Archives for the year of: 2023

I kept seeing references in the news toa documentary called “Shiny Happy People,” so I turned on Amazon Prime and watched four episodes at one sitting. It’s a fascinating look inside the world of Christian fundamentalism. The documentary focuses on the Duggar family, which achieved fame and fortune because they had 19 children. They live in Arkansas.

The Duggar family had its own TV program on TLC. Television cameras recorded every event in the family. They were the perfect, wholesome American family. Until they weren’t.

This is a good summary of the four episodes. You can see that the family was very attractive. Beautiful girls. Handsome boys. All the children did their chores. And all were home-schooled.

The Duggars belonged to a fundamentalist organization (a cult) called the Institute in Basic Life Principles. It was run by an evangelical preacher who taught a strict and patriarchal way of life. God reigns over man. Man rules over his wife. The parents rule over the children. Good parents administer corporal punishment.

The leader of IBLP knew how every family should act, but he was unmarried.

The father of the Duggar family was elected to the legislature.

It was the perfect family until word got out that the oldest son had molested some of his sisters. Eventually, you learn that the leader of the IBLP was accused of sexually assaulting a number of the attractive young women he chose as his assistants.

There are many interviews with thoughtful people, including some of the adult Duggar children, who reflect on being brainwashed.

We need to know who these Christian nationalists are because they are taking a major role in reshaping our nation and its politics. Nothing is said about national politics but it’s clear that the fundamentalists are a rock-solid part of the Republican Party.

To the extent they gain power, this will be a less tolerant, less open-minded society, indifferent to knowledge and hostile to science.

I hope you watch it.

Mayor Eric Adams has previously talked about the importance of bringing religion into public life. He has said that he doesn’t believe in separation of church and state.

On Father’s Day, he expressed his views on religion again and explained that God talks to him.

Mayor Eric Adams said Sunday that his decision to publicly discuss his religion, including controversially dismissing America’s separation of church and state, was actually suggested to him by God himself.

The pious pol was delivering an eight-minute Father’s Day sermon at the historic Lenox Road Baptist Church in Flatbush when he shed light on why he has chosen to speak more publicly on his Christian faith in recent months. A couple of months ago, the mayor said he awoke from his sleep in a cold sweat and was told by God to “talk about God.”

“And I started to say, don’t tell me about separation of church and state,” Adams told the Sunday parishioners. “Don’t tell me that when you took prayer out of school, guns came in. Don’t tell me that I have to remove my feeling of God. And you saw what happened! You saw all the front pages and the national stories, you know, how dare the most powerful mayor on the globe start talking about God! Because I don’t care what anyone say, it’s time to pray….”

Hizzoner’s conversation with God echoed one he says he had over 30 years ago, where the Lord not only told Adams he would one day be mayor, but even said exactly when it would happen: January 1, 2022, the day he assumed office.

“Thirty-something years ago, I woke up out of my sleep in a cold sweat. God spoke to my heart and said, ‘you are going to be the mayor January 1, 2022.’ And the message was clear. God stated, ‘you cannot be silent, you must tell everyone you know,’” preached Adams, who was a police officer at the time and would go on to become a State Senator and Brooklyn Borough President before being elected mayor. “I would go around the city, pastor, and I would tell everybody ‘I’m gonna be mayor January 1, 2022.’ People used to think I was on medication.”

Not forgetting the fatherly theme of the day, Adams began asking “how are the children,” which he said was a greeting used by the Maasai people of eastern Africa, before presenting a vision of crisis and bleakness among the city’s youth. Among other things, he used the opportunity to repeat a dubious claim that children start their days by going to bodegas and buying weed and fentanyl before going to school.

“How are the children? Young children are carving highways of death with 9 mm bullets, taking the lives of other children,” said Hizzoner. “How are the children? They start their day going to the local bodega, getting cannabis and fentanyl, and they sit in the classroom trying to learn, when we know what cannabis does to the brain of a child at an early age. How are the children? Social media is teaching them how to steal cars, how to disfigure their bodies, how to use drugs. How are the children? Depression is how, suicide is how! How are the children? Our children are in a state of disrepair, and we’re so busy trying to be popular to our babies instead of being parents to our children that we have to ask, how are the children.”

