Bill Phillis, retired state education official, is campaigning relentlessly to block the expansion of the state’s voucher program. He is a staunch opponent of privatization. He frequently writes about the low academic quality of the state’s charter schools, their fiscal irresponsibility, and their drain on the state’s public schools. If you live in Ohio, you should join his organization to support public schools.
He writes:
EdChoice Voucher Scheme Does Not Align with the Intentions of the Delegates of Ohio’s 1850/1851 and 1873/1874 Constitutional Conventions Regarding the Public Common School System—Part 1*
The EdChoice voucher scheme is contrary to the intention of the Delegates’ vision of the state system of common schools. During the 1873/1874 Constitutional Convention, when a delegate proposed to alter the 1851 constitutional provision for education to fund private schools, Delegate Asher Cook stated:
Here the children of a district, and often those of an entire village, are united in one school, where all cause of strife and contention is removed, and their minds, true to the instincts with which they are endued, rich and poor, mingle together, for a loving group of little friends, who, hand in hand, march bravely up the rugged hill of science, making the ascent easy by each other’s aid, and smoothing its rugged surface by glad peals of laughter, which ring out merrily and clear over hill top, across valley and up the mountain side, until their echoes wake up a joyous community to thank God for the common schools.
The Delegates to the 1850/1851 Constitutional Convention were intentional in selecting the word “common”. Delegate Archibold expressed that the meaning of “common” at that time might change and thus, suggested the word “useful” to replace “common”. An 1828 dictionary defines “common” as “belonging equally to more than one or to many indefinitely.” Delegate Humphreville stated his belief that “common” as they intended it to function in the clause would never be misinterpreted, and thus, responded to Delegate Archibold’s concern by stating “[C]ommon schools in the future will be common schools—that is to say they will not be uncommon schools.” The inclusion of the word common was intentional.
During the 1874 debates, a discussion ensued regarding the meaning of “a system of common schools.” The discussion led to the question of whether public school funds should be provided to private religious schools. Delegate Root informed the discussion, saying, “Common schools to be successful must be the union of schools. The 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines “union” as, [c]oncord; agreement and conjunction of mind, with affections or interest.” Delegate Root asked:
What kind of a common school system would you have but for uniform rules and uniformity of discipline, and by whom are these prescribed? By the legislative power– the highest power in the State. They may relegate the details to certain officers, but it must come from them.
Regarding the same issue, Delegate Miner stated:
I am utterly opposed to a constitutional provision, or to any legislation, having in view the allotment of anypart of the common school fund to any schools except those established, maintained and controlled by, or under the authority of the state. The moment we consent to do so, we deal with a death blow to the system of common schools, upon which, expanded and improved by increasing experience and wisdom, more than upon anything else, it is my profoundest conviction, depends on the perpetuity and efficiency of our American institutions and government.
It is clear that those who established the Constitution language for a system of schools meant that only one system of common schools was to receive public funding for the support thereof.
*Research for this post and much of the content of it is credited to Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Juris Doctor Candidate, Kira Sharp.
Learn more about the EdChoice voucher litigation
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OhioEandA
VOUCHERS HURT OHIO
William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 |ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://ohiocoalition.org
Diane,
I apologize in advance for hijacking this, but I was concerned to see Carol Burris legitimizing the biased reporting of Erica L. Green in the NYT. While Green’s story did cover “both sides” of the debate about new charter funding regulations, it did so entirely using the right wing narrative. I know I sound like a broken record, but we have already lost the war, if we accept and even praise reporters as “fair” who write stories that legitimize the right wing narrative and leave out nearly all the important information that shows that the right wing narrative is utterly and completely without merit.
(Contrast this with Chalkbeat’s Matt Barnum, who is attacked by the right when he simply writes a far more balanced story).
The far right works the refs, and we praise the refs for only being a little biased against us.
Green’s story was the right wing story. Black and Latino parents begging for charters and white Dems opposing them. Representing those parents – Corey Booker!
“Against” those Black and Latino parents is “the teachers’ union” and pro-union white woman Carol Burris.
Jamaal Bowman. AOC. Parents whose kids were drummed out of charters. They do not exist for Green. They apparently aren’t trustworthy to Green, but the parents whose organizations are funded by right wing billionaire money are.
