Betsy DeVos keeps trying out different metaphors and analogies in her effort to persuade the public that school choice is way better than public schools.
She has referred to cell phones (you choose among many different providers but the government doesn’t underwrite your choice), Uber (you choose but the government doesn’t underwrite your choice), food trucks outside the U.S. Department of Education (because there are no nearby restaurants but the government also doesn’t pay for your lunch).
So she tried again: You choose your college, why not choose your school?
Peter Greene explains here why this analogy fails.
Here a few of his wise observations:
“In the higher education system, it is primarily the interests of students that are at stake. In K-12, all of society has a stake in the system. Public schools do not exist to serve only parents. The interests of the students, their future employers, their future neighbors and co-workers, their future fellow voters, the community as a whole– all of these interests are represented. That’s why all taxpayers chip in (unlike the higher ed system). That means that all stakeholders get a say, and all public schools should be subjected to a considerably higher level of oversight and accountability than a school ike Harvard.
“Why is choice wrong for K-12? Believe it or not, I don’t think it has to be wrong. But as currently proposed and practiced, it’s wrong because
* There must be accountability for where and how public tax dollars are spent (that includes both issues of quality and issues of violating separation of church and state)
* The system must be fully funded. You cannot run three schools for the money previously spent on one. Don’t make it a zero-sum game– fully fund it.
* Do not leave leftover students behind. Do not push students out because they don’t fit your model. If you want choice, make it parents’ choice, not the school’s choice.
* Students before profits. No for-profits choices. And stringent rules on not-for-profits, most of whom are currently just for-profits with good money-laundering systems.
* Total transparency and complete local control.
“None of these are features of the system that brought those students to Harvard. That’s why choice in higher education, while not always very successful, is less objectionable than choice for K-12.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This argument will inevitably fall on deaf ears, because so-called reform is premised on the assumption that, as Margret Thatcher infamously said, “There is no such thing as society.”
LikeLike
The gene for hemophilia was clearly not the only defective recessive gene we inherited from inbred Brits.
LikeLike
I have been wondering forever if the big charter chains are funding schools in one state with proceeds or loans in another state- because that’s really different than public schools. Chicago Public Schools can’t use funds collected in Indiana to expand to other states- in fact, that would be UNHEARD of in the public system, state to state transfers.
It’s impossible to tell in Ohio because they don’t reveal financials of the management companies.
But – mystery solved:
“BASIS borrowed largely through industrial development authorities of municipalities in Arizona, which are government-affiliated middlemen that help secure funding for projects that benefit the people of that town, city, county or state.
It used loans through the city of Phoenix and Pima County – sometimes to pay back other loans – to build and renovate schools in Washington, D.C., and Texas, using its existing charter school facilities as collateral.
In one instance, a 2016 loan for $84 million for various capital projects across the network – about $31 million of which was used for refunding a previous loan for the D.C. campus – was secured by 14 BASIS charter schools’ state funding and facilities.”
The funding is fungible- they’re moving it around.
Wow. THAT is not widely known, I bet.
https://www.revealnews.org/article/public-school-inc-when-public-education-turns-into-big-business/
LikeLike
I still do not believe that the federal government should be involved in the proliferation of choice systems that have little to no oversight or accountability and have been proven to enhance segregation. Public education takes all students and bring diverse groups together for the betterment of the common good supporting the mission of democratic republic. A big payoff of public schools is that different types of young people have the opportunity to learn about and understand each other better. This is a valuable much needed service in the world today where bigotry and religious extremism create hostility. The federal government should be supporting equity and fairness, not exclusionary practices that result in “winners and losers.” Young vulnerable students do not need to be sorted into “haves and have nots;” they need to be supported, inspired, challenged and encouraged. That is the function of authentic public education.
LikeLike
Q A big payoff of public schools is that different types of young people have the opportunity to learn about and understand each other better. END Q
What are you smoking? Our current system of funding publicly-operated schools, with property taxes, results in the exact opposite of what you claim.
