Cameron Vickrey is associate director of Pastors for Texas Children. In this opinion article published in the San Antonio Express-News, she asks the important question: What’s the end game with the privatization push? Texas has 5 million children in public schools, and about 356,000 in charter schools. The drive for vouchers has been blocked thus far by parents, the Pastors, and a legislative combination of rural Republicans and urban Democrats. But Texas is now ground zero for the charter lobby. Why? Betsy DeVos is one reason: As U.S. Secretary of Education, she poured hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal Charter School Program into corporate chains in Texas, such as IDEA and KIPP. And, Texas has its own home-grown billionaires and libertarians eager to destroy the public schools.
She writes:
Let’s have a serious conversation about the purpose of school choice.
A recent Senate Committee on Education hearing in the Texas Legislature revealed a fundamental divergence in our state’s philosophy of education. One senator admitted proudly the reason Texas has charter schools is to provide “pure choice.”
Pure choice is not the prevailing narrative that we have been told. Many public school supporters have made concessions for charter schools so kids who are “stuck in failing schools” have an affordable alternative. But now we know this is not the end game. The end game is simply choice.
The theory behind pure choice is a commodified system of schools, where each school competes against the others in a marketplace. Expensive “edvertising” is used to convince us our kids will get ahead in life if we choose a certain school. Schools will intentionally attract certain kids — not all kids — to boost their test scores and outcomes, making it look like they are winning in the business of education. We will lose the value of education that our traditional school system provides, as part of a democracy, as a public good.To parents whose kids are happily enrolled in charter schools, good for you. I do not begrudge you that choice, and I wish your child a successful and fulfilling education. Having choices in education is not the problem. The problem is the deregulated free market, resulting in too much choice that ends up diluting all schools— including charters.
Back to the hearing. In the witness chair sat a superintendent of a large suburban school district. He testified against Senate Bill 28, explaining it would allow for a proliferation of charter schools without regard to their impact on his district. He told of his district’s loss of revenue because of students leaving his schools for charter schools.
Some senators on this committee — whose responsibility it is to understand the basic formulas of public school finance — were either incapable or unwilling to comprehend the superintendent’s testimony.
A senator insisted that if tax dollars follow the child to the charter school, then it stands to reason that the district has one less child to educate and therefore requires that much less money. The superintendent politely explained that one less child reduces revenue, but he cannot reduce expenditures to make up for the loss.
If you have trouble following this line of thinking, consider: Five students leave a public school for a charter school. Their tax dollars (let’s say, $1,000 each) follow them to that charter school. So now the public school will receive $5,000 less. But the students were spread out across five grade levels and two schools. So the superintendent cannot reduce overhead costs by $5,000. The superintendent cannot cut back on air conditioning or eliminate a teacher. The budget cuts will come in special services such as libraries, art, music, languages and all the other things that make schools good.
What’s more frustrating is that many charter schools are promising to provide these special services and programs that the neighborhood public school can no longer afford to provide.
So, yes, senators, this is an inconvenient truth. We know you want to create a system of pure choice, where each institution only has to look out for itself, “be the best it can be,” as state Sen. Paul Bettencourt has said. But that only works in a fair competitive market. We are not seeing a fair marketplace. And too many bills this session would like to give charter schools even more of an edge, thereby disadvantaging traditional schools.
We cannot sustain two parallel systems of publicly funded schools with our tax dollars. And I think our senators know this. This is the real end game of their pure choice system.
I would like to tell our senators: Try marriage before divorce. You have not stayed true to your vows to make suitable provisions for our existing public school system. Stop flirting with so many charter schools and the idea of a no-strings-attached marketplace for education, and do the work of tending to your marriage.
Cameron Vickrey is the associate director for Pastors for Texas Children. She also co-founded RootEd, a local parent-led advocacy group for public schools.
The end game of privatization is the pretense of choice, not real choice. The end game is destruction of public education, professional teachers, unions and the total monetization of education. The end game is the illusion of choice, but it is really social engineering, suppression of democratic control and the promotion of segregation.
