Betsy DeVos founded and funded the American Federation for Children, which advocates for vouchers.
AFC issued this statement today:
AFC Statement on Weingarten-Edelman Op-Ed
The American Federation for Children, the nation’s voice for educational choice, released the following statement in response to the Los Angeles Times op-ed from Randi Weingarten and Jonah Edelman.
Statement from Kevin P. Chavous, founding board member and executive counsel for the American Federation for Children:
Today’s op-ed by American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, and Stand for Children President Jonah Edelman is a disservice to millions of parents and children across the nation who want nothing more than equal access to a quality education.
The op-ed is full of hyberbole and outright inaccuracies.
First, the headline is rich with irony. It is school choice–directly empowering parents to choose the best educational environment for their child–that is the most democratic of ideas. Rather than undermining public schools, choice helps public schools by virtue of having to compete with other options. Only among the K-12 establishment would competition be considered undermining public schools.
Second, the Administration’s FY 2018 budget proposal does not “siphon billions of dollars from public schools to fund private and religious school vouchers.” It is not “diverting $1 billion into voucher programs.” These are completely false statements. The Administration’s budget proposes $1.4 billion for school choice–$1.15 billion of which is for public school choice. Moreover, all but $250 million of these proposed resources would remain in public schools.
Third, the op-ed states “facts show that where vouchers have been into practice on a meaningful scale, they hurt student learning.” The op-ed also cites a recently released study of first year data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences saying it “adds to a growing body of education research that concludes vouchers may harm rather help student achievement.” These too are completely false statements.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that parents themselves have chosen to participate in private school choice programs, the body of research on these programs proves they work for children fortunate enough to participate.
Prior to the IES report, there have been 15 empirical studies examining academic outcomes for students participating in private school choice using random assignment, the “gold standard” of defensible social science:
• 10 found improved test scores for school choice participants
• 3 found no significant effect for school choice participants
• 2 found negative impact in the early years of study for school choice participants
21 studies examined school choice and how it impacts academic outcomes in public schools:
• 20 found that school choice improved public school academic outcomes
• 1 found no significant effect on academic outcomes from school choice
Finally, the School Superintendents Association “research” into states with existing tax credit scholarship programs and how some “donors have been able to make a profit off the backs of taxpayers and ultimately kids.” Perhaps Weingarten and Edelman are unaware of how tax credit scholarship programs work. Corporate and individual donors pay state taxes. They make a contribution to a local non-profit that provides scholarships for eligible children to attend a private school of their parents choice. They get a tax credit, they don’t make a profit. Parents and children across the nation would be fortunate indeed if the Administration and Congress were to adopt a federal tax credit because it would facilitate access to a quality education for another 1 million students–most of whom will graduate and go on to college as the body of research into these programs clearly demonstrates.
Take away the hyperbole and inaccuracies, what Randi Weingarten and Jonah Edelman truly oppose is giving parents, especially low-income parents, the ability to choose something other than their neighborhood traditional public school. While some of these neighborhood schools may be terrific schools, many are clearly not, which is why millions seek other options. The teachers’ unions oppose choice in education–period. The fact that organizations like Stand for Children and Democrats for Education Reform prefer to stand with the teachers’ unions rather than standing with the 3.5 million children in charter schools and private choice programs, and the millions more who desperately want access to better options, speaks volumes.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This feels staged to me.
My thought exactly.
Not surprising.
The scorpion strikes.
Vouchers are the panacea.
Unfortunately, Randi provided the perfect opportunity for this attack and the alt-facts in the APC reply can NEVER be disputed because the train is on the track and the simplistic ideology of customer choice in a compettitive market is great. If you defy that, or deny it, you are not a good capitalist and therefore unAmerican.
That seems to be the message.
I know facts don’t matter in this era of unreason, but I really would like to see the research citations for this APC announcement and the Weingarten-Edelman Op-Ed in the LA TImes.
When someone makes sweeping assertions, as in this case, the source of the evidence should be part of the statement. Any comments from the “reform” camp should be examined with a critical lens as they are known for alt. facts, cherry picking data, misrepresenting data, and false assumptions and conclusions.
No surprise there. We are currently waging a war with words and there is an old saying that all is fair in love and war.
Fair, in this case, doesn’t mean honest, logical, moral, or legal.
How can traditional public schools get “better” in a voucher system if they are not given the freedom to choose how they will educate their students?
For example, a large Florida school district said that the state’s merit pay law, which has been in effect for about six years, has NOT increased student achievement. That district cannot just scrap the Danielson/Marzano teacher observation system and VAM and start over from scratch. Meanwhile, a private or charter school CAN do whatever they want in that area.
When I went back to teaching, I worked in a district that had a collegial process of teacher evaluation. Athough they, too, had their less than ethical ways of getting rid of people, generally, the process was intended to help a teacher in more of a supportive process. When I moved to another district, I was totally blindsided by the adversarial relationship between teachers and administration. The evaluation process was actually a punitive, “gotcha” process. I remember being speechless when the principal stopped and commented that I had an answer for all of his criticisms. I was trying to explain why I did things the way I did in my special ed classes in search of a dialogue. He was only interested in tallying points.