Wealthy neighborhoods, with a solid tax base, can fund excellent public schools, for the wealthy children in the wealthy neighborhood.
Inner-city schools, with an inadequate tax base, result in inadequate funding, and the neighborhood schools in the depressed areas are CRAP. The result is “educational apartheid”, good schools for wealthy kids, and lousy schools for minority and inner-city children.
With segregated neighborhoods, you have segregated schools. Check out the disparities between the Fairfax county VA and WashDC schools.
You are either high on something, or just in a fantasy world.
LikeLike
K-12 is publicly funded mandatory education. COllege is not mandatory. It is voluntary.
That said, when will Trump and his clone Betsy decide to get rid of mandatory education and all child labor laws?
LikeLike
Lloyd, please don’t give them any more evil ideas! 😪
LikeLike
Too late. That train already left the station.
LikeLike
It’s sad, but it’s all too true, Lloyd.
LikeLike
Just like private K-12, while you get to choose the college you wish to attend, the school gets to choose YOU. It’s a two-way street.
Look at the attitude change the student has when they know acceptance into that school is not guaranteed. That’s why you don’t hear anything about our country’s university system being bad (besides complaints about liberal bias).
Schools that get to choose their students will always have an advantage over the schools that take everyone. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when the government wants to underwrite the schools that pick their students and wants to take funding away from the schools that have to take everyone.
LikeLike
Q That’s why all taxpayers chip in (unlike the higher ed system). END Q
I live in Virginia. Virginia has a state-financed university system. ALL taxpayers “chip in”, and support the higher education system here. see
http://www.schev.edu/
Most states have a university system, that is publicly (taxpayer) funded.
If you think that all taxpayers do not chip in, and support schools like Ohio State, then you are wrong.
LikeLike
Charles,
As I have said one million times, no one is required to send their children to public school. If they are willing to pay for price or religious school, that is their choice. The public has an obligation to pay for public schools, even f they have no children or their own children go to private school. The public has no obligation to pay for private choices. Why don’t you pay for private swimming pools for those who don’t like public pools? I don’t want to ride a public bus; will you pay my taxi fare?
LikeLike
I agree, that no one is forced to send their children to a publicly-operated school. (See Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925).
The public must pay for publicly financed education. And this includes higher education. Virginia (and nearly every state) has a state university system, that is publicly financed. All VA citizens must support the system, whether they send their own children or not.
The poster (Greene) asserts that citizens do not have to “chip in” and support the public university system. I am just pointing out, that he is wrong. Just this one time, can you agree, that his assertion is wrong?
Q . The public has no obligation to pay for private choices. END Q
In this case, it is you who are wrong. The public pays for private choices all the time.
I attended university on the GI Bill. The public paid the price, and I chose the university.
I once was issued food stamps (SNAP). The public paid for the food stamps, and I chose which food to buy.
The public pays for Medicaid. Recipients get to choose which hospital to redeem the Medicaid in.
The public pays for Section 8 housing. The individual recipient gets to choose which housing to redeem the housing voucher in.
The public pays for BEOGs. The individual recipient gets to choose, which college to redeem the BEOG in.
And on and on. Citizens receive payments from government, and are then free to redeem the payments as the individual citizen so chooses. In health care, food, housing, university education, vocational/technical education, etc.
No one ever complains about citizens receiving payments, and then redeeming the payments, at the place of their choice. If it is perfectly all right for food, housing, medical care, etc. Why is it so terrible to do the exact same thing at the K-12 level?
And your analogy of public recreational activities and public transportation is false and pejorative. All citizens must pay for mass transit. A portion of the operating costs comes from the public purse, and the remainder is from fares charged to the riders. (The WashDC system also sells advertising on the trains and busses). People who choose not to ride the transit system, do not pay the fares. This non-payment of fares, amounts to a “voucher”, that citizens may choose to spend on their own transportation system (cars, taxis,etc). No one is charged bus fare on busses they do not ride. No one is charged train fare on subways they do not ride. Why should people who choose to send their children to non-public school, be forced to pay for a second education at the public school they do not use?