Who funded that anti-regulation rally? Green doesn’t care. She simply presents the folks protesting the regulations side as working for kids, while “the other side” is working for teachers.
Just to demonstrate how biased the story is, imagine how unlikely it would be for Green to ever write this story:
“Black and Latinx Democrat politicians, public school parents cheer Biden’s new regulations on charter schools.”
Then there are 10 paragraphs about all the Black and Latinx Democrat politicians who represent the districts suffering because they are overrrun with charters. Jamaal Bowman and AOC present their reasons for fighting for the public school parents whose public schools are being decimated to enrich a few folks who are primarily white and who get outsized compensation to run their charters for the kids they choose to teach while they dump the rest.
The “other side” is a short paragraph like “Nina Rees, a rabid critic of public schools whose organization is funded by anti-public school billionaires” opposes any regulations of charters. Rees, like a handful of other pro-privatization Dems like Michael Bennett, did not explain why charters shouldn’t be regulated but repeated their opposition as they pointed to a rally underwritten by the same right wing funders who support her anti-public school organization.”
Green will never write that story because it is “too biased”. Yet that story would have more truth in it that the completely biased story that she wrote. Which she denies.
Green needs to talk to Jamaal Bowman and AOC. Green needs to talk to public school parents instead of exclusively to the parents offered up by the privatization movement as representing all Black and Latinx parents.
I don’t believe for a minute that most charter parents oppose regulations that would protect the kids in their charters. I don’t believe for a minute that most Black and Latinx parents want charters to go on unregulated and using money that should be spent on their kids to provide a fancy top 1% lifestyle for charter CEOs and their favorite minions.
I agree with you, NYCPSP.
I think Carol Burris’ perspective is how much worse it could have been.
The Times has always been pro-charter. It’s a rare story critical of charters that gets published.
I can’t remember when it happened.
The Times seldom writes about the billionaires who want to destroy public schools.
I wish Erica Green had attended the NPE conference in Philly, where many Black parents complained about the destruction of their community by charters, which paved the way for gentrification. Half of the NPE board are Black and Hispanic.
You are completely right about winning the war by framing the narrative.
It’s hard to get the attention of MSM, and to get them to listen to anti-charter voices like Jitu Brown of Chicago; Gloria Nolan of St. Louis; Dountonia Batts of Indianapolis.
Thanks, Diane.
Before I read your reply I posted another long comment that is in moderation.
But you are absolutely right. I just don’t understand why those parents are all invisible to Green.
This is Carol Burris. While there is a lot in the article I did not like, I think given that her focus was the parents’ point of view she reported what she saw.
She should talk to Jamaal Bowman and AOC? Neither has said a word in support of the regulations. Not a word. And I personally asked Bowman’s office to make a public statement. No Senators have come out publicly in support. Not Bernie. I asked his office.
I am glad she did not ask them because frankly, I am not at all certain what they might have said.
Rosa De Lauro is my hero. And she covered her. Marc Pocan also made a statement of support at the Ed Department budget hearing.
Where were the marchers in Washington in support of the regulations? Not there. If they were, she would have spoken with them.
Frankly, I am an ardent critic of charters and it does not bother me a bit to be called such. And I will continue to be until they earn the word “public.”
Erica Green listened to me for over an hour. I have had reporters treat me like the check box–five minutes to grab a perfunctory quote from the other side.
She did not make the same false allegations other reporters have. She linked to two of our reports, our action alert and our letter which she accurately reported had lots of signatures. She reached out to the Southern Education Foundation which I told her had submitted a letter.
Here is the bottom line. I agree that the vast majority of Black parents are not fans of charter schools and many communities of color have been used and abandoned by charters. And I also know that just about every Democrat in Congress wants those regs. But everyone keeps their head low because of the nasty tactics of the National Alliance.
So here is what I suggest you do.
Schedule a meeting with the staff of AOC, Jamaal Bowman, and Bernie Sanders and press them to make a public statement of support. If they do, it will be news. And news gets covered. But you can’t cover news that does not exist.
