Jan Resseger is a profound thinker and a clear writer. I love reading what she writes. Jan is one of the Resistance leaders in my new book SLAYING GOLIATH: THE PASSIONATE RESISTANCE TO PRIVATIZATION AND THE FIGHT TO SAVE AMERICA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
In this post, she explains to Democratic candidates why they should not waffle in their support for public schools.
Her explanation is a rallying cry for educators and parents. Print it out and pin it on the bulletin board next to your computer or tape it to your filing cabinet. Read it over and think about it.
She writes:
Here are my seven reasons for believing Democrats running for President ought to express strong support for public schools and opposition to charter schools:
First: The scale of the provision of K-12 education across our nation can best be achieved by the systemic, public provision of schools. Rewarding social entrepreneurship in the startup of one charter school at a time cannot possibly serve the needs of the mass of our children and adolescents. In a new, September 2019 enrollment summary, the National Center for Education Statistics reports: “Between around 2000 and 2016, traditional public school, public charter school, and homeschool enrollment increased, while private school enrollment decreased… Traditional public school enrollment increased to 47.3 million (1 percent increase), charter school enrollment grew to 3.0 million students (from 0.4 million), and the number of homeschooled students nearly doubled to 1.7 million. Private school enrollment fell 4 percent, to 5.8 million students.”
Second: Public schools are our society’s most important civic institution. Public schools are not perfect, but they are the optimal way for our very complex society to balance the needs of each particular child and family with a system that secures the rights and addresses the needs of all children. Because public schools are responsible to the public, it is possible through elected school boards, open meetings, transparent record keeping and redress through the courts to ensure that traditional public schools provide access for all children. While our society has not fully realized justice for every child in the public schools, it is by striving systemically to improve access and opportunity in the public schools that we have the best chance of securing the rights of all children.
Third: Charter schools are parasites sucking essential dollars from the public school districts where they are located. The political economist Gordon Lafer explains that the expansion of charter schools cannot possibly be revenue neutral for the host school district losing students to charter schools: “To the casual observer, it may not be obvious why charter schools should create any net costs at all for their home districts. To grasp why they do, it is necessary to understand the structural differences between the challenge of operating a single school—or even a local chain of schools—and that of a district-wide system operating tens or hundreds of schools and charged with the legal responsibility to serve all students in the community. When a new charter school opens, it typically fills its classrooms by drawing students away from existing schools in the district… If, for instance, a given school loses five percent of its student body—and that loss is spread across multiple grade levels, the school may be unable to lay off even a single teacher… Plus, the costs of maintaining school buildings cannot be reduced…. Unless the enrollment falloff is so steep as to force school closures, the expense of heating and cooling schools, running cafeterias, maintaining digital and wireless technologies, and paving parking lots—all of this is unchanged by modest declines in enrollment. In addition, both individual schools and school districts bear significant administrative responsibilities that cannot be cut in response to falling enrollment. These include planning bus routes and operating transportation systems; developing and auditing budgets; managing teacher training and employee benefits; applying for grants and certifying compliance with federal and state regulations; and the everyday work of principals, librarians and guidance counselors.” “If a school district anywhere in the country—in the absence of charter schools—announced that it wanted to create a second system-within-a-system, with a new set of schools whose number, size, specialization, budget, and geographic locations would not be coordinated with the existing school system, we would regard this as the poster child of government inefficiency and a waste of tax dollars. But this is indeed how the charter school system functions.”
Fourth: While some predicted the expansion of charter schools would improve academic achievement on a broad scale, children in traditional public schools and charter schools perform about the same. According to the new report from the National Center for Education Statistics, “Academic Performance: In 2017, at grades 4 and 8, no measurable differences in average reading and mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were observed between students in traditional public and public charter schools.”
