice is the ultimate criterion for education of worth. That is the doctrine of Milton Friedman. Why don’t you just say that you are fan of monitizing everything possible.
I never said that free markets were fair. I miss Blockbuster video. I miss post cards. The free market destroys.
So why would you suggest that public schools should operate by free market principles? I don’t want my police, fire service, roads, libraries, parks,…to operate that way. Why should private enterprise be able to cannibalize public education. I know the public schools have not managed to provide equitable opportunities yet, but that is no reason to throw in the towel and say, “Heck, we might as well make money off of it since it will never be equal anyway. It’s just the nature of things that some kids will get inferior education and some will not.”
Up until the 21st century, the community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit, traditional public school were not equal because funding wasn’t equal but beyond funding, those schools offered similar learning opportunities every student but some of those students, for whatever reason, did not take advantage of what was offered. They did not make the effort to learn what was taught like other students in the same class did.
For instance, I taught in public schools in California that had 70 percent or higher child poverty rates. But even the unequal funding didn’t stop some students in every class I taught from doing what it took to learn and eventually go to college while other students in the same class made the choice not to learn.
That is where real choice is: to learn or not to learn.
Corporate Charters and/or vouchers are creating segregation and less funding for those public schools that remain.
While there is always room for improvement, those public schools are responsible for America being one of the top five most educated countries in the world with the largest publishing industry in the world. Publishers of books and magazines do not survive if they don’t have readers.
The war against community-based, democratic public education has NOTHING to do with improving education. No matter what terms they throw out, the Civil Rights Issue of our Time, CHOICE, it all boils down to greed, fraud, lies, misinformation, religion, segregation, and racism.
The Kremlin’s Agent Orange, that malignant narcissist in the White House is the Emperor with a Death Star and an army of fascist to destroy civilization and the earth’s environment.
“The Kremlin’s Agent Orange, that malignant narcissist in the White House is the Emperor with a Death Star and an army of fascist to destroy civilization and the earth’s environment”.
I agree with you on ALL of this, Lloyd. But remember that, regarding educatiob, our Creamsicle is only carrying on the work done by Obama and company.
The war against public education started with Ronald Reagan and not one president since the dark prince has offered support for teachers or their unions.
“A Nation at Risk”
Ugh
Somehow we’re still here.
I’m glad you had success in CA. We’ve done our best, here in NY, too, Lloyd.
Big smile!
My biggest success (called survival) was when I turned 60 with 30 years in the classroom as a teacher and retired. I didn’t care that I left with a 40-percent pay cut and no medical and couldn’t afford COBRA. I was free of the top-down, micromanaged, autocratic insanity that plagues America’s public schools. This didn’t start with NCLB. It started with the lies found in “A National at Risk”.
Bigger smile?
Now all my CalSTRS retirement has to do is survive Trump and Bannon. Heck, the world has to survive TB.
Who would have thought back in the 1960s that the richest 0.1 percent would wage war for decades against the rest of the people and their public schools?
We’re on the same page, Lloyd.
@ speduktr: I am not suggesting that public schools operate by free market principles. I am suggesting that permitting parents the choice to “opt out” of public schools, is inherently beneficial to education. When parents are empowered to have more control over their children’s education, all will benefit. Already, your police, fire, libraries, roads, and parks all have an element of free enterprise built in. What, you say!
No police department has their own automobile assembly plants. Police departments decide to purchase vehicles, and they take bids from private suppliers. This way, the department gets to choose the proper vehicle, at a price that is acceptable. No fire department produces their own fire engines. They buy them from private suppliers. Libraries do not print their own books. they buy them from private publishers. The county road department, hires private contractors to build the roads and bridges. Even the national park service, purchases supplies and uniforms from private enterprise. The Defense department (I work at the Pentagon), gets military equipment from the private sector. So you see, government enterprises, could not function without the private sector.
Similarly to all of these, public school systems can “out-source” educational services. By permitting parents to utilize voucher payments, school systems can send the children to schools built by private enterprise, and the teachers and support staff, will be paid from the public purse. Just like when a school system needs to build a new building, they hire outside construction contractors.
Anyoneis free at any time to opt out of public education.
But they have to pay for their choice to attend a private or religious school.
As a taxpayer, I am obligated to pay for public schools that are non-discriminatory and subject to state and federal laws.
I am not obligated to pay for someone’s private choices.
That pretty much sums it up for me, Diane.
I can understand and respect differences of opinion, but when the facts are laid out and, in this case, the motives of the major player “reformers” are so clear (to weaken and eventually dismantle our public education system), I think the debate pretty much has reached an end.
It’s not a question of whether the different educational systems can co-exist or not. They can’t. There’s not enough money. Someone will invariably end up seriously weakened. DeVos, Walton, Broad, etc have made it pretty clear who they want the loser to be.
Charles “I am suggesting that permitting parents the choice to “opt out” of public schools, is inherently beneficial to education. ”
Since opting out has always been allowed, I think what you meant to say was that 3% of the population should be allowed to use “their” public school money elsewhere, because it would be beneficial to their kids’ education.
Well, there is absolutely no reason to try to evaluate the truth content of this statement since this action of the 3% would be detrimental to the 97%, as we already discussed exhaustively, using rigorous, data-driven arguments.
What we haven’t addressed was the ownership of tax dollars. The tax the 3% pays is owned by the 100%. That’s the nature of tax: we pay it, and then we own none of it. True, tax dollars need to be used to benefit all of us, but we still own none of it. This is why, btw, it doesn’t matter how much tax people pay, they all own the same portion of it: none.
So when people say, “I want to be able to opt out my tax dollars from this or that program”, the answer is always the same “Sure, take all $0 dollars you own of your tax dollars, and use it any way you want.”
As soon as the ownership of tax dollars changes, please note that I’d like to opt out my tax dollars from the military, from Air Force one, from Trump’s lavish Mar-a-Lago weekend golf parties, and use it to cover my son’s college education. It would be beneficial, believe me.
Mate,
You have just demolished the central argument of the backpack full of cash people
I don’t want to pay for any wars. Can I have my money back?
Sure, Diane, here is your portion. Please use it wisely.
Q I don’t want to pay for any wars. Can I have my money back? END Q
If you wish to have the federal government reduce or cut back on defense spending, you should make your wishes known to your elected representatives, and/or support political candidates who feel as you do.
The Federal/state governments often give citizens choices in how government money is spent. One example is CHAMPUS (Civlian health and medical program for the uniformed services). Military people (and their dependents) are entitled to free medical care at military hospitals. Sometimes, the medical care at the military hospital is not adequate to meet the needs of the member (or dependents). In that case, the military person completes a “non-availability” statement, which is a form declaring that adequate medical care can be obtained from a private hospital. If the request is approved, then the medical care can be obtained outside the military system.
The medical care is obtained, and the costs are borne by the CHAMPUS program.
It is, in effect, a “voucher” program, for medical care.
This argument that public schools will “right size” and not need as much money is false. Give me one example of schools that actually have gained money from allowing charters or vouchers. From a reputable source, not “U.S. News and Wild Retorts” (my dad’s phrase).
