Choice advocates favor the idea of “voting with your feet.”
Peter Greene explains why it doesn’t work and will never work.
“A parental foot vote carries no weight. And since parents get their foot votes by trading away actual votes for board members, access to any transparency about school management or finances, and in some cases even simple access to people in charge, it’s a lousy trade. The only thing they can do is that bipedal vote thing, and as we’ve seen, doesn’t carry much weight.
“Vote with your feet” is just a nicer way for charter operators to say “Take it or leave it.”
“Meanwhile, in places like New Orleans, Florida and North Carolina, legislators continue to aid the invisible hand by cutting the competition off at the knees. The more parents are driven toward charter/choice schools, the less those parents matter, and the easier charter operators have it. So let’s systematically gut public education. If people won’t venture out of the public school building– if they won’t vote with their feet the way we need them to– then let’s coax ’em out of that building by setting fire to it. Then it doesn’t matter where the stampede heads– as long as we can catch a sliver of it, we’re good.
“Foot voting is never going to empower parents. In fact, since foot voting requires parents to give up all other forms of leverage, it’s an approach that leaves them with nothing but tired shoe leather.”

Diane A classic case of the combination of
(a) “starve the beast;” (“set the public school on fire”)
(b) hold parents and their children’s education hostage by providing untenable choices;
(c) extortion (of their vote for what is the better of two evils: no education or THIS education); and then
(d) bait and switch.
They are suited professional criminals.
LikeLike
Exactly. Thank you.
LikeLike
Also, this is exactly the modus operandi Trump is about to try. He has said he plans to starve the Affordable Care Act because it is working too well and people like it too much. Can’t have that — better to undermine it and make it terrible so the other crummy choices are better.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent Yes, exactly. And there are several “prongs” going on in the US.
(1) the takeover of local news outlets by Sinclair et al coupled with the demonizing of the mainstream press; (2) the invitation to “weaponize” police attitudes (next: give them all brown shirts?); (3) our presidential “leadership” which has endorsed leering, contempt for perceived “weakness,” and brought a mob mentality to the White House. Hello Putin’s Russia.
LikeLike
While I think “take it or leave it” is an unfair portrayal of choice, I think it beats “take it or… oh wait, there is no or”.
LikeLike
John It seems to me that all-things-public are presently being systematically sabotaged, including public education–through starve-the-beast funding, including the redirection of that funding to charters; propaganda re: “failing schools” and “bad teachers;” and the false quick-fix optimism offered by privateers who don’t want “big government” accountability (also public) while making off with the goods.
LikeLike
John,
If you were so concerned about choice you’d be offering choice WITHIN the system. There is plenty of choice in NYC. You don’t need PRIVATE charters for choice. Your argument is exactly what people use to promote vouchers. I assume you love vouchers because you just made the argument about why we should all embrace vouchers.
LikeLike
NYC public school parent and John: John seems to think education should be developed on the model of a marketplace. Parents choose (by their feet) the best product while the lesser products either change or disappear into the junk pile of failed “entrepreneurs and businesses.”
Education is not a marketplace, John, and you and I and everyone here are more than entrepreneurs. Education is an institution that fosters that “more.” It’s developed to serve the public and rooted in the tenets of the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, a good education will reveal this difference; whereas a poorly wrought one won’t.
Again (sigh . . . ), education doesn’t “compete” or need to compete, for its existence, a rule that markets live by–as you seem to think should apply to education–IT DOESN’T. Public education is charged to set high standards and to try to live up to them for their students and for the culture they are being prepared to live in as freely and responsibly as possible. If that includes a business career, great. For education, competition on those grounds can be useful, but only insofar as it encourages excellence among those involved–but not as a zero-sum-game for the institution itself. This is the same with other public institutions that are being absorbed as we speak by the faulty thought that comes with that capitalism-only siloed mentality.
John: You seem to be so saturated with the capitalist/market-only mentality that you are oblivious to a more comprehensive mindset. You are shooting yourself in your foot.
LikeLike
John really doesn’t understand “the market” or basic economics at all.
If he did he would understand that there can be no “market” when the cost of service to different customers varies wildly!
I’d like to hear John make that same argument for why we replace Medicare with each senior citizen getting a voucher for $200/month to buy health insurance in the “market”. And, by the way, “the market” means that whoever you buy it from can drop you as a customer if they don’t feel like serving you. I suspect he would do so if it financially benefited him.
Actually, that IS what the Republicans want! and they want it for education, too. Because it helps the most despicable and unethical companies get richer and drives the ones who act ethically out of business.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, markets do not solve problems, and they create new problems of “winners and losers.” No country has ever improved their public education by subjecting young people to the instability of the market. In Chile young people are still rioting against being tossed into the market, and the state has disinvested in the young people. In Sweden they regret ever assuming the market could address education as it produces enhanced segregation and inequities. In the US many states are trying to use the marketplace to abrogate their responsibility to educate their young people, and they keep hoping the public won’t notice.
