In 2018, voters in Arizona overwhelmingly rejected expansion of the state’s voucher program. Despite the decisive vote against vouchers, the legislature made vouchers available to every student, regardless of income or need.
Today about 7-8% of the state’s students use vouchers at an annual cost nearing $1 billion a year.
Most of the voucher students never attended public schools. In other words, the universal voucher program is mostly subsidizing the tuition of students already enrolled in private and religious schools.
He writes:
Save Our Schools Arizona reports on the rampant fraud in that state’s school voucher scheme:
Arizona Republican leaders and Superintendent Tom Horne have long insisted that fraud in Arizona’s ESA voucher program is minimal. “One percent or less,” Horne often has said — but 12News has obtained new public records from Horne’s AZ Dept. of Education (ADE) that tell a very different story. Documents show unallowable purchases — spending explicitly banned under ESA voucher program rules — may account for about 20 percent of transactions. That’s one in five.
These purchases are among more than 100 prohibited items listed in the ESA Parent Handbook. Accounts that make such purchases are supposed to be suspended or removed from the program by the ADE. However, according to 12News, “the spending continues as Horne contends his department uses risk-based auditing that will eventually catch wrongdoing.”
84,000 unallowable purchases??? 12News found an ADE memo covering ESA voucher spending from December 2022 through last September found that of 385,000 ESA purchases reviewed by Horne’s ADE, nearly 84,000 were deemed unallowable — or more than 20 percent of all transactions that should have been refused by the ADE!
Stephen Dyer is a former legislator in Ohio who keeps track of the budgetary impact of school choice on the state’s public schools. Despite multiple voucher programs, 85% of the state’s 1,000,000 children attend public schools. Dyer’s blog is called Tenth Period.
Ohio’s State Constitution contains explicit language supporting public schools and equally explicit language barring the public funding of religious schools.
Article VI of the Ohio State Constitution says:
“The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.”
Nothing ambiguous there, but Republicans in Ohio ignore or creatively distort the State Constitution.
So I came across an interesting piece of information today. Since 2021, Ohioans went from unconstitutionally subsidizing the private school tuitions of a little over 3 in 10 private school students to more than 8 in 10 today.
At an astounding pricetag of a 313 percent increase — at least — in taxpayer subsidies¹.
Yes, Ohio’s private schools have seen an enrollment increase. However, that 22,000 student increase represents barely 1 percent of the 1.9 million students enrolled in all Ohio schools this year.
And the funding has vastly outstripped the rate of unconstitutional voucher growth — resulting in a nearly 20 percent per pupil funding increase for private schools.
So get this.
State leaders have spent the last 5 years increasing unconstitutional voucher spending by $600 million, demonizing public education, putting on a full-court press to convince people to take unconstitutional vouchers and that’s netted them … barely a 1 percent increase in the private school share of Ohio’s school enrollment?
Pretty awful ROI, don’t you think?
Especially when you consider that by unconstitutionally subsidizing the private school tuitions of mostly wealthy people like Les Wexner, the state is literally funding a separate, second educational system in direct contravention of the state constitution.
And it has meant they have been unable (unwilling?) to fully pay for the state’s school funding formula for the 85 percent of students attending Ohio’s public schools. The state’s public school funding comes out of the same budget pot as its voucher money.
So the only way for voucher proponents to convince any good-faith judge or group of judges that they are not funding a second, unconstitutional and unaccountable² school system is to actually shrink the number of vouchers.
Which they’ll never do.
This fact, as much as any, helps explain state Rep. Jamie Callender’s recent attempt to bully the suing school districts into dropping the case— a threat from which he has (kinda) weaklybacked down.
For if these suing school districts continue to stand strong, Callender and his overlord, Speaker Matt Huffman — lawyers, both — know they are screwed.
Legally speaking.
Footnotes:
1. I’m only including the two EdChoice programs and the Cleveland voucher program because those are the ones at issue in the current lawsuit. These numbers are, obviously, higher if you include the autism and special needs vouchers. Also, as with every current year data analysis of vouchers, the funding numbers are estimates because we don’t have readily accessible current year dollar figures for the vouchers, just the number of students whose schools are now eligible to get them. So I multiplied last year’s per pupil amount for each of the voucher programs to reach the $861.6 million figure. It’s probably going to be more because per pupil voucher funding always increases.