Here is article, showing how school choice/vouchers, can actually increase the money flowing to public schools.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102549.html
“Here is article, showing how school choice/vouchers, can actually increase the money flowing to public schools.”
And Utahians rushed to the polls to support this alchemy which creates money to support vouchers out of thin air.
The Utah referendum is the eighth statewide election regarding private school voucher measures since 1972 and voters have convincingly rejected the proposition all eight times.
http://www.nea.org/home/17956.htm
In Tennessee, they don’t dare to refer to alchemy, so they have to face the truth about vouchers
A bill was filed in the Tennessee legislature to establish vouchers for students in Shelby County. It would divert $18 million from the district, which is already one of the most fiscally disadvantaged districts in the nation.
We know how “diverting money from general funds” work: a few months before TN Promise, the “free” Tennessee community college program was created, miraculously a huge budget shortfall appeared for the 4 year public colleges.
Free market is alchemy, Charles. No matter how the recipe is talking about amazing inventions, smart investments, increased efficiency, billion dollars is not created from them, but taken away from 6+ billion people, and reallocated to the banks of the billionaires.
I hear that works for vouchers for health insurance, too.
Instead of medicare, at 65 each senior is given a voucher they can use to buy “private” health insurance. And just like private schools and charter schools, all private insurance companies must be free of those nasty regulations that prevent them from dropping (expelling) all patients they find too expensive to insure. Don’t worry, I hear it works great! I hear the insurance companies love it and the patients love it too until they get diagnosed with cancer or any other expensive illness at 65 and learn their insurance just became defunct. Hey, the insurance company is happy to pay for your flu shot, but why should their bottom line have to suffer just so an unworthy cancer patient gets treatment? And how about all the other healthier patients who would suffer if the insurance company allowed unworthy cancer patients to remain and take any of the doctor’s valuable time away from the healthy patients when those cancer patients only have themselves to blame for their illness. Isn’t that right, Charles? Aren’t those sick cancer patients just as much to blame for their problems as all the 5 year olds drummed out of charters who Charles agrees are also responsible for not being more teachable. None of them deserves anything less than our contempt, in Charles vision of Nirvana!
I wonder if Charles will be pleased when the same people who love vouchers for education get their vouchers for Medicare.
You state ““I object to paying for religious indoctrination in any faith including my own”. Your objection is well-taken. The Supreme Court has ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), that a school choice/voucher program, when part of an overall school-choice program, does not violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution. You need have no fear that any tax money will be used to push any religious indoctrination.
In that particular instance it may not violate the establishment clause of the US Constitution, but it certainly violates Missouri’s “Blaine” amendment. But then again the US Supreme Court has never been wrong nor has it ever overturned a prior decision, eh!?!
The Zelman decision, is a federal decision, and has no bearing on the Blaine amendments (about 3/4 of the states have some form of restriction on providing state funding to schools run by religious institutions).
Whether you agree with a Supreme Court decision or not, you must follow it. Not everyone was thrilled with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but it is the decision.
Charles
Now your talking Charles, almost 70 years since Brown and they haven’t accepted it . Some might argue that the Christian right would be a minor cult if not for Brown . As I have pointed out before abortion was not an issue for Evangelical Christians in the 70’s
It was about Brown and will always be about Brown.
Good thing it[‘s in moderation . I can make an edit you’re
I gladly admit that the Supreme Court has been wrong many times. I just finished reading a book called “The Dirty Dozen”, about 12 of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made. (Authors: Robert A. Levy and William Mellor)
My personal pick for the worst case, is Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
Korematsu v. USA (1944) was an abomination.
And of course the Supreme Court has reversed course, and nullified prior decisions. Plessy v. Ferguson, was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Betts v. Brady was overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
I’m Catholic. I went to Catholic schools and I oppose most tax dollars going to non-public schools. I’m ok with grants to improve a specific thing, for example to microscopes, and I’m ok with the school lunch program. But I’m not ok with most tax money…because you know there will be strings attached. The government will say you have to teach it’s okay to use birth control or have abortions when it is against the Catholic Faith. The government will say you need to hire this person or that person even though they live a life contrary to the Catholic Faith they are supposed to model. The government will say hey you can’t teach about that Catholic stuff…it’s upsetting. Yeah no.
I had a classmate who taught at a private school that charged $35k for primary grades. Do they really need tax money???
“I’m Catholic.”
My* apologies!
*From one who grew up in K-12 Catholic schools. Not that the education was that bad, it was all the religion stuff that was the problem.
I used to envy my friends who went to Catholic school. The black eyes and bruises, courtesy of the good Brothers and Sisters. None of that namby pamby stuff in those schools.
Gimme that ol’ time religion!
Did you ever kneel on an architect three sided ruler while holding your book bag with arms straight out in front of you for 15 minutes or so? How about a classic of writing a sentence on the board 5oo times-“I will not. . .”? How about having all the boys turn their desks around and not be taught for a couple of days due to one boy making a “sexual” comment?
Just some of the many in grade school alone. Should I start in with what happened in high school?
Few of us in any type of school escaped the dreaded “I will not…” sentences rule. We also got masking tape put on our mouths, but that architect’s ruler torture was beyond my public school teachers.
Public school kid, here.
Ruler, paddle, or yardstick. College ring turned stone side down and applied forcefully to the top of the head.
But, yes: the brothers and sisters made my teachers look like rubber duckies.
gitapik and Duane I think things they-are-a-changing in the Catholic schools. I wouldn’t use the experience of someone who is over 40 as my prime analog.
I know. Just fondly reminiscing.
🙂
I object to taking funds away from public schools to pay for the competition. Especially when part of the plan is to make “the competition” (parochial schools) the primary source of education for most of the kids.
gitapik: As I am sure you also know, books have been written for years about horror stories of pre-scandal Catholic schools. They’ve become legendary. They ARE a bit slow, but they are changing. (As you also probably know, it wasn’t until the 1990’s that these folks formally “forgave” Galileo.)
You state “I object to my tax dollars paying for schools that discriminate against children based on their race, their sexual orientation, or their disabilities”.
Your objection is well-taken. But, I suggest that you get used to it. Federal tax dollars go to students at the university level, for BEOG’s and these university-level school vouchers are redeemed at schools which discriminate against students based on the criteria you list. Colleges discriminate against students for all types of reasons.
How many learning-disabled students attend the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?
How many LGBT students attend Brigham Young?
How many males attend Bryn Mawr?
Students get tax subsidies, and attend these institutions without anyone objecting.
Charles,
You must be pleased that Trump is phasing out civil rights enforcement.
Which colleges exclude students on the basis of race?
First, I am NOT pleased that the administration is proposing to cut back/phase out civil rights enforcement. As a man who was in an inter-racial marriage, I am appalled at this proposal.
And there are several institutions of higher learning, which discriminate based on race. As a native Texan, you should know that the University of Texas at Austin, is one of them. see
http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/23/supreme-court-upholds-race-based-discrimination-in-college-admissions/
Another is the University of Michigan Law School. see
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241
Charles, no black student is excluded by the U of Texas because of their race
Oh I see, Charles is one of those entitled white guys who thinks that giving blacks and other minorities an equal shot in life is “discrimination”. Sigh. ‘Nuff said.