The argument of the “money should follow the child” negates the whole concept of the common good, community investment and self governance. If people could pick and choose what they want to pay for in public budgets, there would be a lot less money for the military and corporations. People schools are public services that serve communities and bring diverse people together. Turning families into market based consumers of products undermines collective community engagement while it transfers public assets to private companies. It is the theft of the common good. It has opened the door to profiteering, embezzling, politicking and dark money, none of which has anything to do with so-called choice.
cx: Public schools, not people
KEY point: “IF people could pick and choose…”
“Pure choice is not the prevailing narrative that we have been told.”
No, it is not. They sold this “movement” as “improving public education” but all one had to do was read ed reformers to know that was never true. They do absolutely nothing for public schools and instead spend all their time lobbying for “reinvention” that is nothing but elaborate privatization schemes.
Go read any of the voucher laws the ed reform echo chamber are all pushing- it’s a plan to replace “public education” with a low value voucher and a list of private contractors.
It’s a rip off. The public will be replacing a comprehensive public system with a 5k or 7k voucher for each student. It’s freaking robbery and they’re ALL lockstep cheerleading for it, like they always do. No dissent is permitted.
Is anyone in ed reform ever going to recognize how completely incoherent their “movement” is?
This is a long list of demands ed reformers are making on public schools, post-pandemic:
https://www.hoover.org/testing-educations-indispensable-gps
The people making these demands on public schools? The SAME ed reformers who lobby for completely unregulated vouchers to go to any “educational contractor” who has the ability to fill out a funding form.
“The movement” polices public schools constantly, yet gives a complete pass to their own voucher programs on “accountability”!
How are they planning on policing this unregulated, free market utopia they’re all lobbying for? Or does “accountability” just go out the window the minute they meet their ideological goals and eradicate public schools?
Privatizers have no intention of policing the market. They eschew any attempts to regulate or hold them to account. If the public knew how poorly some of these schools were, it would curtail their scam. Disrupters are snookering the uninformed public under the guise of “choice.”
Chiara The reformer-privatizers have demonized public schools for decades, . . . and it’s working . . .THEN vouchers, charters, and fake-public schools (aka privatizers/reformers) can march into the vacuum of ill-informed public opinion and declare that THEY are the only ones who can save education in the United States . . . HOORRAY! CBK
Chiara, that’s their game plan. Impose burdensome mandates on public schools while creating charter schools exempt from those mandates. Complain about “achievement gaps” at public schools, while creating voucher schools that don’t take the same tests.
There has always been choice in the traditional public school system for upper middle class families: the choice of where to live. People do not accidentally move into PS321’s catchment area, they seek it out and pay a premium to live in it. It is only the relatively poor that are locked out of those schools.
School choice does not give the poor the same schools as the rich. It does not move them into the catchment zones for high-performing schools. It does not give them the money needed to go to an elite private school. It gives them enough to go to a low-quality religious school with untrained, uncertified teachers.
Traditional school systems also do not give the poor the same schools as the rich, but using catchment zones for school admission does drive racial segregation in housing. See “Racial Residential Segregation of School-Age Children and Adults: The Role of Schooling as a Segregating Force” in The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences Vol. 3, No. 2, Spatial Foundations of Inequality. For those with JSTOR access the link is https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/rsf.2017.3.2.03
The answer is to tax billionaires to eliminate poverty.
Do you think we have enough billionaires? The poverty gap is estimated to be $154 billion annually. We would have to confiscate all the wealth of many billionaires for decades, and convince people to buy those stocks with the hope that we well not confiscate those assets again.
Tough. I want the Eisenhower tax rates.
Dr Ravitch,
I don’t think increasing the capital gains tax rate from the current 20% to the Eisenhower era rate of 25% will raise nearly enough money from billionaires to eliminate poverty.
I like the marginal tax rate of 91% in the Ike era. That was my childhood. There were NO billionaires. None. Nada. There was a growing, thriving, hopeful middle class. Why you insist on defending the uber wealthy billionaires is a puzzlement.