Of his relationship with his own son, rapper Jordan Coleman, the mayor said his job was never to be his son’s “buddy;” in fact, he said his son was “supposed to hate me” until he was an adult and realized his reasons for parenting the way he did. Later on Sunday, Adams said in a video that being Coleman’s father is the “best job” he’s ever had.

The mayor concluded his remarks by criticizing press coverage of him and his administration, particularly of his faith, and compared himself to Denzel Washington’s character in the 1989 Civil War film “Glory,” when he is set to be whipped for leaving his squadron to spend time with his love interest. Scars from previous whippings are seen, which Adams said represents how critical press coverage cannot hurt or deter him from his Godly mission.

“What do they think they can do to me? You try to beat me with your news articles? I’ve got the scars already,” said Hizzoner. “You try to beat me with your commentary? I got the scars already. You can’t do anything to me! I know whose voice I hear.”

God could not immediately be reached for comment.

Matt Barnum, writing in Chalkbeat, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined today to rule on whether charter schools are public or private.

The case at hand was a charter school in North Carolina that required girls to wear certain types of clothing. If the school were deemed “public,” its rule would be considered discriminatory. If it were deemed “private,” the school could write its own rules about student dress.

So the question remains open, and the Court of Appeals ruling that the school could not discriminate remains in place.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a case that hinged on whether charter schools are considered public or private.

The decision to punt indicates the highest court won’t offer an early hint on the validity of religious charter schools. It also leaves in place a patchwork of rulings on whether charter schools are considered private or public for legal purposes.

But the legal debates are not over.

“The issue will percolate and the Supreme Court will eventually hear a case,” predicted Preston Green, a professor of educational leadership and law at the University of Connecticut.

The case, Charter Day School. v. Peltier, focused on a dispute over a charter school’s dress code. The “classical” school in southeastern North Carolina had barred girls from wearing pants, as a part of an effort to promote “chivalry,” according to its founder.

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, some parents sued over this policy. They argued that the dress code amounted to sex-based discrimination and is illegal under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The school countered that it is not a government-run institution so is not bound by the Constitution, which does not apply to private organizations. (Charter Day also maintains that the dress code is not sexist.)

Last year, a divided circuit court sided with the parents. The majority ruled that charter schools, at least in North Carolina, are bound by the Constitution and that the dress code amounted to illegal discrimination.

The charter school appealed to the Supreme Court. Attorneys for the Biden administration argued that the lower court decision was correct and urged the court to accept that ruling. A string of conservative writers and groups had urged the court to take on the case.

On Monday, though, the Supreme Court declined to grant a hearing, leaving the circuit court decision in place. This indicates that there were not four justices who wanted to take on the case. As is typical, the court did not issue any further comment.

The case turned on whether Charter Day School is a private entity or a public “state actor.” This issue is also crucial for the brewing legal dispute over religious charter schools. If charter schools are state actors then they likely cannot be religious. If they are private, though, religious entities would have a stronger case for running charter schools. These debates will likely be tested in Oklahoma, which recently approved what could be the country’s first religious charter school. Ultimately, this may end up being sorted out via years of litigation — which could end up back at the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the court’s decision to pass on the case is a win for the parents who sought to change the North Carolina charter school’s dress codes.

Politico reported on the rising significance of “Moms for Liberty” among leading Republicans. “Moms” are known for their advocacy of censorship, book banning, and hatred for public schools.

BATTLE OF THE MOMS — Moms for Liberty is having a busy month.

The Southern Poverty Law Center labeled the organization an “anti-government extremist group” at the forefront of a movement to seize control of public schools. One of the group’s chapters in Indiana apologized after featuring a Hitler quote in a newsletter.

And later this week, one of the country’s fastest-growing conservative political outfits will gather its supporters and Republican presidential candidates at a dayslong rally in Philadelphia. A struggle for the hearts, minds and votes of American mothers ahead of the 2024 election is fully underway.

Former President Donald Trump is set to be the keynote speaker at Moms for Liberty’s “Joyful Warriors” summit. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also has a speaking slot. So do former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — as well as a Democratic challenger to President Joe Biden: anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“This election is, I think, probably the most important election of my lifetime,”Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice told your host. “There are a lot of other parents around the country that feel the same way.”

Moms for Liberty is not the first organization to capitalize on the political moment surrounding schoolchildren and families.