OK, You say that the Univ of Texas does not exclude black students. Fine. But they do exclude white students. Harvard Univ (a private college) has a limit on how many Asian-American students they will accept.
Are you asserting that it is wrong to discriminate against black students, but proper to discriminate against Caucasians and Asians?
Charles,
The Unvetsity of Texas does not exclude white students.
Federal tax dollars go to students at the university level, for BEOG’s and these university-level school vouchers are redeemed at schools which discriminate against students based on the criteria you list. Colleges discriminate against students for all types of reasons.
Do you argue that this is a good thing? If so, please explain.
I say this, thinking about the increasing disparities of social class in the U.S. over time, which is seen as income inequality. This is affecting whites as much as it affects any other minority. A core demographic of Trump support was whites without college education. Unfortunately I don’t see where he is going to improve their social mobility. Maybe you see something I don’t?
I do not argue that tax subsidies going to any institution that discriminates is a good thing. I am just stating that it exists. I do not like the fact that institutions discriminate, but they do. Asian-American students have brought suit against Harvard University, claiming that the institution has placed arbitrary limits on the number of Asian-American students it will accept. I do not like this, either.
When money goes to students that attend a religious affiliated schools, many of these schools have no requirement of any type of religious participation. Many of these schools are religious in name only. Also, at least the money that is used at a religiously affiliated college is not automatically deducted from a public college thereby diminishing the capacity of the public institution to serve its students.
You are talking about post-secondary education, right?
Yes, sorry. I am talking about higher education.
I would say that depends on which religious colleges and institutions we are talking about. Some of them are fine institutions while others may make Trump University look good.
I suspect we could argue that there would be more grants and loans available for more legitimate institutions . Including those that have Divinity schools.
Charles, you have twisted what Diane meant.
There is a huge gulf between mandatory K-12 education and college. Up until the age of 18, children are dependents and their parents or other adults are the responsible adults.
College is not mandatory and most if not all college students are legal, independent adults at 18 when they are free to decide what type of college they want to attend.
Funding for voluntary college and funding for mandatory K-12 education are two different issues. Most if not all college students are free to make choices in ways they couldn’t as dependent children.
To protect children since many parents and/or guardians are not fit to make decisions for themselves or their children, we have laws to protect those children.
That all changes when a child has their 18th birthday. And as a republic, it is in the best interests of democracy that most if not all children get a holistic education instead of one the indoctrinates them to grow up racist and/or a judgemental fundamentalist religious freak that twists what the Bible says so they can hate anyone that doesn’t think and live life like they do. Since public school teachers come from all walks of life and are not only liberals, progressives, libertarians and conservatives that are protected by the U.S. Constitution as public employees so they have due process rights, K-12 public schools are the best schools for these children to attend so they grow up with strong critical thinking and problem-solving skills that allow them to make better decisions as adults.
What kind of man would Donald Trump be if he had attended public schools instead of the private ones his father selected for him? Would Trump have become the lying, women groping, cheating fraud that he is today or a better-educated citizen? It’s obvious that Trump knows little to nothing about the U.S. Constitution and how our republic works. Where did he learn to be that way? What the hell did those exclusive private schools teach him – to grow up and become an autocratic, racist, serial lying, manipulating, malignant narcissist?
Like!
I have not twisted anything. Tax money is underwriting the education of students at the university level, at religious institutions. Tax money is underwriting the education of K-12 students, as well. All legally, and all well within the limits of the US Constitution.
People already have the right, to withdraw their children from public schools, and send them to the religious school of their choice (without state subsidy). See:
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us510
School choice/vouchers will only expand these rights.
That is your opinion, and you are wrong, totally wrong.
There is a HUGE difference between publicly funded mandatory K-12 education where all the students are legally children and must attend, and the college/university system where all of the students are legally adults and are only there because they want to be there. They do not have to go to college. College attendance is a choice. K-12 attendance is not a choice.
In addition, even public colleges have some costs that students and/or their families must pay. Most if not all colleges, public or private, are not totally funded by the public.
I attended nothing but public colleges and I still had to pay thousands of dollars to attend those colleges. Yes, I had help from the Vietnam GI Bill, less than $400 a month for four years, but to make up the difference, I had to work part time jobs and take out student loans, something my parents didn’t have to do for me to attend K-12 public schools. My parents, both high school dropouts and blue collar middle class workers, were too poor to support me financially through college. As an adult, I did that with the help of my wife.
Lloyd, you may be safer not blaming Trump’s schooling for his perversions. I’m guessing that we should apply the same general motives to teachers in private schools as in public. In general I seriously doubt that public schools are responsible for the perverts that have come through their doors.
Let’s assign 14-percent of who Trump is to the private schools his father selected for him. The other 86-percent goes to his father who clearly controlled the environment Trump grew up in.
Only if you equate who Trump is with the maximum influence his teachers might have had on his test scores. As a teacher, I don’t want to own any of who Trump is, and I don’t want to make private school teachers my enemies by insinuating that they are. The schools he went to might bear some responsibility for his behavior, perhaps his obvious appreciation for autocrats. I am spending far too much time on this topic, but if we as teachers do not want to be judged by our students test scores, I’m guessing we might not want to judge them by their teachers. I think we can both agree on the man’s character or lack thereof.
The May 2017 issue of National Geographic Magazine has an interesting piece titled “Icons, Analyzed”. Just finished reading it.
The first icon analyzed was Frank Lloyd Wright and after you read the entry about him, his name could easily be switched with Donald Trump. Here’s one sentence that jumped out at me: “Early interactions between parent and child are significant in the development of narcissistic personality disorder.”
Unless his private school teachers were handpicked by his father to spoil him rotten, the responsibility for the monster Trump turned out to be belongs to his father.
I’ll read that article. Sounds interesting.
Notice how Charles ignores the main thrust of your response. As you said, he is skilled at twisting what others have said or rather using parts of what they said out of context. He has yet to acknowledge any of the distinctions between K-12 and post secondary education that people have attempted to bring to his attention.
Let’s stick to a discussion of the free, public education that everyone has a right to in K-12. How and what we choose to support in what way at the post secondary level is another policy discussion. It does not advance the discussion of how and what we fund at the k-12 level where we already are mandated to provide education as a public service to everyone.
Actually, there are learning disabled students at MIT and there are gay students at Brigham Young. And please name ONE college that does not allow students of a certain race to attend where students can use their pell grants?
By the way, in your world, we’d have lots more Trump Universities! They don’t discriminate against anyone who has the money and is foolish enough to believe the lies. You seem to hope that we’ll have more Trump high schools and elementary schools, too! And no doubt we soon will! No oversight necessary. If a student doesn’t like it after 2 years and has learned nothing, he is free to find another school willing to take on someone who hasn’t learn a thing. I’m sure there will be plenty of those telling him they are just the ticket!
