Peter Greene read Betsy DeVos’s speech to the big privatization conference in D.C. and he figured out the DeVos doctrine.
Remember the song from “Oklahoma,” about “the farmers and the ranchers can be friends?” Well, DeVos assured her allies in the privatization movement that voucher-lovers and charter-lovers are on the same team. They both want the money that now goes to public schools!
Greene writes:
“The rise of Betsy DeVos opened up some schisms in the education reformster world, including, notably, voucher fans versus charter fans. Charter fans have been distrustful, even openly resistant to DeVos and whatever agenda she is drifting toward. Charter schools and voucher schools are natural competitors, with vouchers having a distinct edge with the private religious school market. But I think it may be more important that they compete in different ways.
“To grossly oversimplify, the charter model is to attach itself to the public school system, coopting the public system’s financial systems but redirecting public monies to private schools. The voucher model is to keep the public funding from ever entering the public system at all. Charters want to slip the money out of the bank, but vouchers want to grab the armored cars delivering it. Charters flirt with the lottery winner so he’ll buy them a nice dinner, and vouchers mug him before he ever gets to the restaurant. Charters fake their family ties so they can wrangle an invite to Thanksgiving
“So it represents a significant shift that DeVos has delivered a speech loaded with a giant olive branch to charter supporters…
“DeVos holds up Florida as an example of robust choice and its awesome results. Including Pitbull’s school. Florida, land charter scam artists and blatantly racist school policy and slavish devotion to the Big Standardized Test and public schools deliberately gutted in order to make choice look good. Florida is the DeVosian model. It may not do much for actual education, but at least people are free to make money.
“The final chorus of this hymn to privatization is to declare that “education is not a zero-sum game.” But of course as currently conceived, it is exactly that. Among the issues that DeVos doesn’t address is the costliness of running multiple parallel school systems with the same (often inadequate) funds you previously used to run a single system. As long as every taxpayer dollar spent to send a student to a private charter or voucher school is a dollar taken away from the public system, then a zero-sum game is exactly what we have.
“The DeVos Doctrine presented here includes several of her emerging greatest hits, such as the idea that parents choosing a school is a pure exercise of democracy. It is not. There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your personal private choice.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Both charters and vouchers divert public money away from common schools and funnel money to private entities. Both of these schemes have resulted in an overall disinvestment in public education at both the federal and state levels. Neither charters nor vouchers has improved results for our most vulnerable students. Vouchers offer students an educational loss, rather than a gain. Both of these schemes have failed to deliver on their promises; yet nothing is being done to halt the flow of public money. Contrary to what DeVos claims, there is no big parent movement of parents clamoring for charters and vouchers. The underlying goal of both charters and vouchers is a mass movement of public funds into corporate and private pockets. Both of these schemes represent a loss of democratic oversight of public funds and an expansion of corporate power. Privatization is more about access to public cash than it is about educational improvement.
LikeLike
retired teacher- Well said. Your points need to be shared on social media. After all this time the public is still in the dark.
LikeLike
If I may add a bit to your thought:
“he underlying goal of both charters and vouchers is a mass movement of public funds into corporate and private pockets AND INTO THE COFFERS OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (EVEN AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES PROHIBITING SAID FUNDS FROM GOING TO SAID COFFERS).
LikeLike
Amen, retired teacher.
LikeLike
Diane . . . from the rooftops–the post nails corporate $$$ intentions . . .
And yet, where DeVose is concerned, we should not forget that her intentions are also, and I would say mainly, religious. Some of her actual quotes (posted here at times and in related links) suggest that her expansive bank account is understood as but a means to that more exalted end: to serve God (not a problem) in the way she has understood her service to Him (BIG PROBLEM).
My guess is (doing a little psychological speculation here) that there is a wraparound kind of self-justification going on here; that is, where her religious zealotry “justifies,” in the thoughtless way that religious zealotry does, her shutting her mind to her critics, as well as her going to bed (so to speak) with the moral, political, and spiritual degenerates on Wall Street.
LikeLike
Yup!