But the group’s ability to marshal much of the GOP presidential field to its second-ever national conference illustrates the power of a Florida-founded group that has harnessed pandemic-driven rage, social media and culture war politics to skyrocket to conservative stardom. The group now claims 285 chapters in 45 states and a membership that exceeds 115,000 people.

Its designation as an extremist group has even sparked fierce resistance from conservative politicians, school officials and media outlets while energizing fundraising. “If @Moms4Liberty is a ‘hate group,’ add me to the list,” Haley tweeted this month. Tickets to attend this week’s event are sold out.

Yet after a June like this one, don’t expect Moms for Liberty to immediately unite around one presidential candidate.

“American parents and kids are winning if all of these candidates care about the issues that we care about,”Justice said of the organization’s star-studded speaking list. “And we want to make sure we know where they stand.”

What’s needed now is for a group of activists to form a “Moms for Democracy” to stand up for American values of freedom, justice, equality, and the Constitution.

Gary Rubinstein joined Teach for America in its second cohort, three decades ago. He worked diligently for the organization but became disillusioned by its constant boasting and its in attention to preparing teachers well.

In this post, he notes that TFA has plenty of money j the bank, but it has lost its luster. In its glory days, it attracted 6,000 applicants. Now it gets only 2,000.

He writes:

In the last few years, TFA has shrunk. Their incoming corps size dropped from 6,000 to under 2,000. They recently laid off 25% of their staff. And those alumni education leaders have pretty much all resigned and faded into oblivion. TFA is at its lowest point since the mid 1990s.

So when I read about their big new announcement, I wondered what it might be. It turned out to be a ‘rebranding’ that they are really excited about. Basically, a new logo.

As a companion to the new logo, they released the most bizarre FAQ explaining the rationale of the new logo.

Open the link to understand why TFA is excited about its new logo.

The Houston Chronicle studied the demographics of the 29 schools that were the targets of the state takeover. Most had grades from the state of B. Even the school that precipitated the takeover—Wheatley High School—went from an F to a C. The takeover superintendent, Mike Miles, is a military man and a Broadie with no classroom experience. He was previously superintendent in Dallas, where he boasted of his lofty goals, but left after three years, having driven out a large number of teachers (he claims the only ones who left were those with low ratings). Once again, he has a plan, but his plan lacks any evidence behind it.

It’s now been two weeks since Superintendent Mike Miles announced his plans to overhaul 29 Houston Independent School District campuses under his “New Education System” plan. Now that HISD has released more details, the Houston Chronicle compiled and analyzed data on each of the campuses to get a clearer picture of the schools impacted by Miles’ plan.

Instead of focusing exclusively on struggling campuses, Miles’ New Education System plan mainly targets elementary and middle schools that “feed” into three struggling high schools in the district. Though the plan will reconstitute 29 total schools as a part of the system, a spokesperson for HISD clarified that only 28 traditional campuses will be impacted. The 29th school will be a temporary alternative education program which will be reformed and evaluated separately.

The schools chosen to participate in Miles’ “New Education System” are three high schools and their feeder schools.

The schools are largely low-income, Black and Latino schools

According to the Houston Chronicle’s analysis, each school included in Miles’ plan is either majority Black or majority Hispanic/Latino. The vast majority of students at each campus are also from low-income families.

At the schools impacted by Miles’ plan, the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students – which is measured by the amount of students who qualify for free and reduced price lunches – is higher than the average across HISD. In the 2021-2022 school year, the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students at the campuses in Miles’ plan was 98%, while the district average was 83%, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

New Education System schools demographics

Every school in Mike Miles’ New Education System plan has either a majority Black or majority Latino student population, and most students at the schools are from low-income families, according to data from the 2021-2022.

Most of the schools are 90-95% Black.

Most schools are already performing well

In terms of accountability ratings, many of the schools targeted in Miles’ overhaul have not underperformed in recent years. In 2022, the majority of schools included in the plan received “A” or “B” ratings, and only five of the schools were given a “Not Rated” label under SB 1365 – which exempted schools from ratings that would have received a “D” or “F” last year.

Though the three high schools at the heart of the Miles’ plan – Kashmere, North Forest and Wheatley – have had three of the five highest failure rates in the district, North Forest and Wheatley both received passing ratings in 2022.