Segregated schools? No problem for Charles. Anti-gay schools? No problem for Charles. Why I can set up a nice little school for all my friends and their kids and we can all make our own profit!
School choice ends up becoming where schools choose the students in various ways. They can conditionally limit enrollment, down to the point of having waiting lists, or being prohibitively too far from a student’s home.
You can never know if your own child ends up being disadvantaged.
K-12 education is essential enough that everyone needs access to quality education, just like everyone needs access to good fire and police services.
We would end up with a pretty messed up system if we went with a choice market for fire and police services.
Your objection to the pending elimination of the bigoted Blaine amendments, is a valid objection. But here too, you should get used to it. States have been providing funding to religiously-affiliated institutions for many years. States provide textbooks, maps, transportation, and other instructional services to these institutions, without a problem. Missouri is even providing the tire-chips to the Lutheran school (hooray!).
If more state oversight of schools that choose to take state money, results in students being held accountable, and school hiring certified teachers, then no one should object. Private institutions may choose to forego accepting voucher students, and the students will return to public schools, which is what you say you want, anyway!
You say “The religious and private schools that want to protect their autonomy will not accept state money. Only the very marginal schools, those that can’t fill their seats, will take the money.”
See my comments above. Private institutions have every right to decline to participate. But your contention that only marginal schools will participate, is not valid. Schools that choose to participate, will participate.
The promise to establish common schools predates the Blaine amendments. It can be traced to the Land Ordinances of 1785 and 1787, before the Constitution.
Simply put, Charles is a troll who disparages religious liberty and church-state separation and thinks it is OK for all taxpayers to be forced to subsidize sectarian indoctrination and the fragmentation of our kids along religious, ideological, ethnic and other lines.
Agreed, public, tax-supported schools were operating in the American colonies, prior to the adoption of the constitution. The Blaine amendments were established, in a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry, in the late 19th century.
@Edd: Please , that is not the case. I have lived under Islamic Sharia Law, and I have an appreciation for the separation of church and state, more than you realize. In Saudi Arabia, you can be arrested and whipped, for violating religious law. As a veteran, who has defended the constitution, I cherish our first amendment protections, more than you realize.
There is no constitutional issue, with respect to providing tuition assistance to individuals who are attending religiously-operated schools, as long as the program, is part of an overall school-choice program, that permits non-sectarian choice as well. (See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 2002).
@Catherine: What am I missing? The Supreme Court ruled over 75 years ago, that parents have the right to pull their children out of public school, and have their children educated at a private/religious school of their choice (at their own expense).
Charles You are missing that the private schooling that you speak of is no longer a benign issue.
I have a great, win-win idea for American oligarchs and for the public. All of the employees of the government and, philanthropies, who work to further the oligarchs’ agenda, if educated at public schools and universities, will pay back the cost incurred by state and local taxpayers!
The win for communities-They could get much needed funds from the staffs at Fordham, New America, CAP, from workers at state and federal ed departments, from Pahara Fellows, etc., which in turn could benefit those who won’t bite the hand that feeds them.
The oligarch win- Koch’s, Gates, et. al. can reduce their taxes (although, given the fact that Gates lives in the state with the most regressive tax system in the nation, he’s a bottom-payer, already).
Maybe NPE, will start working on the invoices? I’ll chip in for the mailing costs.
And remember, your tax dollars include going to madrasas (Muslim schools) and Wiccan schools. Still like it?
There is an excellent Madras, just down the road from my home, in Herndon, VA. see
http://www.kaa-herndon.com
If local parents wish to redeem their vouchers at this school, I have no objection at all.
All types of religions, run all types of schools, and this is part of the splendid diversity of our nation.
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.” – Abraham Lincoln
Charles: You are missing the big picture, Charles.
I’ll be against it when THE FSM gets his noodly appendages on our tax dollars!
Here are more reasons: 1. The vast majority of private schools are faith-based schools that seriously denigrate women and women’s rights of conscience and religious liberty on reproductive issues; 2. Many of these faith-based schools are anti-science and promote “creationism” and attack the science on evolution; 3. Many of these schools deny climate change. — Edd Doerr
I strongly support public schools and want none of my tax dollars going to private schools. Our country must have high quality public education and all of the tax dollars must be used for only public education!
Another way to think of the voucher. It is a public tax that authorizes religious indoctrination as well as any form of discrimination conjured by the education service provider who seeks to profit from the unregulated marketplace. Milton Friedman smiles.
I have no interest in paying taxes to underwrite religious institutions–and I believe, as did Horace Mann, that our public schools are engines of democratic engagement/
Your tax money goes to students who receive BEOG’s and redeem them at universities run by religious organizations. Do you object to students attending Notre Dame, or the Catholic University of America, on your dime?
You are the master of the red herring, I’ll give you that. Lemme guess, learned it in your homeschool “debate” class?
I agree Charles time to end any support for any religious organization.
I would build a wall a very bigly wall of separation.
Poor Charles seems not to understand that college students are not as vulnerable to sectarian indoctrination as K-12 kids.
What on earth is a BEOG????
Neither Notre Dame, nor Catholic University, discriminate against non-Catholics.
And K-12 is VERY different than college educations.
@TOW: A “BEOG” is a Basic Educational Opportunity Grant. It is a “voucher” that is paid for by tax dollars, that students can use for any expenses they wish. Grantees can purchase tuition at a college of their choice, and/or use the money for housing and living expenses. These are also called “Pell Grants”, named after the late, sainted Claiborne Pell (D-RI).
Your tax dollars and mine, are being given to students to attend religiously-affiliated institutions of higher learning.
@dienne: I never went to homeschool. Except for one year, I attended public schools, that is why I am a big fan of public schools.
Oh, Threatened, I feel so redeemed. I asked the same question the other day. Charles answered: Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, or close to that, commonly known as a Pell Grant.
I think Charles has grown tired of trying to make his argument on the mandatory schooling level, K-12, and is trying to extend it to post secondary education.
Q I think Charles has grown tired of trying to make his argument on the mandatory schooling level, K-12, and is trying to extend it to post secondary education.END Q
@speduktr: The argument to enable school choice for K-12 is settled. Parents receive school choice vouchers in several states, and send their children to the non-public school of their choice. Done deal.
I just want to show, that public money is being spent to subsidize BOTH K-12 and college education at non-public schools.
There is no real difference between providing public money to religious institutions, at either the grade school, high school or college level. Education is education. I refuse to recognize a “double standard”.
And I refuse to accept your premises. You ignore the differences in K-12 and post secondary schooling. We have a public common schooling system at the K-12 level. We do not have the equivalent at the post secondary level, and as close to one as we may have come in the past, it was never a right or mandatory. How we view and deliver education at different levels is not at all the same.
@Markstextterminal: I suggest that you get used to the idea. Your tax dollars are subsidizing the education of students at religious institutions all across the USA. Tax money is even being spent to train clergypersons, ministers, and pastors! see
Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1986)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witters_v._Washington_Department_of_Services_for_the_Blind
Charles, I suggest you spare me your unsolicited suggestions.