LikeLike
Another way of thinking about this is to think about democracy – which encourages options and choices.
When people families don’t have a choice of government programs – of course they do if they can afford to move. Many people can’t afford to do so.
Many of the same arguments that are posted here are similar/identical to those that alternative public school educators heard in the late 1960’s and early 1960’s. “Focus on the neighborhood school…students don’t need options…”
But of course, people who could afford to move to affluent suburbs, did so.
Al Shanker, with whom I sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, noted that educators who tried to create new options within districts were sometimes treated “like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lock step.”
Some districts have welcome teachers ideas for distinctive public schools, open to all. Some have strongly resisted them.
LikeLike
Al Shanker first promoted charter schools. Then when he saw that they were becoming vehicles for union-busting and privatization, he wrote a column denouncing charters and said they were no different from vouchers.
More than 90% of charter are nonunion. Al would say they are staffed by scabs.
LikeLike
As noted, I agreed with Shanker sometimes, disagreed with him at other times. Shanker was first and foremost an advocate of union power (not surprising for a union president).
This thread started off as a discussion about whether voting with your feet has an impact. I’ve given several examples in NYC and in Minnesota where families voting for other options (district, charter, or post-secondary options) had a positive impact.
I’m glad NYC created new schools similar to Central Park East and Frederick Douglass. I just wish the district had been willing to give educators working and families in those schools the power to do (within broad limits) what they felt made sense. Teacher led schools within districts is one effort to help move in this direction.
LikeLike
Joseph Nathan, your points make no sense.
You aren’t talking about teacher-led alternatives because those have been tried and still exist as PART of the system.
You are talking about top down corporate led alternatives that demand to be able to run schools that are publicly funded whatever way they please.
Every teacher led option could be done as PART of the system. There are plenty of those already as you yourself pointed out.
What you are fighting for is that we allow the healthiest seniors to take their medicare dollars and form a private insurance company that can treat or not treat an illness or dump anyone who costs more money.
You just made Trump’s argument for why we should dump Medicare and give seniors vouchers instead. And it’s a terrific idea if you actually don’t care about the most vulnerable and costly seniors. Which makes sense as the pro-PRIVATIZATION folks don’t care about the most vulnerable and costly students unless they can figure out a way to make a profit from them.
LikeLike
John likes foot voting. But he only looks out for some feet. The rest of the feet can go kick themselves. That’s why he’s comfortable taking from one foot to give to the other. So, if you walk to neighborhood shoe store, you won’t find the shoe you want. It’s on the other foot.
LikeLike
And he likes that charters should be free to invalidate the votes of those whose feet voted for a charter that decides it doesn’t need their vote. Or that their vote is not profitable.
LikeLike
[start]
While I think “take it or leave it” is an unfair portrayal of choice, I think it beats “take it or… oh wait, there is no or”.
[stop]
A snappy comeback to the above posting should, at the very least, make some sort of cogent point, be grounded in an actual fact or two, and contain at least a smidgeon of humor.
But I guess that when supporting those furiously in pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$, what makes sense isn’t valued as much as what makes Çentç.
Go figure…
😎
LikeLike
John has a charter in NYC, the most racially and ethnically diverse city, and his charter foot population is 95% African American. Why do these feet get to divert resources from feet that risked everything to cross international borders? Where are all the immigrant feet in his charter? Why are Latinos and everyone else short changed because some feet only vote to be with other feet that look and walk the same as they do? Not just profiteering is at play here. Racial discrimination is a feature of charters too.
LikeLike
Excellent analysis and observations. This piece deserves a larger audience.
LikeLike
If parents were actually the infinitely educated and rational consumers postulated by the free market ideologues, then cyber charter schools would be out of business because of their dismal results. Instead people are swayed by the decades of false propaganda about failing public schools.
LikeLike
Here in Florida cyber charters have bought lots of air time on TV, especially K-12, Inc. On Facebook the ’74 keeps promoting “personalized learning, ” and they try to make it look appealing. Lots of people get misled by propaganda by marketeers.
LikeLike
retired teacher I also see the ads regularly here in California (I live about 40 miles from LA).
LikeLike
K-12 ads are in Ohio. This is prime time for recruiting.
LikeLike
Utah bombards us with charter ads, especially this time of year. As Peter Greene constantly says, “Charter schools don’t foster superior education. They foster superior marketing.”
LikeLike
Lots of K-12 ads in the Chicago area, as well. Also have been airing something called “Connections Learning.”
LikeLike
Connections is a virtual, for profit charter. Pearson owns it.
LikeLike
Charters often exercise the option of not backfilling empty seats.
LikeLike
In NYC, the success of schools and waiting list for Central Park East (created by Deborah Meier and others) and Frederick Douglass Academy, (created by Lorraine Monroe, and other) led to creation of other district schools using similar approaches.