Additionally, Miles’ plan includes four campuses that are unconnected to the three struggling high schools. These campuses include Highland Heights Elementary and Henry Middle, which also have some of the worst failure rates in the district, and Sugar Grove Academy and Marshall Elementary, which both received passing ratings in 2022 but have struggled in prior years.

So, at the point of takeover, the most troubled schools in HISD were on an upswing, making progress under the leadership of an experienced educator (who was quickly hired by Prince George’s County in Maryland). And now they are led by a Broadie who failed to make a difference in Dallas.

It would not be a stretch to believe that Governor Abbott, a mean and vindictive man—is punishing Houston for not voting for him.

Dan Rather and his friend Eliot Kirschner recently wrote about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s was against vaccines, which is either cynical or insane. You choose.

They wrote on the blog Steady:

When historians look back to analyze this era’s toxic irrationality, they may well focus on the anti-vaccine movement.

How tragic that we have to stand up and defend one of the most successful health innovations in the history of our species. Vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives and eradicated or greatly reduced scourges like smallpox and polio. They have protected millions from the worst effects of COVID and hastened a return to our pre-pandemic way of life, even though the dangers of the disease are not fully behind us.

Vaccines are also incredibly safe, especially when compared to all the other things people put into their bodies. There is no reputable scientific debate over any of this.

But none of these facts have dissuaded the instigators of ignorance, the cultivators of conspiracy theories, and the sellers of pseudoscience. They have whipped up their throngs of followers into a mania around vaccines that threatens the safety of this country and the world. And they have targeted doctors, scientists, and other medical professionals — the very people trying to keep us healthy.

This past weekend, we saw a particularly grave example of this destructive dynamic. Joe Rogan, the right-wing podcast host and frequent amplifier of conspiracy theories, welcomed notorious anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jr. to his show. Kennedy is running for president as a Democratic challenger to President Biden, even though he sounds more like a MAGA Republican. Not surprisingly, he spouted his usual nonsense about the alleged dangers of vaccines, and Rogan ate it up.

That would have been bad enough. But the incident quickly escalated across social media and into the general press in a manner that speaks to our particularly troubled times. Pediatrician and vaccine expert Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, shared this article from Vice: “Spotify Has Stopped Even Sort of Trying to Stem Joe Rogan’s Vaccine Misinformation.” Spotify, the online music service, hosts Rogan’s podcast.

The response to Dr. Hotez’s tweet — which has now been viewed more than 28 million times — was a tidal wave of bananas. The doctor, a prominent voice on the importance of reputable science, was already a boogeyman for the anti-vaxxers and COVID deniers. They were ready to pounce. Rogan challenged Dr. Hotez to come on his podcast to “debate” Kennedy.

Then Elon Musk piled on and attacked Dr. Hotez on Twitter, which further empowered the legions of right-wing radicals. Dr. Hotez said he was confronted by anti-vaxxers outside his home. Scientists, journalists, and even business leaders like Mark Cuban jumped to the researcher’s defense against the onslaught of anti-science nonsense from Rogan, Musk, and their confederates.

There are many angles to this particular story that highlight the bad faith of the vaccine critics. They like to paint promoters of inoculations as tools of “Big Pharma.” But Dr. Hotez has developed a patent-free vaccine for COVID, which means neither he nor a big drug company will benefit financially from its use. Furthermore, going onto a podcast to talk about vaccines with Kennedy is not a “debate” — it’s performative nonsense. We don’t have NASA scientists debate flat Earthers.

And the idea that this is a matter of free speech is undercut when Musk uses the platform he bought to intimidate responsible voices by unleashing the mob (not to mention that we aren’t talking about government prosecution). In the wake of this episode, reports indicate scientists are (understandably) leaving Twitter in greater numbers because it has become an increasingly vile environment for mainstreaming anti-science harassment.

More generally, this episode represents another data point in a very disturbing trend, one exacerbated by, but not limited to, COVID or vaccines. Science is under siege from powerful players in American politics, business, and culture. It is largely a phenomenon of the modern Republican party and its reactionary allies, but not exclusively. It can be seen in our haphazard response to the climate crisis but also in a broad assault on data, expertise, and knowledge. This overall, general attack on science as a whole is a threat to our national security, health, and welfare.

