Politico Morning Education reports that the Trump administration has joined a court case on the side of a Christian school in Maryland that was removed from the state’s voucher program because it discriminates against LGBT students and teachers.
This is not surprising. The DeVos family has funded anti-gay organizations and state referenda for many years. The Trump administration takes the view that if religious organizations discriminate, that is no one’s business, even though they are receiving public funds. Thus, DeVos and Trump carve an exemption in civil rights law. It is okay to discriminate against persons if your discrimination actions stem from sincere religious beliefs. Where will this end? Gay students and teachers today, black students and women tomorrow. The civil rights protections that have been a sturdy bulwark against bigotry since 1964 are being picked apart, one group at a time. The federal government has embarked on a religious campaign to eviscerate civil rights protections, and this campaign begins with the least numerous, least popular group: Gays. So long as a school sincerely believes that gay students and teachers are loathsome, the state and federal government will not stand in the way of their discriminatory acts.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BACKS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL’S LAWSUIT OVER VOUCHERS: The departments of Justice and Education on Tuesday sided with a private Christian school that’s fighting Maryland’s decision to kick it out of a state voucher program over its anti-LGBTQ views. The Trump administration filed a “statement of interest ” backing the federal lawsuit filed by Bethel Christian Academy, which accuses Maryland education officials of unconstitutionally discriminating against the school based on its religious beliefs.
— Eric Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said in a statement that the Constitution protects religious schools from being forced “to choose between abandoning or betraying their faith and participating in public programs.”
— Robert S. Eitel, a top adviser to Secretary Betsy DeVos, said in a statement that “Americans do not give up their religious liberty protections simply because they may participate in a government program or interact with a state government.” He added that the Education Department “cannot sit on its hands as the First Amendment rights of Bethel Christian Academy are violated.”
— Maryland education officials have previously said they were trying to prevent taxpayer money from flowing to institutions that discriminate against students on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited under the rules of the voucher program.
— A main point of contention is whether the language in the school’s handbook that doesn’t accept same-sex marriage or opposes transgender people complies with the state’s nondiscrimination requirement. The school says it doesn’t consider sexual orientation in its admissions process.
— A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the lawsuit, which is being brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, could move forward. The judge ruled the school had presented a “plausible” case that the state had “unjustly conflated the school’s religious beliefs with discriminatory behavior.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
But according to the reasoning that I see NY Times reporter Erica L. Green arguing over twitter, parents want this kind of school and they believe that a public school does not provide their kids with the education they want. And that is what matters most.
Did the Politico reporter interview the parents who want this school? Because when it comes to reporting on any school that isn’t public, it is all about what the parents want. If parents want it, then case closed and the taxpayers should be funding it to teach the students it wants to teach.
What about the parents who want a racially segregated school paid for with public funds?
As Erica L. Green writes about you: “I would have loved to see her respond to one sentiment expressed by the black parents and charter operators in the piece.” What seems to be of utmost importance in her tweet is whether parents want this school and clearly in the case of a publicly funded school that discriminates against LGBTQ children, they do (or if would not exist).
I have no idea whether Erica Green believes that if parents want a school that discriminates against the kids they do not want sitting next to their children, then that is all that matters. But that tweet to you certainly makes it appears that is what matters. What is the difference in whether those kids have disabilities, or those kids have parents who are “unworthy’ (as defined by the fact their kid is struggling academically) or they can’t sit still at age 5, or they are LGBTQ or Muslim or African-American? As long as the parents in those schools are happy, that’s all that matters.
Green’s criticisms and attacks on people who are asking for oversight and accountability on a non-profit charter industry that is notoriously for discriminating against children for all kinds of reasons is stunning to me. And her rationale — that parents are choosing that charter and that’s what is important — is also stunning.
I always find it odd that reporters like Green ignore the fact that the ultimate choice lies with the charter and without the oversight that Warren wants, parents who choose a charter find their so-called “troublesome” kid is put on a got to go list and treated in the manner that is most likely to cause his parents to withdraw him.
In fact, what surprises me is that Green doesn’t notice that incentivizes charters to get rid of more expensive to teach students and dump them back into the public school system. In that way Green reminds me of the voters who were so angry at Obama because he wouldn’t let them “choose” their health insurance that wasn’t health insurance at all and left them bankrupt if they actually had any serious illness.
