This is one of Peter Greene’s finest posts. He explains the real reason that Republicans have fallen in love with vouchers. They want to eliminate public schools and in time shift the financial burden of schools to parents, not taxpayers. One of the loudest voucher advocates, who got his doctorate from the University of Walton….the University of Arkansas’s so-called Department of Educational Reform, where they teach the doctrine of school choice, posted a photograph of himself and a woman whom I assume was his wife at a funeral, celebrating the death of public schools. When we go high, they go low.
Greene writes:
The new wave of voucher bills being rammed through red state legislatures all demonstrate a truth about school voucher policies– vouchers are not about choice. They’re about peeling people away from the public school system in order to defund and dismantle that system.
What makes me think so? Here it is. Sometimes it’s not about what people say, but about what they don’t say.
If the concern were really and truly choice for every student, then voucher fans would be addressing some of the real obstacles to school choice.This door doesn’t lead where they told you it would.
For one, they would be addressing discriminatory and exclusionary policies. Yet when have we ever heard a voucher supporter say, “These discriminatory policies have to stop. LGBTQ+ students deserve just as much school choice as any other students.”
The closest thing we ever get is “Well, then they can start an LGBTQ-friendly school of their own.” Yet when that happens, pro-voucher politicians target that school with terms like “perversion.” And of course in some states, such a school can never happen because talking about LGBTQ students or Black history has been outlawed. And voucher laws are written to hold the private school right to discriminate as it wishes inviolable.
If someone were serious about voucher based choice, they would also address cost. Vouchers are typically far too small to pay for tuition to top schools in the state. If voucher supporters were really interested in making sure that, as Jeb Bush says, “each and every…student can access the education of their choice,” there would be a robust discussion about how to bridge the gap between meager vouchers and expensive schools.
Yet we never hear voucher advocates saying, “We need to find the way to fully fund vouchers so that they provide a real choice to students.” Choice advocates like to point at the inequity of the public system–parent choice is limited by their ability to buy an expensive house in a wealthy neighborhood. But the current crop of voucher programs doesn’t change that a bit–a voucher offers little to change the fact that how much “freedom” you get depends on how wealthy you are.
It has been done. But when Croydon, NH set up a school choice program, a voucher-like system that bore the full cost of sending a student to the school of their choice, local libertarians tried to shut it down because they wanted lower taxes.
Voucher fans love the idea of school choice; they just don’t want to actually pay for it.
If these folks were serious about school choice via vouchers, we would have calls for oversight and accountability. It would make a choice system that much more attractive for parents to know that all the available options have been vetted and screened and will be held to some standards, just like shopping in a grocery store where you can rest easy in near-certainty that whatever you pick, it’s not going to actually poison your family.
And yet not only do voucher fans not call for oversight and accountability, but they actively block it with language that hammers home that nobody can tell vendors what to do or how to do it.
Voucherphiles like to call their system child-centered, but in fact it is vendor-centered, with “protections” for the service providers written into the law, and protections for the students non-existent. Parents are left to navigate an unregulated system of asymmetrical information that favors the businesses– not the families.
Please open the link and finish the post. And while you are at it, subscribe to Peter’s wonderful blog.
Re: They want to eliminate public schools and in time shift the financial burden of schools to parents, not taxpayers.
I think it’s critical to understand that vouchers are meant to impose market dynamics on individual, narrowly self-interested consumer choices in the market, but, and it’s a Big Butt, the corporate charter sector that would ultimately control what’s available in the education market wants no deal sweeter than the power of diverting tax dollars into its coffers. That means the public, parents or otherwise, and also self-supporting college students will pay through the nose at both the subsidizing and the consuming ends of the market. This is of course the favorite end-game of all capital industries, pharma, telecom, and the supreme example, the defense industry, humongous tax support with no representation but token pseudo-oversight by bought and paid for politicians.
Exactly right, Jon.
If the money follows the child, the consumer foots the bill. Eventually, parents alone will pay because they are the beneficiaries.
But voucher money is still taxpayer money, not just parents of school-age children money, and the corporate charter industry will never want a pure private school system, paid wholly by the immediate consumer. The voucher will become the token the government doles out to parents, which they transfer to vendor as the price for that vendor to acknowledge their child’s existence. All actual ed values will cost extra in incremental levels like pay TV.