@mark, you are free to ignore my suggestions, of course. But I will ask- Where is the outrage? Tax money is being spent to subsidize the education of students at religious institutions of higher learning, and there is no complaint from any one.
Tax money is being used to train clergypersons, and ministers. It is only a matter of time, before our tax dollars are going to be used to educate Imams at Islamic universities (unless it is already being done).
People get all “lathered up” about school vouchers being redeemed at religious schools, but they are silent about the exact same thing being done at the university level. Why?
Charles,
Funding religious schools is not the same as giving Pell grants to students in religious colleges. That is a well-established tradition in American history.
Q Funding religious schools is not the same as giving Pell grants to students in religious colleges. That is a well-established tradition in American history.END Q
OK, what is different? I don’t get it. Tax money goes to the institution. Explain it to me, like I am a four-year old.
Are you Trump. He’s a four-year-old too.
Charles: Leaving aside your apparently simplistic association between Pell Grants to theology students at denominational post-secondary institutions and public funding ofparochial schools, to say “I suggest you get used to the idea” suggests to me, as long as we’re talking about suggestions, that because something exists, it is right. That’s a philosophically naive argument at best. Care to try for something a little more rigorous? For example, you might try to defend denominational post-secondary institutions as more or less non-doctrinaire (e.g. some of our Jesuit schools like Fordham, in my neck of the woods), which base their educational programs in the intellectual traditions of the Enlightenment, and parochial schools, which, in fact, seek to indoctrinate students with specific religious values.
I totally agree with your reasons!
Sent from my iPhone
>
Diane: We’ve discussed this many times here, but I understand completely the “why” of keeping it out front in our discussions here. Others have said this better than I; but here is the nutshell argument–from the point of view of the basic FOUNDATIONS that underpin education:
First, we have to admit, and even celebrate that private schools can and some do a wonderful job of educating students who attend. We’ve had private schools that work fine for a long time, e,g., Montessori and the Catholic school system. Regardless of funding situations, problems are worked out as they go, and generally they have aligned their programming to State and Federal standards. In fact, and variably, some are more stringent, especially where college prep is concerned.
Also, as far as I know (and others please correct me if I am wrong here) present funding is not an issue as it is slated to be with privatization. And some privately/corporately financed private schools also can educate students well.
So to your reader: you have to think of what happens to the foundations of education in a democracy when encroachment occurs that is aimed at affecting the whole educational system; so that what is understood as PUBLIC is slated to become PRIVATELY controlled. The point here is that taking this or that excellent private school as example doesn’t address the more basic foundational issue that, presently, is slated for massive change.
WHY KEEP PUBLIC EDUCATION PUBLIC?
The “nutshell” argument, then, is not about this or that school, but what happens with the de-linking of education from its mooring in a democratic (small d) ethos. As many of the recent posts here attest to, and what apparently has been lost to the public consciousness (including those who seek to privatize everything, it so seems), public education was and is set out to be INTIMATELY LINKED to that democratic ethos–as a formal institution purveying a PUBLIC GOOD. (See those posts and follow those links to be better-informed on this.)
Public education, as a public good that is linked to a democratic ethos, is both a means and an end. That is, it’s a MEANS to creating and maintaining for all, across generations, that democratic ethos. More specifically, the link is manifest in the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the rule of law and all the general attributes that surround our democratic institutions. As foundational, however, a democratic education sets the conditions for an openness to all the rest. That means: as you know, knowledge moves and changes (very fast, indeed); but a democratically founded education is more remote and steady–as foundational, it is open to changes at that more proximate and moving level of knowledge development.
This means that a democratic education is, by definition, NOT governed by a closed ideology. In fact, in a democracy, it’s “idea”‘ is openness–a political experiment–and so the polity can kill it.
Further, a democratic education is a legitimate END because children’s education is a legitimate end. That is, besides the movements of proximate and changing knowledge, a democratic education is self-fulfilling and, thus, self-justifying–precisely because it’s INTIMATELY LINKED to the openness and spontaneous learning that “comes-with” being a child in the first place. It is free but guiding, as children need guidance to mature and to become self-disciplined adults. As such, a democratic education sets the conditions for children to flower, insofar as they are born able to do so.
There’s more to it, but that’s the basics of the foundational argument for keeping public education as a public good in a democracy. Now, what is different when privatization encroaches on public education.
SECOND POINT: WHY NOT PRIVATIZE? (AKA: outsource to self-interested corporations)
Many excellent reasons have been explained on this site–one being the drawing away of taxpayer funding from public schools further limiting their already-scant resources, not to mention parental “choice” for children’s quality education.
It’s no secret that, basically, we are going through a time where privatizers are “starving the beast” while claiming: See how bad public education and its horrible teachers are? Let’s kill it. Those who would monetize and privatize education have enough money and are connected with enough resources to do years of slick advertising/commercials and the buying-up of willing representatives and those in power at every level. And we are seeing, as we speak, the double-speak and fraud that can occur when private schools are also de-linked from disinterested, qualified, and regular oversight (regulations). There are many other reasons oft-reported on this site.
But again, as a foundational concern, and if you have understood the above, the de-linking of education from its democratic ethos is like bombing the under-garage of a tall building. All of a sudden, those who take for granted, or understand and embrace democracy, find we have to spend all our time and resources trying to put the bricks back before the building falls; but there’s never enough and they never go back well enough to support the building which, eventually, when public education is so blithely erased from our national ethos, is set to fall–and eventually so goes a vibrant democracy now and as the generations come and go: crash.
As far as the means/ends argument goes, with privatization, and at best, students become means to the ends of the corporation, namely, their bottom-line or, more insidiously, their racist or other-bias ideologies. When the CEO “chooses,” what will they choose? The children?
Also, please ask yourself what happens to the open/closed ideological issue? To put a fine point on it, corporations commonly remain open to questions and activities, as long as those questions don’t concern the corporation, or the activities upset its interests. There are such things as truly creative public-private partnerships. However, in this sense, and as long as corporations remain basically capitalist, they are quasi-fascist at their core. Whereas, a democratic ethos supports, encourages, celebrates, the freedom to ask questions of anyone about anything. This is the basis of our creative success. Corporations are in fact in a deadly love-hate dance with “the experiment” that is democracy. They depend on it, but it seems also hate it to its core.
I could elaborate (don’t get me started), but this is why privatization of education makes such a huge strike at the foundations of democracy.
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
I have to say that public education is at least partly at fault–precisely because, apparently, we didn’t “get the memo” to our students over the last several decades–for many reasons, some of which are rooted in the long-term now-concerted efforts of these same privatizers (take Betsy’s group and ALEC for examples) where some are well-meaning and some, I am convinced, are well-aware of exactly what they are doing. (It’s written directly into their literature. They apparently have no understanding of either democracy or “secular.”)
As a relevant aside, it seems to me Betsy DeVos and others like her “want to have their cake and eat it too.” That is, first, they don’t want to pay taxes; and second, they want public funds, what’s left of them, to pay for private education–because, as DeVos says, she wants to get her money’s worth (paraphrasing and, in fact, admitting that she is making a purchase of the decisions of purported representatives of “the people.”). So we have the nation of Koch and DeVos AKA a Trump presidency.