2. Remember that not a penny of the $8 billion+ we’ve spent on unconstitutional private school tuition subsidies since 1996 has been audited.
Good news for Kentucky’s public schools and taxpayers! Unlike the Supreme Courts in Ohio and Indiana, Kentucky’s Supreme Court ruled that the State Constitution means what it says.
The court unanimously upheld a lower court’s block of House Bill 9
Justices said charter schools aren’t “common schools” under the state constitution
Public funds for schools outside the “common” system require voter approval
Lawmakers could pursue charter schools only with a constitutional amendment
The court unanimously agreed with a lower court’s decision to block House Bill 9, which would have let publicly funded charter schools open in Kentucky. The justices ruled that charter schools, as they are set up now, are not considered public schools under the constitution, so they cannot get public funds without voter approval.
At issue are Sections 183, 184, and 186 of the Kentucky Constitution, which say the General Assembly must provide an “efficient system of common schools” and that public school funds may be allocated only to this system. The court said charter schools operate outside local school district control, can cap enrollment and are exempt from many regulations governing traditional public schools, placing them outside the constitutional definition of “common schools.”
Many years ago, I visited Kentucky to speak to the state school board association. The walls were decorated with banners from school districts. Clearly, the students, parents, and educators of Kentucky are devoted to their public schools. But the charter industry was determined to plant charter schools in Kentucky, even though the State Constitution requires a common school system.
The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Republican-backed bill establishing a statewide public charter school system was unconstitutional.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Michelle Keller, the state’s high court struck down 2022’s House Bill 9, which would have allowed approved groups to create and oversee charter schools funded with public education dollars.
Keller wrote that the language of the Kentucky Constitution with regard to the “common schools” system is clear on this front. She cited Section 184 of the document, which set up the public schools system. “The interest and dividends of said fund… shall be appropriated to the common schools, and to no other purpose. No sum shall be raised or collected for education other than in common schools until the question of taxation is submitted to the legal voters, and the majority of the votes cast at said election shall be in favor of such taxation,” the section reads.
Keller’s opinion echoed a lower court ruling from Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd. “Charter schools are not ‘common schools’ as contemplated under Sections 183, 184, and 186 of the Kentucky Constitution,” Keller wrote.
Charter schools — schools that are publicly funded but operated by independent groups with fewer regulations than most public schools — are technically legal in Kentucky, but HB 9 would have created a mechanism for funding them with public dollars. The bill legalizing charter schools, but not building in a mechanism to fund them, was passed in 2017 as a priority bill under then-Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican.
Since defeating Bevin in 2019, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear has been a staunch opponent of funding charter schools.
Keller wrote that the court’s opinion does not amount to an evaluation of the policy arguments for charter schools, but rather the plain language of the constitution. “We cannot sell the people of Kentucky a mule and call it a horse, even if we believe the public needs a mule,” she wrote.
The law labeled charter schools as part of the state’s public education system but exempted them from many statutes and regulations governing traditional local school districts.
Keller wrote that the “public” label on those schools was something of a misnomer. “Our precedent… requires the system to be ‘unitary and uniform’ and not duplicative. It does not allow for a parallel system which is not within the common school system. A system that calls itself ‘public’ must be accountable to the public. Simply putting the label ‘public’ on something does not make it such,” Keller wrote.
Mercedes Schneider is an amazing person, a keen-eyed researcher, and a gifted writer. She has a Ph.D. in applied statistics and research. She could have been a college professor, but she preferred to be a high school teacher. She understands the work, and she understands the students. That’s way different from journalists, who write best-selling books about schools based on their cursory experience, or scholars, who write their books based on data, not the lives of teachers or students.
I met Mercedes in the early days of the corporate reform movement, the one led by billionaires. With her sharp intellect, she saw through the hoax immediately. She saw what happened in New Orleans; she observed the influx of TFA teachers to staff the new charter schools. She was never taken in by the grandiose rhetoric of the reformers. She understood that the real goal of the so-called movement was not to improve public schools but to privatize public funding of schools.