Sure the people who paid almost nothing for health insurance that covered almost nothing were happy if their children remained healthy. But if a reporter covered this issue as “look this person is happy with his health insurance that doesn’t cover hospitalizations or any serious illnesses and that’s all that matters”, then they would rightly be criticized.
It’s always easy to offer up an “alternative” to a publicly funded good that some people will like because it serves their kid and whether other kids are pushed out or not served doesn’t matter. But it does.
I suspect that if Erica Green asked all of those parents in charters how they would feel about a magnet school that limited itself to highly motivated families, pushed out the troublesome kids, and the only difference was that there was oversight by the school system to make sure their own children’s rights were not abused, those parents would not say “nope, we demand a privately operated charter that has no accountability and that’s why hate Elizabeth Warren and cheer on Betsy DeVos who shares our education values.”
But that question is never asked. Why aren’t school reformers fighting for lots more magnet lottery schools within the system – lottery public schools that require parents to meet certain criteria if their kid wants to enroll and even then don’t have to teach any students they don’t want to teach? I find it odd that education reporters aren’t curious enough to ask that question. But it is clear that the answer is that right wing billionaires who fund the school reform movement want privatized charter schools, not more “good” lottery schools that can kick out any troublesome students and only serve the most motivated students and are part of the public school system.
Erica Green’s position is pathetic, isn’t it nycpsp? I’m guessing there were many thousands of Southern parents who “did not want” their kids mixed w/blacks back in the early ’60’s. Well, tough patooties, that’s what the govt decided was best for the country when they passed the Civil Rights laws. Time to move over & let them sit next to gays & transgenders now: public funding means doing what’s right from a natl POV not your sorry xenophobic bubble dressed up in Christian clothes. Or– in Green’s case– dressed up in free-market-consumer clothes. [Grrr… almost makes me want to join twitter…]
I have no idea about Presbyterians’ views on privatization or other political positions. I left them at age twelve when I discovered they believed in predestination which I considered an absurd, unjust religious perspective. I mostly attended the church because it was across the street from my house. The Presbyterian church like the Dutch Reformed church is influenced by Calvinism.
bethree5,
I am sympathetic to parents who want good schools, but what Erica Green and ed reformers are embracing is simply a dual system where some kids who are easy to teach and have highly motivated families who will support their learning all attend certain schools and the rest are abandoned in underfunded schools for the “others”, including all the students who won charter lotteries but who charters decide are not profitable to teach even if their families are motivated.
Charters started out making claims that they could teach all those students “trapped” in failing public schools. What they have become — without any education reporter caring — are schools which no longer care about the majority of students trapped in public schools but will take the 10% or 25% of them who they decide are profitable to teach because their families are highly motivated. And what education reporters ignore is the extraordinarily high attrition rates in the “best” of those charters, which demonstrates that even highly motivated low-income families may not have kids who those charters find profitable enough to teach.
Education reporters mislead by comparing charter schools for the haves with public schools for the have nots, including the kids dumped by charters. But as long as education reporters are buying into the charter-promoted notion that some kids aren’t worthy of their education, then why not just have the public school system establish separate schools for the haves and have nots, and simply abandon the kids in the school for the have nots the way charters get such praise from education reporters for abandoning them?
There is no need to give the franchise for the very lucrative service of educating only the students are are profitable to teach to a private entity. And I believe most charter parents would probably be happy to attend a public magnet that is less harsh toward their kids but still excludes all students who impact their kids’ learning and keeps those kids isolated in schools for the have nots, far away from more “worthy” kids in schools for the haves.
Is it good public policy to concentrate all the poor kids with motivated families and no learning issues into some schools and concentrate all the other disadvantaged kids in underfunded schools for the kids who aren’t worthy? That is what education reporters should be asking. Not spending all their time reporting that the schools for the haves (charters) do better than the schools for the have nots (public schools); not reporting that parents who are in the schools for the haves are happy their kid is in a school for the haves. That is as newsworthy as reporting that people on the beach are happy it is sunny and 75 degrees out.
^^^by the way I read Robert Pondiscio’s tweet at Diane.
Pondicio says:
“it’s unlovely and undemocratic to deny poor Americans the ability to seek out better schools for their children…”
How can Pondiscio say that it is undemocratic and unlovely to deny poor Americans the ability to seek out better schools for their children when Pondiscio himself has said he supports charters excluding families and kids they don’t want to teach?