Long, I know. But I hope it helps.
Diane and your anonymous Reader Let me complete a thought from my last post–it’s also about curriculum: First, I wrote this:
“To put a fine point on it, corporations commonly remain open to questions and activities, as long as those questions don’t concern the corporation, or the activities upset its interests. There are such things as truly creative public-private partnerships. However, in this sense, and as long as corporations remain basically capitalist, they are quasi-fascist at their core. Whereas, a democratic ethos supports, encourages, celebrates, the freedom to ask questions of anyone about anything. This is the basis of our creative success. Corporations are in fact in a deadly love-hate dance with ‘the experiment’ that is democracy. They depend on it, but it seems also hate it to its core.”
Finishing point:: The limitation of questioning can only end in the corruption of curriculum. Corruption can occur in any education situation. The difference here is that, besides the invitation to fraud at the local level by individuals, corporate-linked corruption is systematic, concerted, and well-communicated. Hence, all the double-speak we see going on as we speak.
BTW, when you hear Betsy DeVos say she wants to return control and choice to states, parents, and local school boards, she means that it’s there that her propaganda and power have their best advantage. Bribery has always been a problem in government; however, it’s much less difficult to “work it” on the local level, or just to fool parents out of the choice of and right to a public education by dangling vouchers in their faces until public schools are no long a choice–all this instead of engaging support for public education.
For Betsy, apparently it’s about demonizing secular education and imposing a religious education on those who might “choose” otherwise.
The fox indeed is in the chicken house.
“Further, a democratic education is a legitimate END because children’s education is a legitimate end.”
It is a legitimate end because it is a constitutionally mandated function of the state. If a parent doesn’t want their child to be a part of that function of the state they can “go private” or home school. Pretty simple, eh.
Duane E Swacker I agree with you, but it goes deeper than that–it goes to children’s basic intelligence–how they are made–to wonder and ask questions. Guide yes, suppress and mislead, no.
I understand what you are saying and basically agree. But it is the parent’s fundamental right to determine their child’s education (barring abuse and neglect). As such, it is not my place to interfere with their choice and decisions. At the same time don’t ask me to pay for their “choice” through my tax dollars. The key though is to respect the parent’s bidding in the raising of their children, again barring abuse and neglect.
Duane e Swacker: Again, I agree with you here. The “Big However,” however, is using that principle, and hiding nefarious motivations and actions behind it. And that’s where the double-speak becomes important to those privatizers who are either (1) monetizing education using a corporate logo or family name and money, OR (2) or like Betsy DeVos, sees herself as doing God’s work by bringing Christian education to all of us wayward people–make no mistake about it: it’s HER view of Christianity).
But back to foundations for a moment, if she and others get rid of “big government” and its oh-so-constraining regulations (of rich people’s VERY questionable intentions), we are looking at unrestrained religious conflicts and/or corporate fascism. It’s a secular democracy and its government, its constitution, its law, freedoms, and separations that keeps those things from happening.
And BTW, a government by-law mandate can be un-mandated. But children will continue to raise questions . . . human beings “being” what we are.
In my mind, there is no doubt that DeVos and her like minded “thinkers” will lie, cheat and steal to accomplish their nefarious goals. We have to constantly expose those lies, deceits and thefts as loudly and often and as widely as we can.
Or another way to put it, it is not my charge to evaluate whether a parent “guides”, “supresses” or “misleads” in their choosing what type of education their child will go through.
Well stated, Catherine, Thanks!
The main reason I oppose them is they’re another reason for lawmakers to completely ignore kids in public schools.
Public schools won’t survive another 15 years of attacks by the same people who are supposed to be working on their behalf. They don’t deserve this shoddy treatment. They’re not the national punching bag for every ambitious pol with access to a microphone.
The big question is why so many people vote against their own self interests. For parents of public school students, it’s a no brainer. Vote for candidates that support strong public education, and work to get rid of the complicit ones that take money from privateers.
retired teacher Same reason they vote against their own health care–they get snookered by people they should be able to trust.
When I was in high school we would sometimes get Catholic school students who were pregnant, mid-year. We all knew they had been kicked out but no one ever talked about it- it was just assumed that the public school had a duty that the private school did not.
This was okay to me (although it seemed, frankly, nasty and cruel) because I understood those schools were private and public and private schools have different missions and purposes.
I know what “public” means, and did even as a high school student. Why don’t all these adults?
Here you have hit on the main point. Good schools are a self-fulfilling prophesy. Parents in a community who care about education either move to an area with a good reputation or send their children to school with a good reputation. So wonder of wonders, the school churns out good kids.
Funding schools with vouchers will not happen on a level playing field. Private schools will be given the right to remove children, but public schools will have to take all the kids. The price of educating all the kids is higher than the price of educating the ones who are easy to teach. But public schools will be saddled with the kids who need the most help. They will become places for people who do not care for their kids or cannot encourage their kids to learn. Everyone else will have a voucher and a couple of thousand to send junior to Rolling Acres Country Day. Public schools will still take the pregnant kids and the kids without fathers and the kids who cannot focus on the page.
The market will not create equality of opportunity. It will create haves and have nots. Meanwhile, the extra money will mean the rise of private schools run by charlatans. Already we see this occurring I the charter corruption documented on this web site. The funds needed to police this arrangement will not be appropriated by those who want lower taxes. This would be a disaster, but no one would recognize that is a disaster because goods schools are a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Serious question: since DeVos hires people who make big bucks on garbage for-profit colleges, should young people take financial advice from the US Department of Education?
I would say “no – too risky- they’re no longer credible as advisers for vulnerable 18 year olds”
So who would be credible? Or are they just surrounded by sharks who want to take their money?
My tax dollars should not support religious schools you take from the public school and then you give to the religious schools not on my tax dollar there is a separation of state and church my mom sent me to private school but she also paid public school taxes this is a choice by the parents the parents alone we cannot sustain our tax dollars and private schools it’s against my religion I wouldn’t want to pay for private school religion ,again,this is an individual choice as a parent.
Blahh Blllahh Blaaahh Blaahhh Same ol stories and headlines on here!!! Betsy DeVos this and Betsy DeVos that. Crying like little babies. Look Don won and put her in, THAT’S IT!! She’s wgoing to do whatever she wants with zero interference. The republicans will pass anything she wants. You can write and write and write some more. It means nothing. You can call this one, that one, this politician, that politician. She is going to waltz all over everyone. But I like reading these headlines time to time. They are quite amusing and people actually think she is going to listen. Hahahaaa!!!!!!!!!! So funny!!!!
You’re right, Anthony. We should just shut up and let her and the rest of the crew do whatever they want without any objections from the masses.
Nobody in this discussion thinks she’s listening. In fact, we’re all pretty sure she’s not.
Public discourse is the beginning to effecting change. This is one of many starting points.
Nobody is going to shut up.
gitapik Well-said.