In a remarkable burst of energy, she wrote three books in three years:
A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who in the Implosion of American Public Education (2014).
Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools (2015).
School Choice: The End of Public Education? (2016).
And she is still in the classroom.
I am now honored that Mercedes has reviewed my memoir. As you would expect, the review is insightful. She understood what I was trying to do: to pull away whatever artifice or cover there might be, and to lay my life bare. It’s not easy to do. She understood.
I urge you to open the link and read her perceptive review. It’s vintage Mercedes.
Here is a conundrum: Policymakers and pundits insist that public school students and teachers must be held accountable or they won’t make any progress. Students must regularly tested to make sure they are learning prescribed curriculum.
So-called “education reformers” are all in favor of standards, tests, and accountability. Such a strategy, they insist, drives higher test scores.
But when it comes to voucher students, the “reformers” fall silent. Voucher students don’t need accountability, don’t need testing, don’t need state standards.
Why the double standards? Why should voucher students get public money and be exempt from state testing?
New Hampshire just concluded that debate. Democrats proposed that voucher students take the same tests as public school students. Republicans opposed the bill.
CONCORD — The House defeated a proposal to require Education Freedom Account students evaluation results be reported to the Department of Education.
House Bill 1716 would require the results of national standardized and state assessment testing for EFA students to be reported to the department, along with an assessment of a student’s portfolio by a certified teacher.
The bill would also require the department to develop guidelines for assessing the portfolios and what information is needed in order to progress to the next grade level.
The department would review all the data to determine academic proficiency rates for EFA students based on graduation rate, grade level, gender, race, and differentiated aid categories.
The prime sponsor of the bill Rep. Tracy Bricchi, D-Concord, told the House as a former educator for 35 years she does not agree with those who say public education is bad for the country and communities.
“You hear public education is failing and throwing money at it will not improve the outcome,” she said, while the state has spent millions of dollars on the EFA program with no consistent data to support claims it is widely successful.
This bill would provide the data needed to support those claims, Bricchi said, using the three assessment paths in the statute.
It would also tighten the portfolio requirements to ensure clear documentation of student progress, she said.
“If you spend taxpayer funds,” Bricchi said, “you owe it to taxpayers and people to produce clear data to ensure the money is spent (effectively).”
But Rep. Margaret Drye, R-Plainfield, argued state assessment testing is done for students in grades three through eight and one year of high school, while the bill would require testing of every grade level, every year for EFA students.
And she said in public schools parents may opt their child out of assessment testing, but there is no such provision in the HB 1716 for EFA students.
She said a very successful evaluation process has been in place for 40 years for homeschooled students, but is not available in the bill.
The legislation places a burden on 10,000 EFA students that is not on 160,000 public school students, Drye maintained.
But Peggy Balboni, D-Rye, said the success of public schools is determined by the statewide assessment scores, but EFA students do not have to provide that information or other assessments to the Department of Education.
This bill would allow the same public reporting of the results for EFA students, she said.
“All students who are taxpayer funded should be held to the same evaluation reporting standards,” Balboni said. “This will allow the reporting of EFA students’ academic data to determine if indeed the EFA program is widely successful.” The bill was killed on a 194-166 vote.
Blogger Meg White posted on her WordPress blog (@reflectionsined) about Senator Bernie Sanders’ opposition to vouchers, which are overwhelmingly used by students who are already enrolled in private schools and are free to discriminate. The Trump administration has passed voucher legislation and is encouraging the spread of vouchers. In theory, vouchers enable poor students to transfer to better schools. In practice and in reality, vouchers are a subsidy for the rich.
Meg is an advocate for public schools and co-author of a valuable book about desegregation in New Orleans and how it affected one school: William Frantz Public School: A Story of Race, Resistance, Resiliency, and Recovery in New Orleans.
Last week, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) released a report that addresses the federal school voucher program. In the report, Sanders charges that “The Trump administration’s school privatization agenda threatens our nation’s public schools and harms working-class students, students with disabilities, and students from diverse religious backgrounds” (forbes.com). Sanders is a ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP).