I think what Pondiscio meant to write was this:
“It’s unlovely and undemocratic for anyone but charter CEOs whose billionaire supporters also fund my organization to deny poor Americans the ability to seek out better schools for their children. If a charter CEO wants to deny poor Americans that ability, then it is very “lovely” and “democratic” for them to do so”
I guess Congresswoman Katherine Clark has finally gotten her answer from Betsy Devos as to whether Devos and the USED Dept. would intervene if and when a voucher-funded school discriminated against a student on the basis of sexual orientation, (or on other bases as well).
( btw, Clark’s question presumably meant intervene in support of any student who was a victim of discrimination, and *against” the school that is engaging in the discrimination.)
The talking-pull-string-doll Devos kept repeating the same canned responses, effectively ducking the question.
Watch that here:
Now, however, Devos — though her & /the USED Department’s latest statement — has finally answered Clark’s question by saying:
DEVOS: “Oh yes, we will intervene, but in support of the voucher-funded school that is engaged in discrimination, and in support of that school’s operators’ right to discriminate, and against the student who is victim of such discrimination in which that school is engaging.”
She intervenes on the side of the alleged perpetrator, not the victim.
For example, she is proposing protections for those accused of rape, while reducing protections for those who were the victims of rape.
Strange priorities.
When asked for comment after a report was published about priest abuse, former Republican U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta (Penn.), a Trump surrogate, a right to lifer and, backer of vouchers, had no condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church for its decades long cover-up.
Betsy is a Calvinist.
https://religionandpolitics.org/2017/01/30/advancing-gods-kingdom-calvinism-calvin-college-and-betsy-devos/
Betsy nor, Barletta who has been linked to a SPLC- identified hate group, are Christian.
DeVos and her ilk believe all the rights should reside with the offender, not the victim. Many fundamentalist Christians use their religion as a license to discriminate against others. We need update our laws so that LBGTQ individuals have the same civil rights as everyone else.
For clarification- American Catholic churches traditionally referred to other Christians as non-Catholics. So, when some Christians are labeled fundamentalists to separate them out from the smaller demographic group of “main stream”, non-Catholic denominations, the classification omits from understanding, that the Catholic right wing has the same views as Christian fundamentalists.
Similar to the evangelical group compared to main stream denominations, prosperity/fundamentalist Catholics are likely the larger portion of Catholics (about 60% of white Catholics voted for Trump). The fundamentalist Catholic cohort is similar to evangelicals in that their church leaders are fundamentalists. They are dissimilar in that the Catholic bishops and state conferences currently have a great deal more political sway nationwide than does the evangelical group (a Kentucky Catholic Conference representative was at the Bevin-DeVos meeting that Diane referred to in a prior post).
For an unknown reason, some make the claim or insinuate that a person of the Catholic faith is on average smarter than the average evangelical- a point that is irrelevant. When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meets with DeVos and other political leaders, isn’t their agenda the same as the agenda of the Christian fundamentalist leadership, with the possible exception of immigration?
As a child, I attended a Presbyterian church. I can remember hearing during a prayer that we should try to “save” all the heathens and Catholics.
What is the position of the Presbyterian church on separation of church and state? What is its position on school privatization? Does the hierarchy seek as many opportunities and have as many meetings to influence public policy as evangelical and Catholic leaders do?
Linda, “prosperity/fundamentalist Catholics are likely the larger portion of Catholics (about 60% of white Catholics voted for Trump)”
1. One doesn’t follow from the other. In fact the stat is singularly unrevealing, as about 58% of white americans– period– voted for Trump.
2. I challenge you to produce the evidence that “prosperity/ fundamentalist Catholics” is even a countable phenomenon in the US. About the only place you see it in this country is among pentacostal hispanics – and they leave the RC church for Prot evang churches. You have shown good evidence in the past that there are wealthy politicos, as well as anti-Francis-leaners among the hierarchy, who would like to make it so. But where are the “prosperity/ fundamentalist Catholic” congregations and their parish priests making up this so-called cohort in the US? I can see the Prot Evang version all over the TV, plus they self-identify for Pew research: there are plenty of them. It is fine to call out the cabal of so-called thought leaders, anti-papists etc, but don’t confuse them with “Catholics.’