Science can be a wonderfully encouraging and hopeful endeavor. It is a means for learning about the mysteries of life and the universe. It can lead to solutions for seemingly intractable problems. It is why cancer is not always a death sentence, why we can turn sunlight into clean electricity and take pictures of distant stars. Scientists aren’t perfect, of course. They are humans, after all. But science offers a way for us to arrive at important truths and then figure out where to go from there.

The likes of Kennedy, Rogan, and Musk are robbing us of this better future. By sowing discord and confusion, they are turning science and medicine into political footballs they toss back and forth at the public’s expense. But ultimately, the truth often wins out. Dr. Hotez and those who support him are standing up to the destructive bullying. In their courage and commitment, we can find reasons for hope.

Lisa Haver is a retired teacher in Philadelphia and a tireless advocate for the kids and teachers of that city. She writes here about the undemocratic methods of tha Philadelphia school board, which prefers to operate without transparency.

She wrote the following report with Lynda Rubin on behalf of the Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools.

The board’s speaker suppression policies are now doing double duty: not just to keep members of the community from speaking but to keep them out of the room altogether. A guard at the door to the auditorium told Lynda Rubin she could go in because she was on the speaker list but barred Lisa Haver because she wasn’t. Haver had tried to sign up but was told by the board that she would not be one of the 30 chosen speakers. She told the guard he could arrest her but that she was going in. Last month some APPS members were detained downstairs because they were not on the list…

Board Denies Charter Reapplication
In the end, the board voted 7-2 to deny the re-application submitted by Global Leadership Academy to operate a high school in the Logan section of North Philadelphia. But that was after a lengthy deliberation session in which some board members, bordering on groveling, expressed their regret at having to deny GLA. BM Sarah Ashley Andrews declared her allegiance to GLA CEO Naomi Booker, who makes approximately $450,000 annually to oversee one school, advising her, “Don’t be defeated.” BM Lam, on the other hand, challenged the statements of praise for GLA’s program. She cited the 1% Math achievement rate and poor attendance at the GLA schools. Most board comments centered around the contents of the application, not the increased stranded costs to the district or how another charter school in Logan would affect the neighborhood’s public schools. The entire process, from Charter Schools Office Director Peng Chao’s presentation and subsequent Q & A session, to the board’s final vote on Item 78, took almost an hour.

Not What Democracy Looks Like
President Streater began the voting session, at 10:37 pm, by quickly rattling off the numbers of the items remaining on the agenda after the vote on Item 78 and the withdrawal of six other items. He instructed the board that all 71 items would be included in one roll call vote. As the individual board members began to enumerate their No votes and abstentions before the vote, Lisa Haver stood up to object. After the vote concluded, and General Counsel Lynn Rauch read the tally, Streater allowed her to come to the mic. Haver objected to the board’s voting on 71 items, for contracts totalling almost half a billion dollars, in one roll call vote, calling the process “shameful”. She also reminded the board that members who abstain from a vote because of a potential conflict must clearly identify the conflict. Streater did not respond. BM Cecelia Thompson, a longtime community advocate herself, said later, “I agree with Ms. Haver.” Thompson said that taxpayers do have a right to know how their money is being spent. Hopefully Thompson will refuse to participate at the next meeting and demand that each item be deliberated and voted on separately.

This is not just a procedural question. We tallied 29 items on the agenda that do not include a provision for any bidding process. The board is passing items for no-bid contracts after barring the public from speaking on most of them, attempting to keep people out of the room, conducting little to no public deliberation on them, and voting on all of them in one vote.

We wrote to the board after the April incident, pointing out that they had only set up 82 chairs in an auditorium that seats 240 people. Thus, the same people who were denied the right to speak now no longer have the right to be present. Did the board not want APPS to witness its voting to spend over $500 million in taxpayer money on 78 official items? Or voting on a charter application that would cost the district hundreds of millions over the next five years? A governmental body not accountable to the public can become tyrannical and dictatorial. We need an elected school board.

In response to APPS’ letter to the board after the April action meeting, Streater defended the practice by citing the board’s need for “efficiency”. Neither the City’s Home Rule Charter nor the board’s own mission statement mandates efficiency. The board promises community engagement and transparency, then conducts its business in a hurried and secretive manner.