Good luck. I have been tirelessly working this issue of corruption, disarray and terrible charters getting funded by the CSP since 2019. Make those calls. I could use help. And I will be curious to hear what they say.
scary words for such a long time now: “I am glad she did not ask them because frankly, I am not at all certain what they might have said.”
Carol Burris,
Thank you for this excellent and incredibly informative post. You make so many good points.
It is really depressing to hear that the progressives went silent. I had no idea they were unwilling to stand up for public education. I am guessing their cowardice is similar to why mainstream Dems are cowardly and it always bothered me when I saw folks here blaming it on them being controlled by some neo-con monolith like the Center for American Progress. I doubt AOC and Bernie and Jamaal Bowman are cowardly because they fear their corporate overlords. But if they refuse to stand up for public education, then who will? They are shameful cowards. Although it doesn’t surprise me because I saw the progressives go running for the hills as soon as Mayor de Blasio stood up to charters, too. If Bernie Sanders can’t take the heat to stand up for public education, he would have made a lousy president. All talk. And I say that as someone who voted for him in the primary both in 2016 and 2020.
I am glad that Erica Green took the time to speak with you for so long. But there isn’t any excuse for her misrepresentation of the anti-oversight of this supposedly perfect and idealized group of people who she characterizes as only caring about poor kids. While I agree she did do a good job covering your views, the credibility of EVERYTHING she wrote about your position was undermined because of of her repeated innuendo that your real priority was what is good for the teachers’ union. Not the kids, like the perfect Nina Rees.
Green wrote a story that presented Nina Rees as having far more credibility and having far more concern with what happens to Black and Latinx students than you do. And that is inexcusable. Even if she did present your views.
I only wish the tenor of ALL Green’s reporting was the opposite. Where the folks who are supported by right wing billionaires who prop up Republican politicians who vote for policies so harmful to poor children are presented with skepticism, while people like you, Carol Burris, who spent your life working in education, are not.
How was her focus the parents’ point of view? She didn’t talk to “parents”. She quoted the exact same parent who was quoted 2 days earlier in the Washington Post article! That’s how NYT reporters seem to practice journalism these days — “coincidentally” finding the one rabidly pro-charter parent parroting all the anti-public school talking points and never going to charters and actually talking to parents, including the ones whose kids were drummed out of charters or discouraged from enrolling in the first place. So what if they are harder to find? That’s what reporters are supposed to do. They aren’t supposed to talk to the parents that the pro-charter folks want them to talk to and believe their job is done. There are OTHER parents out there. Why not find them? It’s like they are invisible to her.
As I said, it isn’t just Erica Green. She is no different than the reporters who also couldn’t seem to find any parents in Florida, or in Virginia or in Michigan, or in any public school in any state who weren’t completely disturbed about the terrible CRT that was infecting their public schools.
She is no different than the reporters who never noticed any of the anti-testing pareents because they didn’t have big PR firms behind them presenting the same quotable parent to represent all parents in all public schools.
And if the progressive Dems like Bernie and AOC and Jamaal Bowman are too cowardly to stand up for public education when it matters, then the battle is already lost. Maybe they need to be replaced by moderates like Rosa De Lauro who actually do care.
Thank you for explaining how you keep fighting. I’m glad that Green spent a few hours talking to you. I still believe her article was incredibly biased, which is even more depressing since it is “less biased” than the usual dreck.
And it wasn’t from the parents’ perspective. There were almost no parents quoted — there were lots of charter advocates quoted.
And given that almost no charter parents were quoted, how did both the Washington Post and the NYT find the SAME one charter dad to quote? I doubt it was simply a coincidence. But I would certainly like to hear them both explain how they found him and not a single one of the many FORMER charter school parents who know what happens when there is no regulation and your kid is not wanted.
^^^From the Washington Post article “Facing pushback, Biden administration clarifies charter school rules” by Laura Meckler, 5/11/22
“We don’t want them to shut our schools down,” said Malachi Armstrong, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the West Philadelphia Achievement Charter School.”