LikeLike
Charles, your logic is ultra flawed — as usual.
Charles said, “I attended university on the GI Bill. The public paid the price, and I chose the university.”
No one forced you to go to college on the GI Bill. K-12 is mandatory education. Every child must attend. It is publicly funded … ergo, a community based, democratic, transparent, nonprofit traditional public education system that answers to the people, not a corporate CEO or stockholders or a so-called non-profit CEO.
College is voluntary.
When I joined the U.S. Marines out of high school, that was my decision. No law forced me to go. Were you drafted into the military? I wasn’t, and it was also my decision to go to college on the BI Bill. It wasn’t mandatory.
LikeLike
Q K-12 is mandatory education. Every child must attend. END Q
True, most states have compulsory attendance laws. Children are required to receive an education. This is quite true.
BUT- How the education is provided, is not mandated by the state. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). From the decision:
Q The unanimous Court held that “the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” END Q
see
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us510
The Pierce decision, is an expression of fundamental liberty. In the early 20th century, many public schools attempted to “Protestantize” immigrant Catholic children. The curriculum included mandatory Bible study (King James version only).
The modern school choice movement, is an extension of the fundamental liberty, that the Supreme Court expressed (unanimously) in the Pierce decision.
Who has “dibs” on children’s minds? Parents or the state?
BTW- The last person was drafted in 1971. I enlisted voluntarily in 1973.
LikeLike
Charles wrote, “True, most states have compulsory attendance laws. Children are required to receive an education. This is quite true.”
Wrong, Charles.
Charles, it is not MOST states. It is all states.”
“State laws requiring school attendance by children within a certain age range are fairly similar to one another. All states have compulsory education laws and allow exemptions for private schools and homeschooling, although the regulation of non-public schooling varies from state to state. Massachusetts was the first to enact such a law in 1852 and other states began passing similar statutes for various reasons, including the assimilation of recent immigrants and to discourage the exploitation of child labor.”
In the Pierce decision, the court did not write the laws for each state. That court decision supported those laws.
In addition, Pierce v. Society of Sisters was a court case in Oregon that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down.
*Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary*, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including *Roe v. Wade *, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals .
This case had nothing to do with publicly funded private schools as a choice for parents.
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> Charles commented: “Q K-12 is mandatory education. Every child must > attend. END Q True, most states have compulsory attendance laws. Children > are required to receive an education. This is quite true. BUT- How the > education is provided, is not mandated by the state. See Pi” >
LikeLike
OK, I agree all 50 states have some sort of compulsory school attendance laws. see
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp
The laws vary from state to state. Stipulated.
I never said that the Pierce case, involved Q with publicly funded private schools as a choice for parents. END Q
The main thrust of the Pierce case, is that the state does not have the first claim on the education of children. Parents may (AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE) remove children from state-mandated educational systems and enroll their children in alternate educational programs.
True, the Supreme Court voided an Oregon law/decision. Agreed.
Bottom Line: The state does NOT have first claim on the education of children. Parents do.
21st century parents, are realizing, that some (not all) publicly-operated schools, are not delivering the quality of education, that their children deserve.
Some (not all) parents, are choosing to opt-out of the over-tested, Common-core mandated, unionized, non-performing public schools, and choosing alternatives. In some states, parents can receive voucher payments, or alternate support, when they opt-out of government-run publicly operated schools.
LikeLike
Pierce says that parents “own” their children, not the state. The state may not compel children to go to public schools f their parents want them to go to religious school.
The decision says NOTHING about the state paying for private schools.
Please stop citing Pierce, Charles. It has no relevance to vouchers as it does NOT propose public funding of religious schools.
LikeLike
Diane, he keeps citing Pierce because that’s all he has. He reads into it what he wants it to say, not what it actually says (or doesn’t say).
LikeLike
Charles seems like a kindly gentleman.
But so rigid.
He never listens. Pierce has zip to do with public funding for religious schools.
It overturned a referendum in Oregon intended to close every religious school and force all kids to attend public schools.