Fifth: Opposing for-profit charter schools misses the point. In most states, charter schools themselves must be nonprofits, but the nonprofit boards of directors of these schools may hire a for-profit management company to operate the school. Two of the most notorious examples of the ripoffs of tax dollars in nonprofit (managed-for-profit) charter schools were in my state, Ohio. The late David Brennan, the father of Ohio charter schools, set up sweeps contracts with the nonprofit schools managed by his for-profit White Hat Management Company. The boards of these schools—frequently people with ties to Brennan and his operations—turned over to White Hat Management more than 90 percent of the dollars awarded by the state to the nonprofit charters. These were secret deals. Neither the public nor the members of the nonprofit charter school boards of directors could know how the money was spent; nor did they know how much profit Brennan’s for-profit raked off the top. Then there was Bill Lager, the founder of Ohio’s infamous Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow—technically a nonprofit. All management of the online charter school and the design and provision of its curriculum were turned over to Lager’s privately owned, for-profit companies—Altair Management and IQ Innovations. ECOT was shut down in 2018 for charging the state for thousands of students who were not really enrolled. The state of Ohio is still in court trying to recover even a tiny percentage of Lager’s lavish profits.
Sixth: Malfeasance, corruption, and poor performance plague charter schools across the states. Because charter schools were established by state law across the 45 states where charters operate, and because much of the state charter school enabling legislation featured innovation and experimentation and neglected oversight, the scandals fill local newspapers. The Network for Public Education tracks the myriad examples of outrageous fraud and mismanagement by charter schools. Because neoliberal ideologues and the entrepreneurs in the for-profit charter management companies regularly donate generously to the political coffers of state legislators—the very people responsible for passing laws to regulate this out-of-control sector, adequate oversight has proven impossible.
Seventh: The federal Charter Schools Program should be shut down immediately. Here is a brief review of the Network for Public Education’s findings in last spring’s Asleep at the Wheel report. A series of federal administrations—Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have treated the federal Charter Schools Program (part of the Office of Innovation and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education) as a kind of venture capital fund created and administered to stimulate social entrepreneurship—by individuals or big nonprofits or huge for-profits—as a substitute for public operation of the public schools. Since the program’s inception in 1994, the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) has awarded $4 billion in federal tax dollars to start up or expand charter schools across 44 states and the District of Columbia, and has provided some of the funding for 40 percent of all the charter schools across the country. The CSP has lacked oversight since the beginning, and during the Obama and Trump administrations—when the Department of Education’s own Office of Inspector General released a series of scathing critiques of the program—grants have been made based on the application alone with little attempt by officials in the Department of Education to verify the information provided by applicants. The Network for Public Education found that the CSP has spent over a $1 billion on schools that never opened or were opened and subsequently shut down: “The CSP’s own analysis from 2006-2014 of its direct and state pass-through funded programs found that nearly one out of three awardees were not currently in operation by the end of 2015.”
Last June in The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner defined the political philosophy known as neoliberalism and showed how this kind of thinking has driven privatization across many sectors previously operated, for the public good, by government: “Since the late 1970s. we’ve had a grand experiment to test the claim that free markets really do work best… (I)n the 1970s, libertarian economic theory got another turn at bat… Neoliberalism’s premise is that free markets can regulate themselves; that government is inherently incompetent, captive to special interests, and an intrusion on the efficiency of the market; that in distributive terms, market outcomes are basically deserved; and that redistribution creates perverse incentives by punishing the economy’s winners and rewarding its losers. So government should get out of the market’s way.”
For three decades, neoliberalism has reigned in education policy. The introduction of the neoliberal ideal of competition—supposedly to drive school improvement—through vouchers for private school tuition and in the expansion of charter schools has become acceptable to members of both political parties.
The late political philosopher Benjamin Barber explains elegantly and precisely what is wrong with neoliberal thinking in general. I think his words apply directly to what has been happening as charter schools have been expanded to more and more states. The candidates running for President who prefer to waffle on the advisability of school privatization via charter schools ought to consider Barber’s analysis:
“Privatization is a kind of reverse social contract: it dissolves the bonds that tie us together into free communities and democratic republics. It puts us back in the state of nature where we possess a natural right to get whatever we can on our own, but at the same time lose any real ability to secure that to which we have a right. Private choices rest on individual power… personal skills… and personal luck. Public choices rest on civic rights and common responsibilities, and presume equal rights for all. Public liberty is what the power of common endeavor establishes, and hence presupposes that we have constituted ourselves as public citizens by opting into the social contract. With privatization, we are seduced back into the state of nature by the lure of private liberty and particular interest; but what we experience in the end is an environment in which the strong dominate the weak… the very dilemma which the original social contract was intended to address.” (Consumed, pp. 143-144)
Alfie Kohn concurs and goes further: https://www.alfiekohn.org/blogs/policy/
You beat me to it https://www.alfiekohn.org/standards-testing/
Eloquent voices are certainly needed, Jan’s point by point clarity on charter schools is vital. Alpie gets into the damage done by NCLB, ESSA, Gates, the testing industry, corporate concepts …point by point.