Among the contracts passed with little to no deliberation:
Items 73 and 74: $40 million for new Reading and Math curricula, which, according to teachers familiar with the programs, replaces book-centered programs with online programs for every student in every grade from pre-K through 12th. Why does the board and the Watlington administration want to do this? Do children need more on-screen time? Many parents are limiting screen time for health issues and because of the built-in tracking system.

When will democracy come to the city that is the cradle of democracy?

Peter Greene looks into the Koch-funded voucher lobby in West Virginia and finds a fairly accurate portrayal of the dystopian future that lies ahead.

First, he details the background of the leaders of the voucher lobby. All have long-time connections to rightwing causes. Most were hired to push West Virginia’s expansive voucher plan, which passed in 2021.

If ever there was a state that needs a strong public school system, it’s West Virginia. But with big Koch money, the Koch puppets will make that impossible.

Instead of good public schools, West Virginians will have the “freedom” to find a good education on their own!

After identifying the staff and board, Greene writes:

So we’ve got the picture now– Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy (which belongs to the State Policy Network) is a Koch organization.

Cardinal Institute is all for the usual Koch version of liberty. They are pushing a West Virginia Miracle, and the four pillars are “Economic Freedom, Labor Freedom, Education Freedom, and Montani Semper Liberi – a culture of freedom.” They would like to promote “limited government, economic freedom, and personal responsibility.” They’ve got a podcast– “Forgotten America.” And they promise a “new paradigm”–

An “island” of poverty in the wealthiest country the world, West Virginia’s brighter future depends on a new paradigm – a new way of looking at the world with new ideas and a philosophy built on innovation, human flourishing, and a recognition that freedom is the greatest alleviator of poverty the world has ever seen. Ours is a philosophy built on the entrepreneur, the tinkerer in the garage, and the idea that small government means more room for people to create and build their own futures.

It’s a curious pitch in a state that is not exactly known for government overreach. West Virginia is a state with a history of labor struggles and a history of state government that exerts its power mostly to aid guys like Charles Koch. Regular people have always had plenty of room in this state that is renowned for its poverty— worst healthworst education levelsworst employment, and geography that makes it hard for basic infrastructure like roads and water and electricity and internet to reach some citizens. (And at least one community gutted by the departure of its WVU college campus–but hey, they’re free now.) It’s hard to imagine that any of these problems would be solved by less government, but libertarians gotta libertarian.

So what does Ballangee say about Mount Everest?

In his Education Next piece, Ballangee comes close to honesty about the larger goals of his particular arm of the school voucher movement. 

There is a common misconception among education reform advocates that passing universal choice legislation is akin to summiting Mount Everest. Upon universal choice’s enactment into law, it is done. Time to exhale and pop the champagne, for the mountain has been scaled.

In other words, voucher laws are not the end game. Simply making a voucher program available is not enough.

Next, the program has to be pushed and promoted. There will be a urge, then a steady growth “as families become aware of the program and hear from neighbors, fellow church attendees, and other connections about their new options” (just in case you had doubts about voucher ties to religion). Nut awareness must be built and PR must be provided to popularize the program.

Failure for an education choice program does not often come in the form of mistakes, fraud, or incompetence. More frequently, the problems are apathy and ignorance.

I don’t know. There’s an awful lot of fraud and incompetence in the school choice world. Nor am I sure how the lack of interest in a choice program is not the same thing as a lack of market demand. But of course modern marketing means creating a demand for your product. So, Ballangee asserts, somebody will need to work on that.

Someone will also need to build/attract a supply of educational “providers.” “Help private schools sign up,” he says, skipping over the question of why a successful private school would want to sign up. Somebody has to reach out to edupreneurs and get them signed up, too. Basically, be an education broker.

Now that choicers need to spend less time lobbying legislators, “the nexus of a successful program [he means a privatizing program, not an educational program] will shift somewhat from legislative considerations, lobbying, and bill design towards family outreach and relationship cultivation, specific government agency relationships, and broad marketing campaigns.”

Also, you’ll have to prepare for those “legions of entities” looking to “besmirch” the program (public education establishment, unions, union-friendly media). 

And this–

You have to figure out how – not if – to help the families about to embark on this journey for the first time…

You must figure out how to manage each “case” not only for the sake of the family and child but also for the overall health of the program.