LikeLike
I don’t consider him very “kindly,” Diane. I consider him beyond rigid, more of a blind fanatic where schools are concerned.
LikeLike
I agree. Charles reminds me of a blind fanatic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zorba,
He is a gentleman and a blind, deaf fanatic who gets his news from The National Review
LikeLike
Just a minute: I never said that the Pierce decision says that parents “own” their children. Children are not like puppies, that parents can buy and sell.
I have stipulated, over and over, that the Pierce decision, does NOT involve, states providing for the financial costs of non-public schools. We agree, that the decision does NOT cover financial costs.
The important point of Pierce, is that the state does not have any claim on the education of children. Parents have the “fundamental liberty” to opt-out of publicly-operated schools (AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE).
Pierce is considered the “backbone” of the home-school movement.
Pierce is also a response to publicly-operated education being influenced by the Ku Klux Klan. see:
https://iahe.net/blog/10417-201611
The KKK was instrumental in the plans to use public schools to “protestantize” immigrant Catholic children.
I submit, that the Pierce decision, unanimously broke the state’s power to forcibly educate children in government-run schools. The decision itself states “fundamental liberty”.
This liberty is part of the force behind the school choice movement.
LikeLike
Pierce is totally irrelevant to the current voucher issue. Dezvos and you want the government to pay for religious schools. Pierce says that religious schools have a right to exist, but does not say that government should pay for it.
Stop citing Pierce. It was a response to an Oregon referendum to force all children to go to public schools. The court said no.
LikeLike
Q Dezvos and you want the government to pay for religious schools END Q (sic)
I get the thrust of your argument, and you are correct in a sense. I want the public (through the government, and also private means) to provide quality education to America’s children. We only differ on the means, in how that education is provided. I favor a “mix” of public, private, parochial, home-school, and military schools for K-12 children, just like our nation has at the university level.
I am delighted that students attend religiously-operated colleges and universities, using funds from the public treasury. Students attend Yeshiva, and the Catholic University of America, and Southern Methodist, using BEOG’s and GI Bill, and ROTC Scholarships. NO one ever complains about public taxpayers money subsidizing education at religious colleges. No one.
Please tell me, why does everyone get all “lathered up”, when public taxpayers money is used to subsidize education at a religiously-operated K-12 school? The Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional for this to occur. Only this year, the Court ruled that the government can provide non-educational services, like safety equipment, to religious schools as well.
Why the double standard? I ask you, are you opposed to the government providing financial support to religiously-operated colleges? I have never seen anyone on this board, ever being opposed to students attending the Islamic University of Minnesota, where radical Islam is taught, and the students receiving government financial aid. see
https://www.investigativeproject.org/5288/islamic-university-of-minnesota-a-hotbed
YOUR tax dollars, are supporting and promoting Islamic extremism. OUR tax dollars are subsidizing instruction which promotes Sharia law above man-made law. Sharia law gives men the right to beat their wives (up to 4 wives). Sharia law requires the husband’s family to take possession of all children after a divorce, and hold them in perpetuity.
LikeLike
Charles,
Have you heard the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right?
LikeLike
I have heard of this old adage. What does that have to do with school choice?
Giving parents the choice to opt-out of publicly-operated schools, is not wrong. It is a good thing. Parents/children should not be forced to attend schools which cannot deliver a quality education. Giving parents/children alternatives, is fair, proper and constitutional.
LikeLike
You are right, Charles. Every child, every family has the right to opt=out of the public schools.
They can go to a religious school. They can go to a private school.
But the government is not obliged to use my taxes to pay for families to exercise private choices.
If you want a private security guard instead of relying on the local police, that is your choice. Don’t expect taxpayers to pay for your private security guard.
Perhaps you don’t like public highways. Perhaps you can figure out a way to avoid using them and have your own highways. Don’t expect me and others to pay for your helicopter service.
LikeLike
Q But the government is not obliged to use my taxes to pay for families to exercise private choices. END Q
If you live in Indiana, Ohio, Arizona, or a state with school choice/vouchers/ESAs you are.