LikeLike
I wrote a ketter to Claire McCaskill, and I have already heard the sermon about—what do you want to do—have the right wingers replace her in 2018? It is a democrat sin to cast aspersions upon a democrat with whom we disagree, but a sin ten times as bad: challenging one who is meticulously evasive in answering what you want to know. I tried hard to make that clear in my letter…..I wanted to know how she felt about the charter school part of privatization, and if felt like she did not read my letter, she simply pushed a button labelled education response, and sent it to me. I will offer it below, in a separate response. Correct me if my reaction is wrong.
LikeLike
It is difficult to weave your way through all the hoops and citizen opinion blockers to actually send anything to McCaskill….perhaps that is standard operating procedure. I copied and pasted it into my notebook…I forget what the title was…it might have been “Privatization of public schools.” I will omit a couple of irrelevant paragraphs, with a promise to post them for anyone who thinks they might be relevant.
“I believe a better word is monetization, instead of privatization of public schools. I am not alone in believing that democrats have a responsibility to admit that Obama’s choice of Arne Duncan and the presence of Bill Gates, who got a massive return on his investment of a tiny number of his many dollars in terms of power and influence…..admit that it was a mistake.
DeVos is very awful, but it is not enough to criticize her without also acknowledging that democrats bear a responsibility of leading us further down that road. You cannot be afraid of people like former St. Louis) mayor Slay.
(note about my nephew and his wife, Matt Grossmann and Sarah Reckhow)
(note about my being barred from commenting in the post dispatch and by public radio in st. louis.)
(Note about speaking with Atty general Jay Ashcroft at the Elks Club)
Even though I am 70 years old, I still feel strongly about education issues. You, unlike Hillary, are not going to get a free pass regarding education policies related to increased re segregation of schools. I will show up in person, and I will find a way to confront you about where you stand, and I am not going to settle for “DeVos is not very good, and I am against vouchers” will not be enough. Charter schools will be talked about, whether it is cordial or otherwise.
Not responding to this letter…..would not be a real good idea.
Two worries I have about my letter….She might have fallen asleep from boredom. The last paragraph had too much of a hostile, threatening tone….attempting to make sure my opinion was that saying DeVos is bad (she is) and vouchers are lousy (they are) was not enough.
I quickly added another note to say not responding would not be a real good idea was not meant as a threat, but that it meant that I would continue to demand an answer legal ways.
She does not have to agree with me, but she does need to recognize that the damage being inflicted by charter schools is a serious issue to a huge portion of people inclined to support democrats. I want to have her on record as to where she stands.
Her response demonstrated she was not going to do that, from the very first sentence.
LikeLike
June 12, 2017
Dear Mr. Prichard,
Thank you for contacting me regarding school vouchers. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you know, many families choose to send their children to private schools, sometimes at great expense. A parent’s choice of where and how to educate their children is a personal one, and I am dedicated to maintaining their right to do so. However, unlike public schools, private schools generally do not guarantee admission or affordable tuition to all students. Private schools also have fewer obligations to comply with federal regulations, such as nondiscrimination rules, than public schools. Furthermore, while many children receive excellent educations at private schools, there is not conclusive evidence that private schools, overall, offer a higher-quality education than public schools, although it is certainly possible to find private schools that are stronger than many public schools, as well as public schools that are stronger than many private schools.
Some reform advocates have argued that the federal government should redirect education funding away from public schools and toward private schools. For example, the U.S. Senate recently considered an amendment to the Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. No: 114-95) that sought to direct federal funding away from public schools serving high numbers of children from low income families and into publicly-funded subsidies that could be used for private school tuition. I opposed this proposal because I want to ensure that federal funding continues to support public education, including programs that serve children and communities in great need. I also believe that federal funding should go to schools that are accountable to the federal government through assessments and compliance with antidiscrimination laws.
