Avi Wolfman-Arent writes at the Philadelphia PBS website WHYY about the uncomfortable dilemma of the “school choice movement.” At least some of the choice champions had not come to grips with the fact that their movement was funded by Trump supporters. Perhaps the reckoning might have caused them to wonder if they were being used. It’s easy to forget–or perhaps never realize–that the school choice movement was created by Southern segregationists, borrowing the rhetoric of libertarian economist Milton Friedman. It i worth pondering why and how the Democratic Party abandoned its longstanding belief in equitable, well-resourced public schools as a common good.
He begins:
When Philadelphia-area mega-donors Jeff and Janine Yass made headlines recently for their contributions to Republican politicians — some of whom tried to overturn the presidential election — it stirred up a familiar debate in local education circles.
The Yass family has a long history of donating to Republican politicians and conservative causes. They also are among the largest donors to Pennsylvania’s school choice movement.
Therein lies a dilemma that, for some Democrats who support school choice, has caused increasing bouts of self-reflection.
On the ground, many charter school employees and school choice advocates are left-of-center, motivated by a desire to shake up an educational system that they see as not acting urgently enough to help low-income students of color.
But the movement’s growth — and success — has long relied on the political and financial capital of conservatives, who see school choice as a way to inject free-market thinking into the educational bureaucracy.
None of this is new.
What’s new is the reckoning forced by the Trump era, culminating in a violent insurrection that was fomented by Republican lawmakers — carried out with symbols of the Confederacy — who, on other days, could be a charter advocate’s best ally.
“For a period of time, this coalition was able to exist without some of the tensions we’re talking about threatening to rip it apart,” said Mike Wang, a veteran of the Philadelphia education scene who once headed a leading school choice advocacy group that lobbied in Harrisburg.
Will this unusual alliance survive? Can it find new political strength under an administration promising reconciliation and unity? Or will it disintegrate in an era of increasing political polarity?
At what point do well-meaning liberals understand that there is a fundamental contradiction between the free market and equity. The free market produces winners and losers, not equity.
Conserving What?
What Do Conservatives Conserve?
Racism
Sexism
Ignorance
Prejudice
Privilege
Inequality
Classism
There are calls for Sen. Lankford (R-Okla.) to recuse himself from the ethics committee overseeing the investigation of Cruz and Hawley. Lankford is anti-abortion and pro-school privatization. A post at his site, “Sen. Lankford defends Amy Coney Barrett and Religious Freedom…”, provides a window into the alliance of political, conservative religions.
Ted Cruz’ largest financial backers are the Wilks Bros. who have been called the, “Fracking sugar daddies for the far right”. They are anti-abortion and free market zealots. They’ve been quoted as saying if God wants the polar caps to remain frozen, he’ll take care of it. Two organizations linked to the Wilks are the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.
It’s a shame that opponents of the Republican colonialist agenda don’t call out the anti-abortion rallying cry for what it is. The GOP are CINO’s (Christians in Name Only). The anti-abortion plank of the GOP platform is an attempt to manufacture and attach some fake moral component to mask their immorality. The plank has the added advantage of preserving male dominance.
As MLK said, the impediment to equality is not the Ku Klux Klanners, it is the moderate white.
There is a long list of billionaires of both political parties that support the privatization of public education. It remains to be seen if the liberal billionaires are “well-meaning” or motivated by their own self interest to transfer public education from a public service to a monetized private enterprise. Some of the wealthy individuals want to reduce their tax obligation, and monetizing public education will result in the wealthy paying less for the education of other people’s children. The middle and working class must understand that privatizing public education would result in a massive transfer of wealth from working families to those already wealthy. This is all part of the neo-liberal agenda that has slowly undermined and eroded the middle class for the past forty years. Both conservatives and corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama have embraced privatizing public education under the guise of so-called choice.
Pennsylvania is already feeling the impact of their reckless privatization policy which has caused the financial downgrading of the commonwealth’s fiscal status. The high rate of payments to failing cyber charters is crippling the budget. The Delaware Upland School District is collapsing under the weight of charter school drain. Pennsylvania is no model of excellence in education. It should be a cautionary tale.
For a detailed look at the history of The Fordham Institute see this detailed investigative report from Dr. Richard P. Phelps, an educational researcher and splendid writer who concludes:
“The Fordham Institute is a propaganda outlet for ed reform, including school choice and the Common Core, and a fine example of how a few well-positioned, unaccountable, and otherwise unqualified individuals have achieved the veneer of expertise regarding American Education.”