Vouchers are the libertarian and billionaire wish list. Only activist citizens that push back against this tyranny can stop them. Vouchers represent a tremendous loss for working families: destruction of public education; civil rights protection for students; inclusive, fact based education; instruction from qualified teachers; safety standards in school buildings; elected school boards and equal opportunities under the law.
The corporate charter con artists will exploit anyone’s gullibility as tools to their purpose of destroying public schools, and today’s pseudo-libertarians are as always high on that list. But the pseudo-libertarian in the street is a fool (duh, that’s a tautology) if he thinks he’ll get out of paying taxes. Billionaires of course will pay what they always do, nada, sheltered to the max in self-serving “charities”.
In a public school residents know where their funding is going. Where I worked, any resident was able to view and ask questions about the school district budget. Once the money becomes private property, it is easier for abundant, unaccountable public dollars to flow into private pockets. There is zero accountability for all those public dollars.
I agree, but it’s more about putting kids in boxes for economic purposes than it is about shifting financial burden. The real economic point of segregation and limitation is to limit competition for jobs so that the the select have the best pickins’. They claim the rhetoric of free market competition, but only with strict favoritism leading to rewards.
Well said, Jon!
IMO, the fight to save public schools would have gained greater traction to this point if the most strident of the schools’ attackers had been identified for what they are, conservative religious/ those who don’t want equality for women.
The right wing School Freedom Fund has links to Club for Growth which receives a lot of money from Richard Uihlein. Politico described in an article about the Uihleins, the dress code for women workers- hose and stockings except in warm weather, pants for women limited to when they are part of a pant suit or it’s Friday. Politico reported the Uihleins funded ads against transgender ideology, abortion and teaching about CRT.
A couple of adjacent organizations are the 1776 Project PAC and American Principles Project founded by Robert P George, a conservative Catholic, and Frank Cannon, a political strategist connected to SBA Pro-Life. Cannon is credited with growing the organization into one of the largest and most influential pro-life groups. Cannon’s agenda is made clear at CatholicCitizens.org, in an article he authored, “Social Conservatives Won’t Change Culture Without Politics.”
It’s likely that Uihlein’s political spending had impact in the election of a conservative Catholic Supreme Court in Ohio in 2022. We should none forget that a conservative Catholic majority on SCOTUS was largely credited to Leonard Leo, father of 9 kids.
Linda—it’s a big bandwagon, and there are lots of hangers-on. Absolutely you’ve pegged the evangelists and conservative Catholics, who are big beneficiaries of expanded voucher systems so far. (That covers a lot of MAGA types convinced by pols that pubschs, like all govt institutions, are evil.) Add corporate sector who see dismantling pubschsys as lowering OH costs of doing biz in US. Add fin sector [hedge-funders] & RE sector who profit from fed laws favoring various laws favoring school privatization. Add libertarians who’d like to dispense of all public goods & associated taxes. Add upper-middle class families who’ve been paying for higher-class privschs all along & get a state-paid discount on tuition. (Maybe even add Dem/liberal forces who’ve always pushed charters as escape hatch for bad inner-city schools, if they can exact govt oversight regs?)
Yes, public schools are seen as “socialistic” by some on the right. They also cost tax money instead of being a revenue source like private schools can be. They also are not normally religious, and thus teach young people to turn to evidence and science instead of revealed “truth.”
Private sector money (theofascist / libertarian ALEC, Walton, et al) funding vouchers and charter schools doesn’t want to just get rid of the public schools. They do not just want to do away with taxes that fund public schools, but all taxes at every level. They want to get rid of the IRS and state income taxes, too. They also want to US to default on its debt.
That means an end to Social Security, Medicare, unemployment support, SNAP, et al.
It is necessary to distinguish the producers of libertarian ideology (the Cons) from the consumers of libertarian ideology (their Marks).
If you examine the various resources supported by taxes you will find the corporate libertarians are perfectly fine with the government taxing the masses for the support of anything like infrastructure, private property protection, technology transfer (scientific R&D at public expense for conversion to private profit), ad infinitum, anything corporations depend on to conduct business as usual, just so long as government does not tax them. The kinds of social support they hate is anything that liberates the masses from lifelong low-wage slavery.