There will be grandparents who have never used a computer now asked to upload a birth certificate on their grandchild’s behalf. There will be parents with limited education who know only one thing when it comes to navigating this fresh bureaucratic concoction: “my child needs something different.” Be sympathetic, but, more importantly, develop competence.

Learn the law and accompanying statutes backwards and forwards or find someone who does. You must have a path or contact for families to use. “I don’t know the answer, but I know someone who might” will become one of the most useful phrases in your reform handbook.

In short, Ballengee is outlining all the new business opportunities available on the mountaintop voucher peak. The only one he left out was the booming business in K-12 education loans for all those parents for whom state’s voucher won’t cover the cost of their education provider. Not only will government stop providing public education, but there are many opportunities to make a buck or ten in the newly free and unregulated marketplace of education stuff.

The Koch mountaintop

Because here’s what “freedom” means on Koch mountain– you are free to try to get to the top if you can, and I am free to ignore any of your problems (unless you pay me to help you), because the dream remains a world in which I have no responsibility to my fellow travelers on the earth (and certainly don’t have to pay taxes to provide services for Those People). 

Ballangee isn’t going to have any discussion of how well vouchers work as far as education goes (hint: not very well). But that’s okay, because, as he says, “education choice is good and a moral necessity.” I’m of the opinion that guaranteeing each child a decent education is the moral necessity, and, as always, I question the assumption that “education choice” must somehow involve the free market, one of the great unexamined assumptions of the modern choicer movement. Are choice and freedom important values in life? Damn right they are–which is why we as a society bear a responsibility for getting every child an education that will help them freely access more choices.

In the end, Ballengee’s mountain is one that Ayn Rand would probably approve of.

Though the last few steps up the mountain are the steepest and most difficult, they are also closest to what we are looking for when we embark on our journey: helping children find their own path to their own personal summit.

In other words, I’ve got my summit, Jack. Go find your own. 

“Helping” I suppose could mean choice advocates just helping out of the goodness of their hearts (though their hearts, bless them, don’t know much about actual education). But I suspect that help will be provided, for a price (or a cut of your voucher), to those who can find it and access it while navigating a sprawling unregulated complicated marketplace. It’s funny, because another thing we could do is collect all the experts in delivering education under one roof, where they’d be easy to find. And we could pay them with public tax dollars, and recruit and hire them with the understanding that they are there to help students climb their own personal mountain. But then some of us would have to pay taxes to fund it, and they might not be willing to make it all about christianist ideas. 

So instead, Koch-trained folks imagine a mountain, an Everest. By the way, do you know what Everest looks like these days? It’s a crowded mess of wealthy, resource-rich tourists who are hiring someone else to guide them. Well, that’s Everest.

The peak of the school voucher mountain looks a lot like wealthy, well-resourced folks looking down at the folks struggling on the slopes of other mountains and saying, “Well, don’t they look free. I wonder if they’ll make it.”

Paul Bonner is a retired public school leader.

He has an idea for the Democratic Party that would resonate with the 90% of Americans who went to public schools and whose children attend public schools.

Here’s an ad I would run if I were a PAC supporting the Democratic Party:

Narrator: (As numerous images of schools, students, and teachers engaged in learning are shown across the screen)

“In the early twentieth century the United States of America reinforced a universal commitment to Public Schools. This resulted in an economic powerhouse that generated more wealth than at any time in the history of the world. The alumni of these schools led Democratic governments in the defeat of tyranny in World War II and resulted in the establishment of universities that are the envy of the world. Industry and finance thrived. Yes, the public schools did this.”

(Pan to politicians advocating privatization and attacking teachers)

“Today, there are those who would like to pretend that the public schools have been a failure. That government efforts to educate our children could never produce the work force that would result from subsidies for private efforts. They are wrong!”

(Show closed charter buildings and parents seeking help for their children)

“Any implementation of vouchers has resulted in subsidies for those who already attend private schools, charters have not outperformed public schools academically, and closing public schools with unfulfilled promises of better results has resulted in decimated communities.”


(Pan to schools and parents who are engaged with their public schools in the myriad of ways this happens every day).

The only way to improve educational opportunity in America is to vigorously fund our Public Schools. To support teachers through greater resources, district support, and higher pay. To provide facilities that are equally great in all communities. America has thrived through our support of public schools. We as citizens, need to recommit to Public Schools with our purse and our fervor.”