And nobody should shut up, because if the “masses” go silent and stop complaining and protesting, the Kremlin’s Agent Orange, that malignant narcissist in the White House, who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million and only won the election because of an illogical system called the Electoral College that was created to keep the slave owners active in the 18th century rebellion against the most powerful empire on earth, something that no other democracy on the planet has, will think he’s won and is America’s first anointed dictator.
How many adult Americans actually support the Fascist, Trumpet agenda?
Once you look into the facts and find that out, you will discover that the majority of the masses do not agree with Trumpism and Trump’s autocratic, Alt-Right minions.
Huh? When predators are approaching, those in danger make noise not for the predator to change her mind, but to warn others. And let’s face it, noise making is darn successful.
“If the Supreme Court eliminates the state Blaine amendments and allows tax dollars to subsidize religious schools, expect that lawsuits will challenge their discriminatory admission policies, and states will begin demanding that their students take the same tests and meet the same standards as all publicly funded schools. Expect states to require the hiring of certified teachers in schools that take public money.”
I’ve been posting this argument on my local newspaper’s comment section for years.
I’m in a mid-size metro area. The response is always crickets.
“Expect states to require the hiring of certified teachers in schools that take public money.”
Are you kidding? More and more states are not even requiring actual public schools to hire certified teachers. It’s one of the most ironic contradiction of the “reform” movement. On one hand, the problem with education is all those lousy, bottom half of their class, entrenched, lazy teachers. On the other hand, we can fix education by hiring anyone who has a pulse to teach.
Hi Diane.
I vehemently oppose school choice for many reasons, but I will limit my discourse. School choice is never about parents choosing. They may choose to complete the application process, but the schools have the ultimate choice. These schools aren’t usually required to follow the rules and regulations that the public schools are required to, they don’t have to provide the expensive services that public schools do and they can limit their numbers. Sometimes as in my State public schools must provide these services for them! And these schools by and large still don’t perform as well as the public schools! No matter, Devos and the reformists just what to destroy the teaching profession, unions and public schools. It is really about ideology rather than empowering parents or making decisions based on evidence. Thanks. Art Potwin, school psychologist
Arthur Potwin Well-said. When good reasons don’t change minds, then it’s probably a hidden ideology that is the motivating factor. In the case of vouchers and charters and the privatization movement generally, it’s both religious zealotry and marketing-monetary ideology, along with just brute power-mongering, that are at work.
It’s not about educating children. It’s about using education of children in order to (1) create a doctrinal-religious utopia (as in Betsy DeVos’ desires and/or) (2) to feed the market (Bill Gates, or name your oligarch). And while they are at using people, they use their half-truths and ill-motivated devices to “snow” parents with their double-speak, for instance, about “parents are the best choosers of their children’s education.”
They make a prostitute of what freedom of choice really means.
https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/destroying-the-separation-of-cl
There we go! https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/destroying-the-separation-of-c
That’s a good one, Mimi!
As a religious person, my primary reason for opposing tax dollars being awarded to religious organizations in (and organizations that claim to be religious) in the case of school vouchers is the Bible. Taking funds from those in need to send ones own children to a private school is morally wrong. Charity and justice… Love thy neighbor… Do unto others… Yes? Yes.
My understanding is that Holland and Spain allow tax payer money to go to private and religious schools, but that these schools must adhere to state-mandated curriculum. If we had a good national curriculum in the US, this might be an acceptable compromise. But instead we have Common Core –i.e. all skills, no content. That means that whacko schools could have close reading of Creationist texts and still say they’re conforming to public school standards. One of the many reasons why our skills-centric curricula ought to be abandoned.
Nope, not a workable compromise. Tax dollars should fund public schools for all the reasons that have been stated on this blog already. The new argument I hear creeping into the charter vs. public school discussion is that charters are a fact of life, so we should just accept it and deal with it. NO!! I can’t believe that anyone can look at the damage they have caused in Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana, and Florida,… and suggest that we should just deal with it. If corporations and foundations are so into the wonderfulness of charters and/or vouchers, well then, go ahead and fund them with private dollars. Let’s see how long they can maintain the altruistic facade. It’s not about the children; it’s about the money.
“The religious and private schools that want to protect their autonomy will not accept state money. Only the very marginal schools, those that can’t fill their seats, will take the money.”
The whole choice thing makes no sense: regular and poor folks will continue not be able to afford the top private schools. They will be able to afford only those schools whose only attraction is that they promise to start every class with a prayer, and will give intelligent design a chance.
You are missing the point. Of course a voucher worth $6000 will not pay tuition at a top-line private school, with a tuition of $50000. But schools in the $6000 price range will be affordable. Some private schools will have full or partial scholarships. Some parents will augment the voucher with their own funds.
Banning vouchers because some schools charge more than the voucher, is like banning food stamps, because some food like prime rib and caviar is expensive.
Not all private schools are prayers and religion classes. I went to a private school in 1963-64, that had no religious connection at all.
Charles “Banning vouchers because some schools charge more than the voucher,”
No, I’d ban vouchers for a different reason: they screw up education for 90+% of the student population, as I explained elsewhere.
My explanation about the senselessness of vouchers is for those few who think that suddenly they have some kind of great choice for better education. Vouchers are useful only to those whose kids are already in expensive private schools, and now their tuition gets reduced by $10K or so per year.
Ill add the following abbreviated comment:
2 Reasons Why DeVos’ Education Reform Plan Would Be a Disaster
May 30, 2017
by Karen R. Effrem, MD
Charter school and voucher expansion has been a hot topic across the nation at both the state and federal levels. Interest and grave concern about this expansion, especially at the federal level, has intensified from all points on the political spectrum in light of several recent developments: Florida’s bill serving as a trial run, the release of President Trump’s first federal education budget, Secretary DeVos’ recent testimony and speech, and the Jeb Bush-led promotion of these ideas.
Betsy DeVos is very correct when she remarked in her prepared testimony about the federal education budget at the US House Appropriations Committee this week:
Unfortunately, I don’t think any of us are happy with the results of these seemingly endless, Washington-led reform efforts. Most discouragingly, the achievement and attainment gaps experienced by poor and minority students, who are the primary focus of these Federal education programs, remain unacceptably large.
However, her budget prescriptions to fix these problems are very concerning. Here are the line items from the budget summary:
A $250 million increase for the Education Innovation and Research program for competitive awards for applicants to provide scholarships for students from low-income families to attend 3 the private school of their choice and to build the evidence base around private school choice.
A $167 million increase for the Charter Schools program to strengthen significant State efforts to start new charter schools or expand and replicate existing high-performing charter schools while providing up to $100 million to meet the growing demand for charter school facilities. [This would be on top of the $4 billion that has already been spent on charters at the federal level since 1995].
There are two major reasons this will not work.
1) Increasing Government Tentacles into Schools
First — apart from public school advocates’ concern about diverting public school funding to unaccountable private entities that do not have elected school boards responsive to parents — the public, charter, and private school vouchers, especially at the federal level, will increase government control and strings. The biggest string to be concerned about is the Common Core-aligned state tests. What is tested is taught. Because charter schools are public schools, they are required by state and federal law to give the same federal- and state-mandated tests required in traditional public schools. This means that charter schools really can’t innovate, and charter school students are still subject to the invasive surveys, social emotional indoctrination, and expanding unprotected personal data collection we have warned about in recent articles.