This report does not mince words, it gives examples of the Fordham’s language to ridicule Diane Ravitch, Mercedes, Schneider, and other well-qualified voices. Phelps has examined the original estate records and the multi-year legal maneuvers to change the original purpose of the Institute. This report shows the flows of money to the Institute from Gates (and others) and how that money influenced the Institute’s pronouncements. Phelps also exposes the outsized influence of this dubious operation on public policy in Ohio, including the selection of the key officials in the Department of Education, the absurd charter authorizing process, and more.
https://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v14n6.htm
Reactionary profiteering roots. Not conservative roots. Conservative roots would recognize that the educations they had were pretty good. Perhaps not perfect, but pretty good. After all, they formed the intellectual foundation of their conservatism.
Privatization is a means of consolidating wealth and power. Segregationists did it. So did Hitler. There are not “very fine people on both sides.” Never were.
The “free market” is a friendly term designed to mislead. The harsh truth is that the “free market” is really “cutthroat capitalism” and that greedy monster causes poverty, suffering, and is destroying the environment we humans need to survive on this planet.
Amsterdam is trying a friendlier style of capitalism that might save our species.
“Amsterdam Is Embracing a Radical New Economic Theory to Help Save the Environment. Could It Also Replace Capitalism?”
https://time.com/5930093/amsterdam-doughnut-economics/
The “Free Market ” does not produce winners and losers . It chooses winners and losers . There is no such fantasy as “Free Markets “. There is an alternative to Publicly funded Charter schools in a “Free Market”, it is called private schools. The charter schools are welcome to have their donors have at it without a tax deduction, which would not be a free market solution. And as the author states the roots of the conservative private school / charter movement were in segregation. In efforts to get Public Dollars for segregated private religious schools. About as libertarian as Ayn Rand on Medicare.
I wonder how many billionaires would donate to private schools for poor students if they did not reap lower taxation and credits. Also, if they did not damage public schools in the process.
Then there’s the case Democrats who are firmly imbedded in the ‘school choice movement.’ Former Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden After leaving the Obama administration, Bruce Reed spent two years as president of the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. Ugh!
Indeed, “It IS worth pondering why and how the Democratic Party abandoned its longstanding belief in equitable, well-resourced public schools as a common good.” As a newly credentialed secondary school teacher in California, my first (and, to date, last) full-time “public school” employment occurred at CA Virtual Academies, a subsidiary of K12, inc. (now a.k.a. Stride). Little did I know when I began that the challenges of public school teaching would extend far beyond meeting with students and striving to my utmost ability to connect them with subject matter discipline in authentic and invigorating ways, especially via remote learning in the “virtual” world of computer technology. Most challenging and ultimately most responsible for my having to leave teaching (hopefully temporarily) was the for-profit, private publicly traded corporation’s administrators’ demands not only that I perform an inhuman amount of work but that I do it without thought for the quality of education my students received and for less money than my brick-and-mortar school teacher counterparts. When my human system (body, heart, and mental health) broke under the strain of their inhuman work schedule, CAVA’s corporate policy to prohibit supervisors from writing professional letters of recommendation for their former teachers sounded the death knell for my up-until-then promising teaching career. Now, heart-broken and soul-sick from losing a job I loved while I WAS able to perform it and a career I relied upon for survival, I am struggling to muster the strength and humility necessary to begin substitute or part-time teaching again, essentially starting my career all over again as no school will hire me without professional letters of recommendation written within the past one to three years. I am incredulous, especially in light of COVID-19’s inevitable effect on public education, that the federal government allowed for-profit corporations K12, inc. and Pearson Education to develop and mass distribute their Virtual Academies and Connections Academies across the nation over the past decade or so primarily at the tax-payers’ expense without at least also developing a state-sponsored and US Education Department “owned” Virtual School program as well. Though it seems nauseatingly naive in retrospect, I had hoped and at one time believed that “free and fair education for all” could and logically should include our nation’s public schools having efficient access to the technologies and mass deployment systems for online education which our tax dollars have paid for. Instead, I now realize that an otherwise logical process of voting tax payers receiving the public education they deserve has been perhaps irrevocably hijacked and perverted by the “double-speak” of “school choice” proponents and the contemporary scourge of insatiably greedy corporations. You have my profoundest albeit bitter-sweet Gratitude, Ms. Ravitch, for your having the courage, tenacity, and strong stomach to share the truth about public education in this nation: If I did not have you and a few others like you to read and learn from, I would be hopelessly lost in despair and disbelief. Thank you and please keep searching out the truth behind lies.
Thank you for this sad and moving letter. I plan to post it, to share your story without your name.
K12 Inc. has long been known as a highly profitable corporation with horrible education outcomes for kids. I see it is a nightmare for teachers too.
I wish you had been warned!
Diane
I was told informally by a friend who also happened to be an attorney, in California, back in 1998, that refusing to provide a quality employee with a letter of recommendation was tantamount to falsely representing the employee, and is therefore against the law. It’s the stuff lawsuits are made of, seems to me.
“caused increasing bouts of self-reflection.”
One can only hope that more self-reflection leads to more consideration for our shared responsibilities as citizens of a republic to one another, all together.
Best regards,
-Shira