“and the number of homeschooled students nearly doubled to 1.7 million”
I wonder about this number. I’ve seen reports where they’re declaring students “homeschooled” who are really drop outs to juke the graduation statistics.
Do they really know where they are in places like Florida, which has a totally unregulated and fragmented “choice” sector?
One of the things that came out in the Ohio ECOT scandal was a lot of those kids weren’t “in school” in any real way, and those kids were “counted”. Imagine states like Florida or Arizona where it’s all self-reported and the whole edu-apparatus are ed reform true believers.
This seems like more of a catch-all category for “not counted anymore”
A CRUCIAL understanding of how the manipulation of stats matters so extensively to schools trying to win funding with good numbers. So many ways to pretend that those ‘not counted’ are still being well served.
“A Chalkbeat analysis of Indiana Department of Education data found that of the roughly 3,700 Indiana high school students in the class of 2018 officially recorded as leaving to home-school, more than half were concentrated in 61 of the state’s 507 high schools — campuses where the ratio of students leaving to home-school to those earning diplomas was far above the state average. Those striking numbers suggest that Indiana’s lax regulation of home schooling and its method for calculating graduation rates are masking the extent of many schools’ dropout problems.”
I don’t know- I don’t think I’d rely on any of the homeschooling numbers. They’re as phony as the “cyber charter” numbers.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/in/2019/09/17/hidden-dropouts-how-indiana-schools-can-write-off-struggling-students-as-home-schoolers/
For people who supposedly love “data” so much they use a lot of hinky numbers in ed reform.
Markets can be rigged. Acceptance of the power of the “invisible hand” is a myth perpetuated in business schools across the country. We have only to look at our corrupt heath care system to understand market failure. Markets serve some well at the expense of many as there are inevitably winners and losers. Education and health care should be a right that is secure and stable. ““Privatization is a kind of reverse social contract: it dissolves the bonds that tie us together into free communities and democratic republics.” Public education is a key element of democracy in action, and public schools are public assets.
Politicians are not education experts. Most of them do not understand the world of working families. Politicians are often surrounded by lobbyists representing the charter industry. The money behind privatization makes it difficult for candidates to hear any alternative views except for those that represent the interests of corporations and billionaires. Politicians cannot make informed decisions without information. Democratic presidential candidates should read this clearly written, informative article.
Off-topic, but related as far as the issue of privatization: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/10/beware-arguments-for-privatization
Good link that outlines the problems with privatization. ” invest in your public resources if you want them to be good.” We have had public schools and airports for decades. Infrastructure costs lots of money. In the ’50s we taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate. Today billionaires are taxed at a rate lower than working families. Public-private “partnerships” are a Pandora’s box that costs working people more for a less efficient product or service. Private companies will monetize every aspect of the project they can. Peter Greene makes a similar case against privatization. The wildfires in California are due to the utility company’s choice to put profit over safety in order to extract more profit. http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/10/california-is-burning-one-more-argument.html
The 800 lb. gorilla of privatization, Bill Gates, funds oligarchy while the rest of us are denied the Constitutional right of a representative democracy. We contribute to the organizations and politicians who fight for our freedom as if they are charities.
Make the next years, a series of revolutionary days, weeks and months.
“The scale of the provision of K-12 education across our nation can best be achieved by the systemic, public provision of schools.” — she is so close to saying that federally run schools with federally provided curricula offers the best scale and the lowest expenditures.
“Charter schools are parasites sucking essential dollars from the public school districts where they are located.” — I’ve read somewhere, so I will not pretend this is my idea: as long as the parties fighting around the school system issues cannot compromise and talk, nothing will happen. That is, the strongest will win. Because not all charter schools are “parasites sucking essential dollars”, I simply disagree with this sweeping and populist description.
“While some predicted the expansion of charter schools would improve academic achievement on a broad scale, children in traditional public schools and charter schools perform about the same.” — First: so what? At least they are not markedly worse. Second: what happened to considering any testing and scoring superficial and meaningless?