I gave a talk about this 18 years ago – this article is correct. After you chase down every supposed benefit of “vouchers”, you are left with nothing but massive amounts of public school money being transferred to private schools – parochial schools in particular. The public school kids who are not of great means will get totally screwed. Vouchers spell the end of the public school system. Those pushing it know this! There has always been a faction wanting to get rid of public schools altogether. This is a way for them to do it. Do not fall for the glossy, rosy claims they make for it.
Well said!
Agree with you, Bob.
“If the concern were really and truly choice for every student, then voucher fans would be addressing some of the real obstacles to school choice.”
True. Furthermore, if there was really and truly choice for every student, then there wouldn’t be any way to keep the bad people segregated. The boogeyman would be able to take the vouchers too. Keeping the down and out down — and out is the integral purpose of school choice. No one ever really thought they could help the poor with buy one get one free coupons for anything. They just can’t say it out loud.
And let’s keep in mind that the “school choice movement”– first step charters, now vouchers– has always been pushed by the libertarian element of Rep party [once a fringe, now occupying close to their center via Tea Party/ Chaos Caucus]. So look down the road at what hard-core libertarians really want after destruction of pubschsys & resulting lower taxes… No more compulsory K-12 ed, & repeal of child-labor laws. I kid you not.
Exactly. Newt Gingrich has been explicit about his support for repealing child labor laws.
What this is really about is providing a subsidy for religious schools. But rather than simply provide a direct subsidy to religious schools out of general state funds, or tax breaks (oops, they pay no taxes so that won’t work) the advocates of voucher programs propose paying for them through cuts to public education. This has several features, all of which are considered benefits by voucher proponents.
It is “free money” that requires no tax increases like a normal subsidy grant would. And it isn’t even coming out of state coffers, mostly it is coming from local school district coffers. State legislators are giving away free money that isn’t even theirs to give. There is no annual budgeting or figuring out where the money is coming from. You just take it from public schools.
It hurts the competition. Subsidies aside, every bit of pain imposed on public schools simply makes the alternative more attractive. If you run a private school, what’s not to like if your competition is diminished?
It provides the legal fiction that the money is going to the children, not the schools. Which is patently false. No child or parent ever gets a voucher check that they can deposit, or even use for home schooling. This avoids the uncomfortable idea that the state is subsidizing religion which is actually what is happening here. Most vouchers aren’t used on tony prep schools where kids wear cute uniforms and play lacrosse on lush green fields. Rather, they are used to fund “schools” in windowless cinder block church basements where kids are taught by volunteer moms using religious tracts. In most cases the accounting between church and school is very fluid.
I’m a public school teacher but I would have no real objection to a subsidy program for private schools provided: (1) the money comes from some other source. Tax oil companies or cut farm subsidies. I don’t care, there are plenty of public dollars that might be better spend in education, even private education. Just don’t take it from already struggling public schools; (2) hold voucher recipient schools to all the same accountability standards a public schools. Testing, curriculum standards, governance standards, open meeting standards, etc. If it is important to impose standardized testing on public school students then it should be equally important for private school students. Likewise, if state legislators think public school students should be held to common core, NGSS, or any other standards, then so should private school students. Otherwise why have those standards in the first place if they are unimportant for private school students to meet?
Of course since none of those things are ever going to happen then I oppose vouchers.
Excellent points, Kent.
We should all be very concerned that taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer. We should also be very concerned that the conservative Catholic majority on SCOTUS will expand the Biel decision that exempts religious schools from civil rights employment law to exempt all other religious organizations.
“the money comes from some other source. Tax oil companies or cut farm subsidies.”
That elephant in the tent done stepped on yo head and ya don’t even know it.
What elephant?
The US death and destruction machine. . . the US Military/Industrial Complex.
Well, except vouchers are state money so they would need to come out of some state-funded program or just get paid for out of state revenues. Defense is entirely Federal spending.
Re-posting my comment from a different blog entry:
Here’s a charming couple – and their 2500 subscribers – who seem to be great candidates for ESA’s or homeschooling vouchers.
Public schools really are a crossroads and cornerstone of our democracy, folks.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/home-school-nazis-telegram-dissident-saxon_n_63d596c4e4b01a43638e6a0a?vas
A big following in Ohio.
Nazi Ohio.
Doggone, Christine! You often send me articles I had not seen, and I am grateful. Carol Burris sent me this one and I’m posting it at 9 am tomorrow.
Happy to share information! #Retirement
Very honest commentary. We are being sold a bad deal. This movement is unsustainable.