While I do not agree that reducing funding to our public schools is the best way to improve our educational system, I am pleased that Congress took a meaningful step to ensure that American children may continue to learn and thrive at school. As you may know, this year Congress enacted into law the Every Student Succeeds Act, the first reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which became law 13 years ago. NCLB was intended to implement more accountability for schools and teachers, set ambitious performance goals for students, and close performance gaps between difference groups of students, it was clear that a serious revision of the law was needed. After hearing from Missourians about their concerns with NCLB, I am pleased that many of the burdensome provisions will be replaced. The Every Student Succeeds Act is bipartisan legislation that will roll back many of the federal mandates on education while still ensuring that states and local school districts have plans in place to ensure all students receives a quality education. Instead of a one size fits all system of testing students, this law will provide states with flexibility in how they measure student and school success, and allow them to create plans unique to their state to address under performing schools.
I will be sure to keep your thoughts on this important issue in mind as Congress continues to consider how to best improve our nation’s schools.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
LikeLike
Joe. You are correct. This is a boilerplate letter, likely written by a staffer. Could have come from Senator Rob Portman.
LikeLike
Oh…I just found another communication from Claire about education, way back in January….January 28, 2016
Dear Mr. Prichard,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Every Student Succeeds Act. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you may know, it has been thirteen years since the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (commonly known as “No Child Left Behind”) became law. While No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was intended to implement more accountability for schools and teachers, set ambitious performance goals for students, and close performance gaps between difference groups of students, it was clear that a serious revision of the law was needed. NCLB emphasized performance on standardized tests as a measure of students’ achievement. Schools that could not meet NCLB’s standards faced consequences such as a federal “failing” label, replacement of teachers and administrators, and eventual closure. These penalties pushed schools to “teach to the test,” favoring certain subjects and methods of teaching over others in an effort to perform well on standardized tests.
After hearing from Missourians about their concerns with the NCLB legislation, I am pleased that Congress has acted to replace many of the burdensome provisions of NCLB. The Every Student Succeeds Act is bipartisan legislation that will roll back many of the federal mandates on education while still ensuring that states and local school districts have plans in place to ensure all students receives a quality education. Instead of a one size fits all system of testing students, this law will provide states with flexibility in how they measure student and school success, and allow them to create plans unique to their state to address under performing schools.
My number one priority when evaluating replacements for NCLB has been ensuring that the federal government has less influence on education, instead leaving these decisions to parents, local school districts and states. I believe that this legislation achieves that goal, therefore I supported its passage. The legislation passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate with wide bipartisan margins on December 9, 2015. I am pleased that President Obama signed the legislation into law.
Since coming to the Senate, I’ve always said the best ideas come directly from folks at home. That is why I collected ideas and opinions on our education system from all parts of Missouri over the last several years. I’m confident the Every Student Succeeds Act fulfills many of the goals that Missourians had for the federal role in our education system.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
Sincerely,
LikeLike
Not much critical thinking by the senator’s staffer in regards to ESSA.
LikeLike
The New Market Tax credits also incentivize privatizing and undermining public schools. The fake vouchers in the form of tax credits or “scholarships” is another privatization tool that reduces taxes on the wealthy and passes a greater tax burden on to the middle and working class.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Markets_Tax_Credit_Program
LikeLike
“There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your personal private choice.”
There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your
test and punish ideology.
There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your
sort and separate ideology.
There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your
ideology of “grading”.
There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your
“educational standards”.
There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill to perpetuate a fundamental logical error (per Wilson).
LikeLike
NoBrick,
If you would like a draft electronic copy of my book, feel free to email me at dswacker@centurytel.net. I gladly send it to you. Hard copies should be available at the end of next week but they’ll cost ya.
Duane
LikeLike
Thanks Duane. I’ll spring for the hard copy titled ???
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s “Infidelity to Truth: Education Malpractice in American Public Education”. I don’t have any copies yet from the printer but are expecting them by the end of the month. I’ll let folks here know when they are available and how to get them. I’m still working out those details with my daughter’s help. We’re gonna work on it on Sunday, when she is in St. Louis for father’s day. She does marketing up in Seattle and knows the ins and outs of that stuff-I know nothing (quoting Sgt Schulz).