From the NYT article “New Biden Administration Rules for Charter Schools Spur Bipartisan Backlash” by Erica L. Green, 5/13/22
“Malachi Armstrong, the father of a kindergartner who attends a charter school in Philadelphia, was among the participants, who held signs, wore T-shirts with protest messages and repeated chants of “back off our schools.” Mr. Armstrong, who said his child attended a charter school in Philadelphia after his underfunded public school shut down, called the proposed rules “senseless.”
Come on, Erica Green, I have seen much better reporting from you than this.
Why did 2 different reporters from 2 different news organizations just happen upon the same random charter parent? Why are parents in public schools always invisible (unless they are right wingers who fear CRT and are demanding to take “pornography” out of public school libraries)
At least the Washington Post provided a little more information that was excluded from Erica Green’s NYT story — presumably because Green did not consider that information important:
From the Washington Post article:
“We don’t want them to shut our schools down,” said Malachi Armstrong, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the West Philadelphia Achievement Charter School. He said he worries about the fate of his school, though the funding at issue is for start-up expenses in new schools, not ongoing operations.
He added that the school encouraged students and parents to travel to D.C. for the rally as a field trip. Others said their flights were paid by charter school advocacy groups.”
I find it concerning, but certainly not surprising, that only the parents whose beliefs support the right wing’s narrative are heard when the so-called “liberal” mainstream media covers education issues.
This happened with anti-masking stories. This happened with anti-CRT stories.
The parents who represent the voices that the right wing wants amplified are presented as if they represent all parents.
Other parents seem to be invisible to journalists.
There are many Black and Latino parents who – even if they support charters – understand that charters need to be regulated.
And many of those parents in charters would be just as happy if their charters were “choice” schools that didn’t have to teach all students, but remained under the oversight of the city instead of the oversight of people who were getting rich from running their charters.
Did Erica Green ever ask the parents whose kids attend Akron Ohio’s I Promise PUBLIC school started by LeBron James whether they wish their school was a charter that kicked out their kids? Did she ever ask them if they think that charters that refuse to teach kids who need more should be given billions of federal dollars without oversight to open more schools that only teach the least expensive students?
Imagine if Akron public school system was given that money to open more I Promise public schools instead of some charter CEO?
As long as the so-called liberal media keeps amplifying the far right’s agenda to undermine public schools, public education will continue to suffer.
NYCPSP,
The proposed regulations will not shut down any existing charter school. This is the charter industry’s lobbying lie. The regs will have no impact on any existing charter school, only on the new ones that seek federal funding.
It’s the charter school false narrative — their lie – that is pushed by news articles like these.
Erica Green didn’t write a story to inform readers about what the regulations actually are and explain the long history of serious problems that led to those federal regulations being proposed.
Erica Green wrote a story about how Black and Latinx parents are all supposedly outraged at the regulations. She wrote a story about how a few Democratic politicians who are the only ones who care about these parents are joining them in opposing those regulations.
Thus the headline is: “New Biden Administration Rules for Charter Schools Spur Bipartisan Backlash”
Thus the very first paragraph – the lede paragraph – that frames the story is:
“New rules proposed by the Education Department to govern a federal grant program for charter schools are DRAWING BIPARTISAN BACKLASH and ANGERING PARENTS, who say the Biden Administration is seeking to STYMIE SCHOOLS that have fallen out of favor with many Democrats but MAINTAIN STRONG SUPPORT AMONG BLACK AND LATINO FAMILIES.”
(I added the ALL CAPS but the above is the framing of the story.)
Erica Green wrote a story about how the teachers union and the people whose concerns are about teachers over students oppose those regulations.
And she interviewed the very same supposedly random charter parent that the Washington Post writer interviewed for her story 2 days earlier.
Because among the thousands of parents at that rally, they happened upon the same one?
And they can never find a single public school parent. Because public school parents don’t have right wing billionaires funding advocacy organizations whose PR minions have discovered that reporters are very receptive to reporting whatever is handed over to them as a story and quoting whoever is handed to them as a representative of whatever the agenda is.
It is the same reporting that legitimized the fear of CRT. A few parent advocates pushing the right wing narrative getting outsize attention as representing all parents.
Parents in public schools are invisible to journalists, unless they can be presented as critical of their public school and wanting more charters.