Bethree3-
Indeed it would be interesting information to have. Pew could poll Catholics about abortion, tax dollars for Catholic schools, their support for the political activities of Knights of Columbus and state Catholic conferences, their views about a priesthood that excludes women, women’s equality, etc. However, in terms of effect, you have written that the Catholic Church is not a democracy. We can agree that when the bishops engage politically, it’s doubtful that they announce, “We represent a minority of Catholics”, independent of its truth or falseness? And, we can agree politicians assume the bishops can deliver a block of voters?
Msm media have an obligation to identify the Catholic political activity of the bishops and state Catholic conferences A Catholic publication, NCR on-line, shouldn’t be the only one.
The northeast part of the country went for Hillary. The midwest went for Trump. As one indicator of Catholic political influence in the midwest, Indiana and Ohio’s voucher money goes, at 80+%, to Catholic schools.
I don’t know how popular the radio and cable t.v. broadcasts of right wingers like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity are in the northeast but, they are very popular in the districts of U.S. Rep. Steve King’ (R-Iowa), Rep. Dan Lipinski (corporate Dem.-Ill.), the former districts of Paul Ryan (Ill.) and John Boehner (Ohio) and, Sen. Joe Manchin (corporate Dem.-W.Va.). They all share a religious denomination with Roger Ailes, now deceased.
Should I assume that the Catholic churches in the Northeast don’t place hundreds of “religious freedom” signs in each of their lawns in voting season as they do in the midwest?
New Orleans is the first major city to have its public schools eliminated. “The high proportion and influence of the Catholic population makes Louisiana distinctive among southern states.”-Wikipedia.
What is not distinctive is Louisiana’s election of Steve Scalise who, reportedly, has links to white supremacists.
The failure of privatization in New Orleansmay make it the only city to have its public schools eliminated—not by vote of the people who live there but by conservative white Republicans-in the State government.
DFER’s Mary Landrieu (Catholic) is still promoting charter schools. She was in Cleveland in Sept.
“Over the last two decades , Louisiana reforms were brought by ….U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu”.
“Exit polls showed Obama won 27% of the Catholic vote in Louisiana, Sen. Landrieu won 48% of the Catholic vote. At the presidential level, Louisiana Catholics vote Republican.”
Currently, Louisiana’s two senators are male and Republican.
We can speculate that the Napa Institute (Catholic), Liberty (evangelical), and the Institute for Justice (founded by Clint Bolick, who authored a pro-voucher book and, who is currently a justice on the Arizona State Supreme Court) will all be chomping at the bit to help out the oligarch/theocracy side of the case.
Alignment of the Koch network with the goals of Bolick’s Institute and, with Catholic public policy positions is evident. IMO, libertarians want privatization as a step to eliminating tax funding for all education. Religious hierarchies like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the state Catholic Conferences are letting themselves be used in furtherance of U.S. colonialism.
A review of Bolick’s book reported that he described how he helped orchestrate msm’s first use of civil rights language in defense of vouchers. The reviewer also states that Bolick’s work is partnered with the Bradley Foundation. Vouchers, Koch, the Catholic and evangelical churches …. It’s good that the SPLC and NAACP understand the situation.
6-20-2019
“Archdiocese: Indiana School with Gay Teacher Can’t Use Catholic Name”.
Arne Duncan- “There are church-state issues, but they can be overcome by officials … who think outside of the box.”
Arne should crawl into the box for all the harm he has done to public education. Thanks for all your research into the role of Roman Catholic church in promoting privatization. I had no idea they were such active participants. I can understand that they are looking for public money for their schools. Also, the Roman Catholic church is basically an authoritarian organization so they share a similar mindset with evangelicals.
Until recently, I hadn’t linked the theocracy of Paul Weyrich (Koch) to Catholic bishops and dioceses. I should have known because the political takeover occurred over the past few decades. Msm steered the public to think political religious influence was new and was from evangelicals like Falwell.
The History of Ideas, 2018 article, by Udi Greenberg (Dartmouth) is scary in its implications. The dramatic, change in course by the Catholic Church to abandon acceptance of pluralism and democracy, and return to a period in which it sought dominion over society, if true, is a shocking story that the public should know.
The audacity of American prosperity Catholics to undermine Pope Francis because his beliefs align with Christ’s teachings shows how much power they have. Americans should be more aware of Opus Dei, which is said to run the Catholic Information Center in Washington D.C.. The Center honored right wing professor, Robert George and, I infer it aligns with Peter Thiel’s views. Thiel is the Republican, tech profiteer who was raised evangelical and thinks women voting in a capitalistic democracy is an oxymoron.