Jeb Bush, when writing Mitt Romney’s education plan during the 2012 presidential campaign, clearly stated that “to ensure accountability, students using federal funds to attend private schools will be required to participate in the state’s testing system” (emphasis added). Given that Bush and DeVos are such close allies in expanding Common Core and FedEd, it would be hard to imagine a federal voucher plan without that very dangerous entanglement.
It is heartening to see, however, that even conservative groups that strongly support school choice and have not written much about these dangers are now starting to speak up. Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation was quoted in U.S. News and World Report saying of the school choice budget proposals:
It would grow rather than reduce federal intervention, and we should really be focused on reducing federal intervention…I think [the proposal] is something that could be fraught with regulations…Even if that doesn’t happen now, we have to think down the road what does that program look like under other administrations.
Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute gave similar comments to USA Today:
He said his biggest concern was that federal regulations, oversight and vast infusions of cash could “distort” an eclectic, and in some cases thriving, private-school market.
In addition to Education Liberty Watch’s School Choice Freedom Grading Scale, Lisa Hudson of Arizona gave an excellent summary of Why Conservatives Should Rethink Their Support for School Vouchers:
Under Indiana law, private and parochial schools that accept vouchers are subject to the state’s A-F Accountability system; a system that forces private and parochial schools to teach to the test like every other government school. Many school voucher programs set tuition caps that forbid a private school from charging any tuition or fees beyond the amount of the voucher. In Wisconsin, a religious school may not require a student to participate in religious activities without parental consent. In Maryland, a private school many not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Still other programs have mandatory accreditation requirements, prohibit religious schools from compelling prayer or worship, and classify school personnel as municipal employees subject to collective bargaining provisions. A voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio, prohibits the teaching of “…hatred against any person or group.” Which begs the question: does teaching traditional marriage constitute hatred against a person or group?
2) Charter Schools Don’t Improve Student Performance
The second, much more practical reason charter school expansion will not work is that these schools do nothing to improve student performance in failing, inner city schools in poor districts. DeVos apparently doesn’t or won’t realize that if the federal government has been funding charter schools since 1995, they ought to be included in the “seemingly endless, Washington-led reform efforts” that have failed as she described in her testimony. I recently wrote about Florida’s admission that there is a higher percentage of failing charter schools in Florida compared to traditional public schools — as even admitted by Jeb Bush’s own foundation:
Here is even more evidence of charter schools’ failure to help the students who most desperately need it. Just as with the Florida example, there is evidence from the National Education Policy Center that charter schools underperform public schools on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores:
Out of the 28 total comparison tests run, only 4 times did charters produce higher composite score averages than non-charter neighborhood public schools.
Here are some examples from that study:
Despite Jeb Bush’s frequent statements that “parents know best for their children,” with these efforts at the federal level, parents are not likely to keep their inherent right to be able to choose whether their children are taught or tested via Common Core or to opt out of invasive data mining or psychological profiling. C.S. Lewis’ quote in Hudson’s piece is truer than ever:
Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts…
Parents and citizens must beware of education reformers like Betsy DeVos, Jeb Bush, and their allies — including Florida Speaker Richard Corcoran — bearing these pleasantly wrapped packages tied up with dangerous, ineffective strings.
jscheidell (and re: Karen R. Effrem, MD). The point of the below exercise is to distinguish (1) well-meaning people (right or wrong) in either party from (2) those with self-serving ideologies (either monetary, political, or religious). Your (jscheidell/Effrem) point is under distinction 2, (b), 2a. But first,
To your first reason: “Government strings” and “tentacles” (as such) are not the problem. The problem in this case is their particular content (CC/testing). Your view is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater–And the cure is not privatization of education. So you’ve misidentified both the problem and the cure. Let’s keep democratic-government oversight and pour that money and our efforts into fixing what we already have. Let’s not outsource our education to those who only want to make money on it and/or destroy the system we already have and replace it with their own religious ideology (retribalization).
To your second reason” that charters don’t improve student performance. Indeed. But privatizing is that long road to hell that C.S. Lewis speaks of: “Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts…”
Then you say: “Parents and citizens must beware of education reformers like Betsy DeVos, Jeb Bush, and their allies . . . YES INDEED. But then: ” . . bearing these pleasantly wrapped packages tied up with dangerous, ineffective strings.” NO, NO, NO. I don’t think the writer has a grasp of what’s actually going on in education. These “reformers” don’t want government regulations of ANY kind. They want to hand the whole thing off to this or that CEO and destroy any legitimate oversight–and by legitimate I mean what is really good for educating children in a secular democracy, regardless of its money-making ability.
Here is the exercise, if you get this far:
I think your interesting note also points to a set of needed distinctions besides the distinction between (1) supporters and (2) non-supporters of vouchers, charters, and generally the “reformer” and privatizer movement; and besides between Republicans and Democrats.
That is, in both camps, and for both R or D, there are people (like most on this site) who really do want a good education for children. That being said, your note points to further distinctions that I hope are clarifying:
DISTINCTION 1: between public/private education, that is, between:
(a) those who think that vouchers/charters/privatization will accomplish a good education.
(b) those who think public education is essential to maintain and that (a) is destructive.
DISTINCTION 2: Promote/do not promote Common Core, testing, ,etc.
This refers to those in either combination of camps (public/private and/or R or D)
(a) Those who promote CC/testing do so:
(b) Those who are against CC are against it because:
Again, Your (jscheidell/Effrem) point is under distinction 2, (b), 2a.
The upper middle class and above will benefit greatly from the voucher program. They’ll be able to make up the difference between the voucher $$$ and the high tuition of the better and best private schools.Those with extreme means will have some race track money to have fun with.
People on the cusp won’t have to send their children to the local public school which, not so coincidentally, will have become much less desirable due to underfunding and test state test mandates/stripped down curriculum that the private schools don’t have to deal with (yet).
People with less means will have to send their kids to those “lousy public schools” or (shining beacon of hope) a parochial school which, not so coincidentally (for Ms DeVos) is much more within the financial scope that the voucher has been designed to fit into. So what if the family’s faith is different from the Christian doctrine which is taught daily in this “better” school. God will provide.
I have a colleague who says she likes vouchers and charters because she believes in choice and competition. It doesn’t matter how many articles I show her or facts I cite during our discussions. It’s always the same: “I like to have a choice”.
gitapik Your friend says: “I like to have choice.” The double-speak propaganda of the so-called reformers really hit the right button on that one.
Yes it did, Catherine.
gitapik I’ll say it again: They make prostitutes of legitimate language that has been identified with our democratic political core for centuries, like choice and freedom and rights.
And they have taken the old-school fear of “big government,” rooted in earlier times and its counter-literature, and made it into a marketing tool for monitizing what is essentially public, for marketing, and for purveying religiously ideological interests.
Masters of spin…
(A good title for one of DAMPoet’s verses)