I am having a little trouble grasping the whole of your comment. But if I understand correctly, you are pointing out the fallacy in the claim that the school-choice model engenders competition w/pubschs, causing them to improve in order to. compete for enrollment– because the pubschs are hamstrung by various fed/state mandates [e.g., Danielson] & have minimal mobility!
If Iunderstand you correctly, you are pointing to the insincerity– the fallacy– the subterfuge of ed-reform à la ALEC policy: undermine the publicschool sys by reqg it to meet multiple punitive mandates– used to declare it ‘failing’– while simultaneously opening & expanding opptys for alternate quasi-public school options which are not held to the same stds.
Good. I’m personally encouraged when I see this clear “fissure” between people heavily committed to the “choice” A.K.A. “Privatization” movement in our public schools.
DeVos doesn’t grasp the fact that tax credits reduce revenue.
She also fails to understand the difference between quality and marketing. I refer back to her answer during her confirmation to the question, Do you think all schools that receive federal funding should be held to the same standards of accountability? Her answer was, “I believe in accountability.” In other words, no. Popularity, Betsy Billionaire, is not quality or accountability.
She grasps it just fine. Please don’t assume ignorance when maliciousness is clearly a better explanation.
I love reading your straightforward and true responses with which I always agree, Dienne. So, in that spirit, my single word in response regarding her grasp is grizzlies.
Agree w/Dienne. DeVos understands full well that tax credits reduce revenue. She is a neo-conservative, & fine w/ reduced.revenue squeezing public goods while funds trickle up to offshore corp piggybanks.
DeVos is not a neocon. She is a rockribbed reactionary.
Ah, yes, the eternal question about so-called reformers: where does the incompetence end, and the malice begin?
Cynic, and years-long observer of these critters that I am, I see most of them as incarnations of malevolence.
There is always malice and often incompetence.
Often incompetence maybe, but not in DeVos’s case. She has proved herself singularly competent in Michigan already. That’s why she got the job she has.
With Deformers, malice and incompetence are part of the same Woebeus loop so it makes no sense to ask where one ends and the other begins.
Diane, I love your description “Rock-Ribbed Reactionary”. Well describes BDeVos & her followers, who are hoping to return the US to a pre-‘1950’s reality [?!] when ‘the Church was the center of the community”– [?!]– [maybe60 yrs ago?].
DeVos wants to take us back to 1830 before public schools
“DeVos wants to take us back to 1830 before public schools”
But wants the modern tax system to fund her historical quest. In 1830, she would have had to travel from door to door in the Wild West and East to make her case for funding for her favorite schools, fighting off outlaws and Indians on her way.
Perhaps we should revive the customs from 200 years ago, helping Betsy to feel, on her skin, the times she is promoting.
Better yet, let’s send DeVos, Trump and his cabinet back in time to the 18th century during the Revolutionary War, and they have to fight in George Washington’s army.
Imagine the conversation between George Washington and Donald Trump.
After the nurses union endorsed Bernie, Weingartner reportedly sent an e-mail to Podesto (Hillary’s campaign manager) that said, “We will go after the NNU and their high and sanctimonious conduct.”
Podesto replied, “Thanks”.
Randi cares only about her own advancement.
She’s squandered every opportunity she’s been given to save America’s most important common good.
Hell will fill quickly.
I think DeVose actually believes her own propaganda. But there are several points that are open to critique–I’ll just comment on one. Namely, they give-away their short-sighted (low), one-horse horizon of “marketing-monetizing,” and that they have no idea what “public institution” means or how it differs from capitalist corporations–by this statement: (my emphases)
“Rather than undermining public schools, choice helps public schools by virtue of having to compete with other options. Only among the K-12 establishment would competition be considered undermining public schools.”
Let’s amend/correct that last sentence: Only among those in the K-12 establishment who understand the significance of public schools in a democracy and the dangers of privatization/charters “would competition be considered undermining public schools.”
Those who work in public school environments can concentrate on excellence in administration and teaching all children and need not treat children like dollars in a bank account.
Thousands of public employee opposed to public schools.
Ludicrous. And we all get the privilege of paying for this. Can’t the Waltons bankroll this political campaign? Why is the public paying for it?
I’m hoping our school district passes on the DeVos school choice plan. The federal money won’t come close to covering the costs of this experiment and public schools will be stuck with the bill.
It’s a rip-off. It’s a small amount of money to launch a federal program that will end not be funded at the federal level but instead will up coming right out of your public school budget.
Add and subtract. Don’t get suckered. Take a pass. You’ll be glad you did.