“The dramatic, change in course by the Catholic Church to abandon acceptance of pluralism and democracy, and return to a period in which it sought dominion over society…”
“the Roman Catholic church is basically an authoritarian organization so they share a similar mindset with evangelicals.”
I’m happy to be corrected by anyone with different knowledge, but I think it’s a mistake to imagine any mainstream Christian church as ‘pluralistic’ or ‘a democracy.’ They are all run by ecclesiastical hierarchies, which makes them authoritarian. My family was a Prot/ Cath mix; we attended both sides, incl many Prot denominations. I preferred RC because you only had to listen to 10mins max of Msr’s opinion; at the Prot churches they’d blab on for an hour. Here, 2 of my choral groups are led by a Presby trustee & a Methodist music minister, so we hear all their scuttlebut. Don’t be fooled by a gentle Prot affect: as recently as 10yrs ago it was like a funeral one night when Oratorio met at 1st United Meth: the minister had just been fired by the powers that be, for being gay [he read us the letter]!
The salient point is the amount of political activity in which each denomination engages, under the banner of the faith.
When the Gov Hogan decided to push vouchers in MD, those in power decided that only 5 million would be granted and the program would be evaluated after 1 year. At year 2, the Gov wanted the voucher program increased to 10 million but the data came back and his wishes were denied. It was found that 80-85% of the money was given to families/students who had already been attending private religious schools BEFORE the voucher program was initiated. It was a bad idea to begin with and now will likely wind up costing the State more in legal fees…..but the Gov will never admit that he made a mistake and pushed a really bad idea.
“The civil rights protections that have been a sturdy bulwark against bigotry since 1964 are being picked apart, one group at a time.”
Yes, and this is happening at the state level, especially where state legislators are eager to gain votes by catering to religious groups.
There are also legal practices devoted to making varied “Christian” religious beliefs the law of the land. Among these are the Alliance Defending Freedom (active in this Maryland case), the American Center for Law and Justice, the Center for Individual Rights, the Christian Legal Society, and Liberty Counsel. Of these, the Alliance for Defending Freedom has been the most successful in changing federal law, arguing and winning nine Supreme Court cases.
I think this Maryland case will be won by the Alliance on behalf of the client Bethel Christian Academy, a private school for students in preschool through eighth grade operated as a mission of the Bethel Pentecostal Christian Church.
I think this probability is high because the state of Maryland set up a “scholarship” program called “Boost” ( a flavor of vouchers) for low income students allowing them to choose a school that met a non-discrimination criterion.
In a clever series of moves, the school’s lawyers have shown that school’s ADMISSIONS policy does not engage in religious discrimination. I think the state will have a tough time defending the program. The legislators opened the door to this use of public funds.
LisaM is right about the cost of this litigation to the state of Maryland.
I think that Checker Finn was instrumental in pushing this plan with the Governor as he was sitting on the State Board at the time. What is also worth noting is that the schools that decided to take the BOOST money have also adopted more Common Core Curriculum and more standardized testing. It seems odd to me that the families who choose religious schools because they don’t like public school for their children will accept the money and allow their children to be subjected to the same dreadful standards that our public schools have in place. In MD (especially areas just outside of DC), it’s all about status, elitism and greed.
An addition to your thought LIsa M:
“It seems odd to me that the families who choose religious schools because they don’t like public school for their children will accept the money and allow their children to be subjected to the same dreadful PSEUDO-standards that our public schools have in place.”
“The Institute for Justice for the past 12 years ( founded by Clint Bolick) has led the nationwide effort to defend school voucher programs, with victories in Wis., Ohio and Ariz.” Bolick is currently a justice on the Arizona state Supreme Court.
The Duke University Federalist Society sponsored a debate about separation of church and state. Bolick’s debate opponent, a Duke Law professor, had formerly taught at a Catholic school. By way of argument she stated school choice is important to educational improvement and religion holds an important place in public life. That’s the typical stacking of the deck expected at expensive private schools.
Follow the money. Who funds these groups?
If turrentineism holds as its chief tenant that all brown-eyed people are evil, will the state allow its money to fund parents that want their children to be taught that brown eyes are the basis are evil. After all, reformed turrentineists really believe this honestly. If these people are honest with their beliefs, shouldn’t they be eligible for state money?
of course, Roy. You just have to pass the sincerity test.