And I will add something from myself: as long as public schools do not change their structure, curricula, schedule… as long as they continue providing at best 8-9 years worth of knowledge in the course of 13 years, keeping kids 6 hours a day inside a de-facto prison, I have no reason to support public schools as a system. Its only benefit is it is free.
This is another of your sour, cynical comments.
What makes you think that you know what is happening in every public school district in the U.S.?
Why do you revert to troll behavior to slam all public schools?
This might be your last comment.
You need to get some perspective. Public schooling does not equate to “federally run schools with federally provided curricula.” It has only been in the last 20 yrs that our fed DofEd has breached its commission w/ micromanaging testing accountability systems that reach right into the majority of national classrooms, narrowing curriculum – making them essentially ‘federally-run.’ And only in the last decade that it arm-twisted states into virtually ‘federally-provided’ curriculum to reinforce its overweening control.
The historical problems in our pubsch system (pre-NCLB & continuing) are not about fed control. They are about rich vs poor, & white vs black; they’ve been w/us since the beginning, reflected in local & state policies. The last 20 yrs of fed ed policy, supposedly directed at amelioration, have at best undermined local pubsch distr budgets, at worst, exacerbated inequality. They reflect, more than anything, our nation’s shift to a govt bought out by anti-public-goods corporate interests that dictate policy.
These measures– like others reflecting the same trend in healthcare, infrastructure & environmental policy– can and must be reversed via democratic means.
As to your “as long as they continue providing at best 8-9 years worth of knowledge in the course of 13 years, keeping kids 6 hours a day inside a de-facto prison, I have no reason to support public schools as a system,” I wonder where you get such ideas. This country has 50+ million students in 13.5k pubsch districts– a huge spectrum of quality. My town schools are very fine thank you, & you can keep your mitts off them w/your ridiculous generalizations.
BA, a brave poster who won’t supply his or her name, has a very negative view of US public schools and teachers. He/her is far, far superior to all of us. I am frankly fed up—today—with the sneering. I wonder how he/her collected in-depth knowledge of every school district in the nation.
“And only in the last decade that it arm-twisted states into virtually ‘federally-provided’ curriculum to reinforce its overweening control.” — alas, there is no federally provided curriculum. CC is a poor imitation of what a proper federally provided curriculum should be.
Of couse agree re: CCSS. And I don’t say ‘alas,’ because it shows exactly what gets pushed thro the majority of states w/DofEd blessing in our corp-influenced govt: hundreds of bullet points dreamed up by non-educators whose only value is they can be easily converted to machine-graded assessment.
What examples do you like? I think Finland’s & Netherlands’ are good. They are flexible guiding frameworks geared to specific design at district level.
BA is on the Gates’ personality spectrum- self absorbed, arrogant and has no interest in Main Streets’s survival. In his view, community interests, democracy, worker dignity, etc are mere impediments to profit taking by predators- a group he champions because of his stunted emotional development.
BA’s opinions add nothing to civil engagement, the common good nor American prosperity for the 99% so, it would be a leap too far to assume he cares about students’ intellectual growth.
Love Resseger’s Flanagan quote: “There is now agreement with an idea once unthinkable in America: corporations have a ‘right’ to advertise and sell education, using our tax dollars.” Through ‘trickle-up’ voodoo economics enacted via 35+ yrs’ banking/ finance dereg & tax-deform, government has been corrupted by corporate $, which now dominates policy decisions.
That means (among other things) govt is awash in corporate consumer culture. Privatization of public goods. Individual choice among competing products deified (a chimera, for when corporate $ dictates policy, competition disappears, monopolies prevail). Pooling public money for universally-needed services branded ‘socialist,’ propagandized as costly bureaucratic extravaganza. As if if our centuries of reasonably-run govt services were equivalent to failed socialist states like USSR & Venezuela. As if ‘free-market’ [laissez-faire] capitalism had succeeded anywhere in producing anything but rich-poor-dichotomy banana republics plagued by revolving-door dictators & revolution.
This trend, as Resseger & Flanagan note, threaten our civic institutions & hence our way of life. Public education is just one piece of this. But– unlike other pieces– it is still relatively intact, and affects the 24/7 QOL of more than 1/2 the country. Democratic candidates need to be all over this.