In St. Paul, the success and a waiting list for an urban district Montessori Elementary led to creation of a 2nd district Montessori.
Parents at these schools pleaded with the district to create a Montessori junior or junior senior high. When a number of years went by without this happening, some of those parents, others parents, and educators created a Montessori junior senior charter high school.
In part because the Montessori charter junior senior high school was so successful, the district recently created a Montessori junior high school.
In the years following 1985, when Minnesota began allowing high school juniors and seniors to spend all or part of their time taking free college classes, a number of districts increased their partnerships with colleges to offer dual credit courses right in the high school.
An individual generally won’t produce a change in the system. But a relatively few families can – sometimes -help produce progress.
47 years of public school parenting, inner city public school teaching, serving as an urban public school PTA president, researching and writing have convinced me to avoid, generally, words like “always” and “never”
LikeLike
Deborah Meier believed in choice within the public school system. That prevents unethical operators from acting without oversight from the public and forces that very transparency and accountability that the NAACP believes all charters should have.
LikeLike
If we change the public system away from one mandated by Common Core to one that truly is allowed to serve the whole child, the feet will rush to us. And this can be done from the inside out. Just think devious!
LikeLike
This article calls to mind an exchange between “vote-with-yer-feet-loving” school privatizer Andy Smarick and Jennifer “Have You Heard” Berkshire (then going my her former moniker “EDUSHYSTER”.
Smarick actually believes and argues that the “vote-with-your-feet” vote is actual MORE empowering and MORE truly democratic than having an elected school board
Why, in Smarick’s opinion “voting with your feet” gives parents “the ultimate control”:
http://haveyouheardblog.com/in-the-future-all-the-seats-will-be-high-performing/
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
EDUSHYSTER: “Let’s talk about the future. In your vision, urban parents will choose between their choice of high-performing charter schools. But one can’t help but observe that the cities that seem to be hurtling towards the future at the greatest velocity don’t seem to have all that much choice about where they’re headed.”
ANDY SMARICK: “I don’t agree with that at all. I believe that the systems that are going in that direction are places where families, communities and organizations have the most say. They’re places that have the longest charter school wait lists, or in some cities they have the longest scholarship or tax credit wait lists.
“What I do agree with you about is that in these systems where there are more and more autonomous schools, we don’t have a system yet for ensuring that there is democratic control of the entire system. I think these cities are showing us that parents desperately want a different kind of system, they want choices, they want to be able to exercise their options.
“But now it’s up to us to ensure that there is democratic control as well.”
EDUSHYSTER: “Let me ask what is essentially the exact same question but using different words. Other than the power to get on a waiting list or vote-with-their-feet if they don’t like the charter choice they’ve chosen, what power do parents actually have in your vision? It doesn’t feel like a lot of power to me.”
SMARICK: “I think it’s the ultimate control.
“We had the illusion of democratic control in places like New York City or Chicago. If you have an elected member of a school board who represents hundreds of thousands of citizens, yes, technically there is democratic control, but how responsive is that system to the needs of families and to neighborhoods? I think that where you have neighborhood charter schools and independent boards and a wide array of options for families, that’s actually the way that you can exercise (democratic) control.”
EDUSHYSTER: “Since you went there, let’s talk about democratic control. In recent elections, voters in both Chicago and Philadelphia basically shouted that they want more say over their schools. Is it just me, or does it seem like if you give voters a vote over whether they want an actual vote vs. the vote-with their feet kind of vote, they always seem to vote for the vote vote?”
SMARICK: “I think it’s absolutely essential that if we are really going to have community empowerment and sustainable change in cities, that the city as a whole feel like they own their system of schools.
“What I’m trying to push maybe you, and definitely other people on, is that we can have democratic control but not believe that is synonymous with the elected school board that we’ve had for 100 years.
“We just assumed that democratic control meant that a city had a single school board and that that school board owns all public schools in the district, makes decisions about all of the contracts, makes decisions about all of the principals, makes decisions about where kids go to school based on these residential zones.
“That is one form of democratic control. What I’m saying is that we could have a different set of rules that govern these boards so that you don’t give one board all of that authority. I don’t think you can have the kind of elected school board we’ve had for 100 years and simultaneously have community and parental empowerment.”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
You getting this, folks?
“Democratic control” is no longer “synonymous” with having actual elections.
Welcome to The Brave New Neo-liberal Bizarro World.
Replacing a democratically elected — and thus accountable — school board for a district really doesn’t lead to “community and parental empowerment.”
Instead, replacing that body with scores of totally un-elected, non-transparent, unaccountable (or only accountable via a vote-with-your-feet mechanism) boards is the way to go.
Having these totally private and un-elected charter school boards — boards whose meetings are closed to both the school’s parents and to the public and whose workings and minutes are sealed to the parents and to the public — why, according to Smarick, that actually provides more or true “community and parental empowerment or what Smarick calls giving parents and the public “the ultimate control.”
Huh?!
LikeLike