Found a great quote by the Indian writer V.S. Ramachandran that seems to fit this post: “He had the arrogance of the believer, but none of the humility of the deeply religious.”
I just read on Curmuducation that DeVos has to sign the DOE loans. She has the nerve to write under the signature “with extreme displeasure.” Your quote is an exact description of Cruella DeVos.
In America today, religious humility has been replaced with the designation, “blessed”.
It’s Christ’s will that the superior, publicly self-congratulate.
I churn inwardly every time someone tells me “to have a blessed day.”
Me, too.
Ditto. Today, like in my ’50’s childhood, these folks are back out in the open with their smarmy holier-than-thou bubble assumptions. Sometimes I think their boldness today is fueled by anger that they felt culturally forced into muzzling themselves for a while in the ’60’s-’70’s.
Whew, this is a dicey one. Bethel’s handbook statement regarding marriage is superfluous and even provocative in a K-8 handbook, but doesn’t really ring the bell, since it’s irrelevant to students. But their claim of non-discrimination re: sexual orientation and gender identity rings hollow, placed alongside a dress code that prohibits pants for girls, plus the bathroom thing. They’re essentially stifling any behavior that would cause them to appear to be discriminating against gay girls/ transgenders via intimidation. No problem– unless you’re taking BOOST money!
Why do they cite the Hurley case as ‘particularly instructive’? Tho I find their refusal to videotape a gay marriage offensive, they’re a private vendor free to make that decision. They are not receiving federal funds to operate their biz!
Using the Trinity [playground resurfacing] case here or just about anywhere is absurd. Why shouldn’t a community be able to choose to protect all its kids against unsafe conditions, regardless of a school’s affiliation? Irrelevant.
The US Statement of Interest is a specious doct declaring essentially that anything goes in a religious school getting govt $ : here, they can claim to not be discriminating, yet have rules that are clearly discriminatory, as long as they back up the rules w/a statement of “sincerely-held religious belief.” I’ll bet this doct leaves wiggle-room to defend those evang voucher schools that make applicants & their families sign a pledge effectively excluding any gay kids or straight kids w/gay parents [Anyone brought them to court yet?].
I’m salivating for the day when a conservative Muslim voucher school gets put under the microscope by a govt funding agency, & it goes to court.
Lettuce prey: We thank you, Lord, for appointin Donald J Trump Prezudint of the United States cause ever since Gorge Soros payed are first Kenyan Muzlum Prezudint Burrak Hussein Obama to put chemicals into the drinking water to turn high school kids transgendered, this has been a constint wurry on the part uh real Christian parunts, that there gonna be sendin there boys off to school and they is goin to be recruited and indoctrinated by Socialist Nancy Libtard Snowflakes. And we thank yew for Betsy DeVos who is working ever day to make sure that real Christians can send there childrun to schools with other white folks that knows whats right and whats wrong and knows that lovin on somebody whose the same sex wil lead to lovin on animals and Lord knows what all and is a tiket to H E double hockey sticks!
Hm. What is this thing about “H E double hockey sticks”?
It’s an American dialectical saying from the South. It means “hell” but is said in this way to avoid even saying the terrifying word. LOL. The rock ‘n’ roll singer Jerry Lee Lewis, who was quite worried about going to hell for his sinful ways, was recorded in the studio saying about the song “Great Balls of Fire” that he didn’t want to record it because it was about H E double hockey sticks. Hee hee. An example of the belief in word magic among superstitious fundamentalists.
The religious voucher crowd is hanging onto fringe-libertarian coattails, which– did they notice?– is intent on getting rid of publicly-funded education once & for all. They can kiss their funding goodby if that happens.
As some have foreseen, the neoliberal fantasy of tapping the tax trough via privately [hedgefund]-provided public goods– i.e., charters, over which funders have some control– was just the opening of Pandora’s box, & will soon be overtaken by nutjobs providing whatever “parents want” via backpack cash to mini-providers. Religious-school buy-in is just a waystation for the anti-govt crowd. As someone said above, privatization is the first move to eliminating publicly-funded K12. So, religious schools– just like charters were– are in it to make hay while the laws allow, & devil take the hindmost. Education as a national public good, for charter/ voucher/ religious schs sucking at tax teat folks, is in the rearview mirror.