Sanders said, “President Trump and his billionaire campaign contributors have been working overtime to create a two-tier education system in America: private schools for the wealthy and well-connected and severely under-funded public schools for low-income and working-class students. That is unacceptable. This report makes clear that vouchers are being used to benefit private schools that reject students because they have a disability or because of their religion, and benefit some of the wealthiest families in America. Trump’s voucher program will only make a bad situation even worse(sanders.senate.gov).
The report analyzed state-level school voucher programs, including 111 SGOs and 1,600 voucher-accepting private schools across eleven states.
The report finds that school voucher programs:
Subsidize private education for the rich. School vouchers, on average, cover just 39% of middle school private school tuition across the sampled states. Even with a private school voucher, tuition prices are often out of reach for working-class families, meaning that the vouchers function as a subsidy to the rich who can already afford to pay for private education.
Allow private schools to systematically deny admission to students with disabilities, limit how many students with disabilities they serve, only serve children with certain types of disabilities or charge extra tuition. While public schools must provide all students with the same opportunities to learn and excel, 48% of private schools analyzed in this report choose not to provide all students with disabilities with the services, protections and rights provided to those students in public schools under the IDEA.
Enable private schools to discriminate against students based on their religion. This report finds that despite the fundamental right of freedom of religion enshrined in our constitution, voucher programs benefit private schools that discriminate against students based on their religious beliefs. Specifically, 17% of private schools reviewed in this report charge different tuition rates based on the family’s religious beliefs.
Benefit private schools that lack basic credentialing, accountability and transparency requirements. Fewer than half of states reviewed require private schools to be accredited, while even fewer require student learning assessments. Unacceptably, only two states require teacher credentials in private schools receiving vouchers (sanders.senate.gov).
“Bottom line, in my view, we should be strengthening and expanding public education, the foundation of American democracy, where Black and White and Latino, rich and poor kids come together in one room” rather than privatizing public education, Sanders said (k-12.com).
The report comes ahead of a HELP Committee hearing where Arizona Education Association President Marisol Garcia will testify about the harms of private school vouchers in her state, which has the nation’s largest universal school voucher program and is a cautionary tale for the rest of the nation. The state is now spending nearly $1 billion annually on private school vouchers, while public schools are being forced to shut down (sanders.senate.gov).Researchers found that the use of vouchers in Arizona is highest in affluent school districts, and lowest in poorer school districts. More than half of voucher students came from the wealthiest quarter of zip codes in the state, with median incomes ranging from $81,000 to $178,000. Most of those students have never attended public schools (azmirror.com).
After Florida cleared the way in 2023 for any family in the state to get a taxpayer-funded school voucher regardless of income, students signed up in droves. Enrollment in the voucher program has almost doubled to half a million children. But by the end of the 2024-25 school year, the program cost $398 million more than expected. When students switched between public schools and voucher-funded programs, tax dollars did not move with them as lawmakers had promised. “On any given day, Florida’s education department did not know where 30,000 students were going to school and could not account for the $270 million in taxpayer funds it took to support them, according to the state Senate Appropriations Committee on Pre-K-12 Education” (msn.com). in 2023, of the 122,895 new students who signed up for vouchers, 69% (84,505) were already in private school, 13% (16,096) came from public schools, and the remainder were new kindergarteners (ncpecoalition.org).
According to the Arkansas Department of Education, 95% of the participants in the state’s universal voucher program had never attended public schools before receiving a voucher (ncpecoalition.org).
Most students in Indiana’s voucher program come from well-off families. During the 2022-2023 school year, voucher recipients were more likely to come from families that made more than $100,000 per year than families that made less than $50,000 per year (the74million.org).
Since Ohio expanded its voucher program to wealthy families, the percentage of low-income students using vouchers in Cleveland fell from 35% to 7%. Now, most Ohio voucher students did not attend public schools before they took a voucher: the percentage of voucher students statewide who had already attended a private school in the year prior jumped from 7% in 2019 to almost 55% in 2023 (ncpecoalition.org).