To me, it is such a sign of the decay of journalism that an overpraised charter school can graduate a small fraction of their starting class, and no reporter at the NYT or elsewhere has any questions about where the rest of the students went or why they left. There is something that to me is implicitly racist about accepting the charter’s word that those parents didn’t want their kids to get the best education possible. If those were white middle class kids disappearing, you can bet that reporters would be a little more skeptical if someone who benefited greatly from those kids leaving told them it was just because an extraordinarily high percentage of white middle class parents decided that they preferred their child NOT get a good education and that’s why they left the charter.
By the way, Nina Rees is not a Democrat. She is a well-connected Republican who worked at the Heritage Foundation and served as Dick Cheney’s education advisor when he was VP.
Diane,
Erica Green’s story informed me only that Nina Rees is a caring and concerned advocate for Black and Latinx students who is a credible spokesman for the views of their parents, whom she is helping so significantly.
While Carol Burris just represents the views of the teachers union and her credibility should be questioned since she is obviously so biased.
Diane, look at the difference in these quotes from Green’s article:
“Carol Corbett Burris, the executive director of the Network for Public Education and an ARDENT CRITIC of charters…”
“The Network for Public Education, AN ADVOCACY GROUP…”
“But to many, the rest of the rule — particularly a requirement that charters seeking the grants conduct a “community impact analysis” — reads like an attempt to cement into policy the wish list of critics like MS. BURRIS AND TEACHERS’ UNIONS to stop charter school growth.” (FYI — Notice the framing of “TO MANY…” — the use of the word MANY to imply that their view is simply non-partisan, while Burris’ is pro-teacher union).
Now compare that with how every pro-charter spokesperson is presented:
“The rules would “dampen interest in applying for federal funds to launch new schools” and “damage individuals who don’t have resources,” said Nina Rees, the president and chief executive of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.’
(Notice that unlike Carol Burris, Nina Rees is presented simply as someone who cares about students. Rees is not an ARDENT CRITIC of public schools. Rees’ opinion is not offered as “the wish list of Nina Rees and the right wing billionaires who want to privatize education”)
Instead, Erica Green continues to “inform” readers about how caring Nina Rees is by continuing to explain how Nina Rees is ONLY concerned about the poorest kids: “The new requirements, she said, would be particularly burdensome for applicants the program was intended for: community members, particularly people of color, who run a single school and do not have enough staff to complete the necessary paperwork or gain access to philanthropists to fund their start-ups.
The bias is so glaring but what is the saddest thing is that this bias is so pervasive that Erica Green is likely certain that she is writing excellent “fair and balanced” stories.
It isn’t just Erica Green, since this is also the way the NYT legitimizes CRT and Trump supporting politicians like J.D. Vance.
All information that would discredit those who promote views that right wing likes is excluded or buried in some disclaimer presented as coming from a biased source. All information that would cast doubt on those criticizing the right wing view is amplified.
Green’s story presents Nina Rees as a strong advocate for Black and Latinx students. She is absolutely credible. Carol Burris is presented as someone far less credible than Rees.
In the article Green wrote, the reader comes away with the view that Rees cares about Black and Latinx students and Burris cares about the teachers’ union.
The quotation from Cook: Wow!
It’s time to vote Booker, Bernie, Bowman and AOC out!! 🔔🔔
8 years ago, “…United to Back School Vouchers” (Jewish Daily Forward, 7-22-2014)-
The article describes the Walton family (Christian) as the largest financial backers of an ultra Orthodox Jewish Network’s agenda for public funding of religious schools. The Walton grant paid for the Network’s expanded lobbying staff to advance the national school reform push. The efforts were cited as having success in Ohio and failure in New York. Philanthropy.com wrote about it, 7-24-2014.
EdChoice has links to the Lilly Foundation (Indiana) which makes grants heavily in the religious sector. Indiana Catholics take credit publicly for the initiation and passage of school choice legislation in Indiana. Media report the EdChoice VP in Kentucky is the associate director of the Catholic Conference of Ky.
It was great to hear the comedian Mike Myers, a graduate of Canadian public schools, brag about his public school and about the value of government services. He is a citizen of the U.S., the United Kingdom and Canada. He was interviewed this morning on NBC.