How utterly pathetic that we have a Prez/Secy of Ed promoting this race to the bottom via trumpeting the advances of the 7-9% charters/ vouchers. Our mission must be to keep our eye on the vast US majority of tradl pubschs– 85% minimum– and push for better govtl policy. Reform ESSA: get the stds/ testing/ accountability-sys dregs of NCLB out of the natl ed law, return control of the classroom to professional teachers, & control of schools to democratically-elected local Boards of Ed. And push for natl DofEd run by folks w/deep background in & commitment to bona fide ed research.
Bethree’s first paragraph illustrates greed’s failure. Catholic schools can say goodbye to the taxpayer funds that they currently get, which are provided for extra services delivered to students and deemed appropriate for government subsidy.
Charles Koch is not fringe in terms of political influence nor is his clout in universities, fringe. Public George Mason University is case in point,
with its Antonin Scalia school of law.
“Religious-school buy-in is just a waystation for the anti-govt crowd.”
How can the union survive such movements?
To Don the Con, Mike Dense, and Ditzy DeVoid:
Merry Christmas. Don we now our gay apparel.
Don we now our gay apparel.
LOL. Thanks!
Music and video to make us smile.
It makes better a Thanksgiving experience where the host prayed out loud that his grandsons would like girls (bigotry’s recent twist).
Of course, the host votes for Jim Jordan and Trump and listens to Fox.
This is so infuriating. Taxpayers should not be paying to spread hatred and prejudice. These people in the Trump misadministration, and all those who make excuses for them, are sick.
Sick, twisted, narrow-minded, savage, primitive, bigoted troglodytes
Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia–these will get a person kicked off my web pages or out of my home. We should give these no quarter, and we especially should not excuse their presence in our schools.
It is shameful, disgusting, unconscionable to require taxpayers to pay, via vouchers or other subsidies, to support such attitudes and policies and behaviors.
If bigoted morons want to send their children to schools where they will be taught primitive, superstitious prejudices from the savage infancy our species, let them pay for these themselves. This homophobia, transphobia, etc., is simply not acceptable in civilized societies today.
Ed reform doesn’t have a public education plan. They have a charter and voucher plan.
The Trump Administration simply does not serve children in public schools- they do nothing for them.
The BEST public school students and families can hope for from this “movement” is they won’t actively harm our students and schools. Public school students don’t exist in this world other than as a “control group” they use to promote their preferred charters and private schools. There’s no value-add at all, and there are THOUSANDS of these people on public payrolls all over the country.
Perhaps we could consider hiring a couple of public employees who actually contribute something to existing public schools. If they have nothing to contribute- and it seems like they don’t- then why do we continue to hire them?
Will the public feel they have been misled when they realize that vouchers do NOT actually make it so parents can “choose” schools?
Because that’s not true of private schools. Private schools choose their students and families. Ed reformers know this, so why continue to tell the public something different.
People will eventually figure out that a low value school voucher only pays for low tuition private schools and that any private school can ban their kids for a variety or reasons. It’s not like they’ll be fooled forever. Why not just sell vouchers honestly instead of spouting a bunch of nonsense?
Chiara,
All good points. The voucher promoters say they are cutting costs. That’s why the voucher is typically less than the average cost of public schools. So the voucher is redeemable only at low cost religious schools or poorly staffed private schools.
It looks like the plan is for good Catholic schools to continue to exist for the wealthy and, for the poor to attend tax funded, cost-efficient Catholic school chains that buy computer-compatible curriculum, employ fewer teachers and where students are required to work one week a month in low skill jobs for companies, and return their pay to the schools.
The silence from liberal ed reformers on this and a host of other issues around school choice is deafening.
Is this yet another subject where the echo chamber forbids debate or discussion?
They’ll eventually have to admit the exclusionary nature of a lot of private schools. They can’t deny it forever, particularly because they spend a good part of every work day promoting vouchers. People will figure it out. They’ll go to redeem their voucher at their choice of private school and be denied admission. That will happen a lot.
Luckily there may still be a few public schools left to take the children private schools won’t- as usual our schools are seen only as a safety net for the private sector schools ed reform prefers.
A student who attended both Catholic and public schools contrasted the two and stated she preferred the public school. She said the Catholic school told her what she couldn’t do. She praised the public school for explaining what she could do and be.
Neither Iowa’s Steve King nor Louisiana’s Steve Scalise respect the “inclusion” of a pluralistic nation. They share a religious faith.