One of the benefits of ESAs, is that families can use the funds to pay for computers, tutors, and additional educational services, which are not available at the publicly-operated school. Families can “tailor” the educational experiences for their children. These are especially beneficial to special-needs children, and gifted/talented. Who can be opposed to giving families, the ability to reach outside the public system, to obtain the best possible education for their children/
Students who exercise choice to attend college with a BEOG do so with public funds. Some of those funds are yours, some are mine.
Students who attend vocational/technical school with public assistance, choose to do so. Public funds pay for their choices.
Have you expressed your disapproval to your congressperson, when a person attends a religious college, and you pay for it? You are paying for students to attend seminaries, who will be preaching the Gospel. (See Witters v Washington state services for the blind).
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1070
The Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiff, unanimously.
Q Perhaps you don’t like public highways. Perhaps you can figure out a way to avoid using them and have your own highways.END Q
I have nothing against public highways. But there are some in this area, that I choose not to use. The express lanes on the beltway, require a toll. I choose not to pay the toll, and I do not use the express lanes. The government does not charge me for the toll roads I do not use.
Your analogies to public services like police protection, or public infrastructure, are false and pejorative. A nation needs a physical infrastructure. We need roads, ports, airports, etc. We need an FAA to administer air traffic control (Canada has privatized theirs). We have a postal service, but we also have many other private package delivery services, like UPS and FedEx.
Consider fire protection. Some rural communities, choose not to have a government fire protection service. These communities organize volunteer fire departments. They opt-out of paying for government fire protection. They are not required to pay for fire protection that they do not use.
LikeLike
Never a referendum in any of those states. Had there been, there would be no vouchers.
The public should be allowed to vote
LikeLike
Q Never a referendum in any of those states. Had there been, there would be no vouchers.
The public should be allowed to vote
END Q
Indiana does not a referendum process. See
http://www.citizensincharge.org/states/indiana
So your point is moot, with respect to the Hoosier state.
Arizona, is going to have a referendum vote, on the expansion of ESAs. I cannot predict the outcome, but I can state with certainty, that a lot of money from out of state, both pro and con, is going to be flowing into the Grand Canyon State.
While it is true, that no state has ever brought in a school choice program, through a referendum, it is also true that no state has ever cancelled or repealed a school choice program by referendum, either.
I am opposed to legislation by referendum. Referendums are “mob rule”. With referenda, 51% of the people can urinate on the oatmeal of the other 49%. There is no mechanism in the federal constitution, for referenda. And for a very good reason. The framers did not want the federal government to be subject to the whims of the mob.
An elected government, “buffers” the government from the whims of the mob. In our federal government, in the Senate, Wyoming has the same influence as California. The President can veto legislation, which the majority has passed.
Do you have any solid evidence, that referenda would have blocked school choice in the three states of Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona? Did anyone conduct a scientific poll which yielded the results you claim?
Consider Indiana. If in fact, Hoosiers would have stopped the school choice program, which is now in place, why is the program in Indiana, the most popular voucher program now in place? It seems antithetical to your claim.
Consider Arizona. Arizona has a referendum process. If citizens in Arizona, were so appalled by the legislature passing the ESA program, now in place, why has there been no movement, to repeal the program. (Notwithstanding the current referendum on expansion).
LikeLike
Yes.
Solid evidence.
Twenty referenda on vouchers in states and DC.
All overwhelmingly defeated.
50th time I have told you this
LikeLike
Q Solid evidence.
Twenty referenda on vouchers in states and DC.
All overwhelmingly defeated.
END Q
Evasion. And not an answer to my question.
Q Do you have any solid evidence, that referenda would have blocked school choice in the three states of Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona? Did anyone conduct a scientific poll which yielded the results you claim? END Q
My question deals with the three states of Indiana, Ohio, and Arizona alone.
Your reference to other referenda in other states, has no bearing at all.
How can you claim, that referenda in these three states (one of which does not even have a process for referenda), would have blocked school choice?
You cannot extrapolate the vote from South Dakota, or some other state, and apply it to Ohio.
LikeLike