LikeLike
“…
Hang on to your hopes, my friend
That’s an easy thing to say
But if your hopes should pass away
Simply pretend That you can build them again
Look around
The grass is high
The fields are ripe
It’s the springtime of my life
Seasons change with the scenery
Weaving time in a tapestry
Won’t you stop and remember me
At any convenient time?
Funny how MY memory skips
Looking over manuscripts
Of unpublished rhyme…” S & G
“o From Ch. 2 “Fidelity to Truth in Educational Discourse:
“Now, let’s delve into Comte-Sponville’s concept of “fidelity to truth.” What is meant by fidelity to truth, that of being faithful/true to truth? Preliminarily and primarily, Comte-Sponville states “All fidelity is—whether to a value or to a person—is fidelity to love and through love.” Since he considers love to be the greatest and hardest to achieve virtue that statement rightly precedes all his other thoughts on the subject. We can follow that up with the consideration that fidelity is the “will to remember” truthfully and that fidelity “resists forgetfulness, changing fashions and interests, the charms of the moment, the seductions of power.” Fidelity to truth means “refusing to change one’s ideas in the absence of strong, valid reasons, and. . . it means holding as true. . . ideas whose truth has clearly and solidly established.” At the same time fidelity to truth means rejecting discourse that has been shown to have errors, falsehoods and invalidities. However, “Being faithful to one’s thoughts more than to truth would mean being unfaithful to thought and condemning oneself to sophistry.” To be unfaithful to truth, to be in error, then is to reject that which makes honest communications, policies and practices cogent and a human good, a virtue.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a terrific article, wherein Martin Luther King III, asserts that school choice benefits publicly-operated schools. See:
https://fee.org/articles/martin-luther-king-iii-on-educational-freedom/
LikeLike
Peter has everything right except for the assumption that education in brick and mortar schools will continue without the rapacious de-schooling of education being promoted under the banner of “personalized learning.”
Check the link below for a really great update on the quest to market the idea that education should be de-schooled and entrusted to the likes of Google and any one who will certify that X product or service is educational.
This is the “next generation” of learning promoted by the usual suspects who think public education exists to be exploited for profit and for the trill of controlling hearts and minds of this and future next generations.
No teachers with specialized training or a degree are required. In the digital learning universe all data about a student “belongs” to the service provider.
Here is one report. It is a wake-up call.
LikeLike
Laura H. Chapman You say: “In the digital learning universe all data about a student ‘belongs’ to the service provider.” THERE GOES THE TRUTH, aka the principles of intelligence and excellence as NOT locked-in to one person, family, group, or corporation, or event.
To grasp the meaning of that statement more fully, we can change it to read: “In the North Korean learning universe all data, including about a student, ‘belongs’ to Dear Leader.”
LikeLike
I predict that most of the ESSA money will be spent on tech products and platforms resulting in little to no benefit to our vulnerable students. It is more corporate welfare.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t bet against your prediction RT!
LikeLike
Thanks Laura. What people also need to wrap their minds around is the fact that personalized learning is NOT just about selling computers, software, or cloud-based computing-all of which are profitable, no doubt. The much larger profit center lies in the student data. We are on the brink of having our education systems underwritten by social impact bonds / pay for success via predatory public-private partnerships. That is why Pay for Success was written into ESSA. All this talk of “evidence-based” research and ed-tech “efficacy” we are hearing is tied into the creation of that market. Investors will be paid for “what works,” meaning products that move the needle on a very controlled, rigid, prescriptive system of online education documented via formative stealth assessments. The third parties who oversee these SIB “deals” will need to have automated processes to allow this model to scale. In fact right now Social Finance has been given a grant to develop “rate cards” that will allow SIB scaling. They will use P20 student data to create a new derivatives market using student data-dashboards moving in real time for schools, districts, and even whole states. And global finance will be betting them up or down in real time, just like the housing market, but even more horrific. This is the missing piece. This is what people need to know in order for all of it to make sense.
LikeLike
Information here: https://wrenchinthegears.com/2017/03/04/what-you-should-know-about-pay-for-success-as-testing-season-approaches/
LikeLike