Dr. Ravitch,
Making the top marginal tax rate on income 100% will have very little impact on any billionaire. No one becomes a billionaire from having a high income. Billionaires become a billionaire because they own something that other people are willing to pay a high price to own. When they sell some if it they must pay a capital gains tax if it has increased in value, but they will not have to pay income tax.
Time for confiscatory taxes on the obscenely wealthy.
TE, you are an economist so surely you’re aware that increasing income tax on billionaires is not the way to right the balance, or erase a $154 billion poverty gap. Heck, it’s chump change. We could start at a primary feeder of billionaires’ wealth, where we really lose revenue bigtime: OFC’s (offshore tax centers, or “tax havens.”)
An estimated “less than 10%” of the wealth held by US households [$98 trillion in 2018] is sheltered in OFC’s. So if it’s 9%, that’s roughly $9 trillion going untaxed or taxed at considerably lower rates. And it’s illegal [IRS & Justice Dept working on it].
Wealth held in OFC’s by multinational corporations is a $600 billion global problem—and it’s legal. (OECD has been working on it since fin collapse of 2008.) US accounts for over half that, so at least $300 billion: 25-30% of gross profit of US multinational corps sheltered in OFC’s. The effective tax rate for corporations in 2019—the amount actually collected– was 11.3% [despite the alligator tears over corp tax rate]. It was only 16% when the corp tax rate was 35%; tax collections on US corps decreased 31% between 2017-2018.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/09/tackling-global-tax-havens-shaxon.htm
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/16/tax-havens-apple-costs-pandemic/#:~:text=In%20effect%2C%20they%20often%20pay,which%20can%20least%20afford%20it.
Bethree5,
I certainly know that increasing the top marginal rate on income would not make even the slightest dent in poverty in the United States. I have been arguing that very point in this sub thread.
Certainly there are places that the wealthy put their money to avoid taxes (Switzerland has long benefited from this). Corporate holdings are a bit more complicated: does the US government get to tax corporate income that is earned in France or does the French government get to tax it. If both get to tax it, we are perhaps penalizing companies that operate in multiple countries, and that may not be in our best interest. I think the optimal policy is complicated.
It is no doubt complicated, but it’s seen as a global problem that needs intl govt attention, and is starting to get some.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for raising taxes on wealthy individuals— I just mean it won’t eliminate poverty. But tax reform would go a long way toward stopping the hemorrhaging of assets from the middle/ working classes and the public commons to the top 1-10%. Plenty of loopholes and regressive features need fixing, as noted by many, many experts. The usual suspects are rounded up here by Larry Summers: http://larrysummers.com/2019/03/28/a-broader-tax-base-that-closes-loopholes-would-raise-more-money-than-plans-by-ocasio-cortez-and-warren/
Thank you for posting this, Diane. Cameron’s voice is becoming louder and stronger. I hope she will be with us in in October for NPE annual conference. Tomorrow, the House Public Ed Committee will hear several awful charter expansion bills coming out of the Senate. The goal is to take authority away from the democratically elected State Board of Education for charter approval, and place it exclusively in the hands of the governor’s appointed Commissioner of Education, who is an avid proponent of charter schools. It will be a tough fight. The Democratic chair of the committee, Harold Dutton of Houston, is a charter school champion also.
No, the real end game is profit by charter school owners, hedge fund financial investors who are looking to put tax dollars in their own offshore accounts. This isn’t about educating kids, it’s about feeding at the public trough, tax free.
Donna Heald It’s also about sickening and then killing-off public education–a long-term political idea, not to mention, in the meantime, controlling curriculum. CBK
Is it necessarily a broader political conspiracy theory or the legitimate rationalisation that everything in every k-16 class is already freely available knowledge on the internet? What then is a school even for? Public school comes in app form available on google play. There’s no reason to pay 3 trillion a year for it. Whether its a conspiracy or not to bring down public schools, it’s something that should be done.
Adam Peterson Well, that’s why we have programs that teach teachers to teach.
You seem to think children don’t need guidance or that there is no such thing as child development and cognitional process.
If a person doesn’t understand such basic issues of education, perhaps they might want to learn about them before making statements about the learning process and children’s education that do nothing but expose their ignorance. CBK