I’m thinking one avenue/ argument would be to liken Trump’s pumping $ into voucherism– via the fed DOEd– to Bush’s NCLB/ Obama’s RTTT: Fed DoEd overweening micromgt of local district ed.programs. The very thing our new ESSA law was passed to prevent. Where does the fed DofEd get off bribing hard-up states to disrupt a 90% pubsch sys?
“Prior to the IES report, there have been 15 empirical studies examining academic outcomes for students participating in private school choice using random assignment, the “gold standard” of defensible social science:”
This statement jumps right into the middle of an argument that should have never got to this point; it should have been stuck in the very beginning: Before the education performance of the 1-10% of the kids using vouchers come up, one should talk about what happens with the rest of the 90+% kids and their schools.
If a school’s budget decreases by 10% because 10% of the kids take “their” money with them to other schools, the school still has to maintain the same building, the same number of teachers, the same library for the rest of the kids. Think about it: just because each class of 30 kids is now reduced to 27 kids, the number of teachers needed won’t decrease by a single one.
The result of this kind of budget decreases end up schools not having enough teachers (so kids watch movies or read books with a sub in a chemistry class), bathrooms get impossibly filthy, libraries get run down, art programs get cut.
My kids certainly have reported these kinds of problems even without a voucher program in TN.
So before talking about the choice of a few people, let’s demand economic and educational impact statements for the rest of the kids.
Again, and again, reformers steer away from the really fundamental problems, and jump right into the murky details. Let’s not let them do that. Let’s always push the arguments back to the beginning, back to the fundamental issues, where we have a clear picture of what’s right and what’s wrong.
As soon as reformers start talking about “educational performance studies”, we should immediately say “Let’s not talk about that. We do not care about how a few kids might be doing on tests. What we care about is what happens to the schools and education of the vast majority of the kids. Here are the numbers on those….”
Public education is a mass education for the public, payed for by the public. The choice of a few people is immaterial; improving the quality of education for a few people is immaterial. Private schools had centuries to prove, they can educate the masses. They failed at that, so public education was created.
Let’s not try to turn back the wheels to centuries’ old failed experiments. If we don’t do it in science, why try to run old, failed experiments on our kids? Who would support alchemy in the 21st century?
Vouchers are the 21st century equivalents of alchemy. Similarly to iron, wood and horse manure, they never turn into gold.
More like palchemy, where politicians pass bills favorable to themselves and their wealthy friends, which turns into gold to help pay for private schools that they would be sending their kids to anyway.
“Studies of students participating in private school choice involving random assignment”
“Choice involving random assignment”??
How does that work?
Poet ” “Choice involving random assignment”??
How does that work?”
Well, there is a magic hat, called the random sorting hat, and each student puts on the hat, and the hat tells the student which of the schools she should go to. The student, her parents and everybody else believe this is what random sorting is, and that’s all that matters.
All explained, no doubt, in The Oxyford Dictionary of (and for) Oxymorons.
Excellent, máté weirdl!
Mate Wierdl One of the basics you speak of is that business people are steeped in the practicalities of business models. For instance, regardless of a business’ income, some costs increase or decrease according to sales and or service. However, some expenses are relatively stationary, like rent and accounting, some employees, license fees, and many other related costs. These stationary expenses are paid for from GROSS profit and are subtracted before any NET profit can be made. There is some flexibility at every turn when you get into the details, but that’s basically business 101.
My point is that if private companies or “non-profits” are involved in a business model, they cannot feign ignorance of what you are talking about when voucher money leaves public education.
Like.
¡Me gusta esto!
My response to DeVos… When is “choice” not really a “choice “? And who benefits by this “choice”? Follow the facts (who financially profits). But more importantly see what disadvantaged students have a “choice” of???? It is not whether to use their voucher money to attend Milton Academy, Groton or Sidwell Friends! Poor students get to “choose ” between bad or rotten… this is NOT CHOICE. To add insult to injury the corporate ed reform policies CAUSE schools to go down hill by the very top down structures they create in have not schools… over testing, fund starvation, micromanaging teachers and administrators etc… So no to DeVos… your brand of choice is like asking a starving thirsty person to “choose” between eating cyanide or Drano and then “branding” your “service” as coming to the rescue. When will this idiotic nonsense stop?
artseagal “When will this idiotic nonsense stop?” When “the people” get the memo that explains.how they are being snookered and shafted by Trump-like moral degenerates.
And my response didn’t even touch on the total lack over oversight in these newly minted “voucher” private schools. Don’t believe in global warming .. open “Anti Global Warming Academy”… don’t believe in science… open “God Trumps Science Academy”… or whatever because it is all about choice??? We can already see the evidence of lack of oversight in charter after charter led by the likes of tennis stars, hedge fund managers, basketball players and outright criminals. A school head tires of the job and suddenly closes “shop” after a few months leaving students stranded? Yup that has happened too.
Let’s not forget how the DeVos family made their fortune–via the Amway ponzi scheme.
If ya get dissed by DeVoodoo, then must be doing something right.