State-provided data shows that about two-thirds of students receiving vouchers in Iowa’s new statewide program were already attending private schools before getting taxpayer money for tuition. Only about 13% of voucher recipients had ever previously attended a public school (ncpecoalition.org).
Savannah Newhouse, Department of Education Press Secretary commented, “Opponents of President Trump’s Education Freedom Tax Credit are quick to lecture about equity and fairness, but they’re fighting to keep families trapped in failing government-run schools and environments that don’t meet kids’ needs. The reality is this historic tax credit, funded entirely from private philanthropic dollars, puts parents in the driver’s seat—supporting scholarships that can be used for tutoring at public schools, tuition, and essential services for students with disabilities. Expanding school choice levels the playing field so that every family, no matter their income or needs, can better prepare their child for success”. (forbes.com).
Sure, because it’s working so well.
Public Schools in the U.S. educate 90% of the children. Strengthening and supporting public education is essential to maintaining a fair and equitable society. As Sanders’ report illustrates, universal voucher programs serve as a taxpayer-funded subsidy for the wealthy, leaving working-class families behind. Diverting billions of dollars to unregulated private schools not only creates massive budget shortfalls but also destabilizes neighborhood schools that serve the vast majority of American children.
These are my reflections for today.
If you like what you’re reading, consider sharing and following my blog via email.
Back in the late 1980s, when charter schools were a brand new idea, advocates said that charter schools would be more accountable, cost less, and would get better results.
It was also speculative, since no charter schools existed then. I believed it would turn out that way, as did other proponents of charter schools.
But none of those beliefs/hopes panned out.
We now know that charter lobbyists oppose accountability in state legislatures.
We now know that charter schools do not get better results than public schools, unless they exclude the kids who get low test scores.
We now know that charter schools do not cost less. Many of their leaders are paid more than public school leaders (some are paid $1 million a year). They lobby legislatures to give them the same funding as public schools. In some states, charters have won the power to locate rent-free in public school buildings.
Peter Greene here explains that the charter industry is seeking federal legislation to underwrite the cost of charter school facilities. The federal Charter School Program already provides $500 million a year to start new charter schools or expand existing ones. This grand gift, which the Trump administration increased, ignores the fact that demand for charter schools has declined while charters continue to close because of falling enrollments.
Among the various bills thrown at Congress is one that finds new ways to throw public money at charter schools.
HB 7086, the “Equitable Access to School Facilities Act,” proposes to send money to charter operators, via the state, to buy and build facilities for schools.
The cost of coming up with a building to put charter schools in might seem like part of the cost of being in the charter school business, but charter operators don’t much care for having to fork over the money. In some states, legislators have solved the problem by just allowing charter schools to just take public property. Florida is rolling out a law that lets charters take public school real estate in whole or in part just by saying, “Hey, we want that.” It’s an extraordinary law, sort of like the opposite of eminent domain, in which the facilities that taxpayers have bought and paid for suddenly belong to a private business.
HB 7086 wants to propose a similar federal solution, delivering grants to any states that come up with clever ways to gift taxpayer dollars to charters that want to build or buy some facilities, or want to come up with fun ways for charters to grab taxpayer-funded buildings.
The bill comes courtesy of Rep. Juan Ciscomani, an Arizona Republican, who just wants to make sure that every school is a great school. In a press release, he explains:
Sadly, access to appropriate and affordable school buildings for charter schools continues to be one of the biggest barriers to growth. Unlike district schools, charter schools aren’t guaranteed access to school buildings or traditional access to facilities funding sources like local property tax dollars.
Yeah, I was going to open a restaurant, but access to food and cooking supplies was a big barrier to growth, so maybe the taxpayers would like to buy that stuff for me?
Or maybe when you decide to go into a business, you do it with a plan that takes into account the cost of being in that business. Certainly the notion that building and financing facilities is easy peasy for public school systems is disconnected from reality. When West Egg Schools want a new building, they have to convince the taxpayers or else that school board will find themselves voted out of office.
If you want to get into the charter school biz, you need a plan about how you’ll manage the cost of getting into the charter school biz. “Well, get the feds to drain taxpayers to fund it for us,” is not such a plan.
The bill does display one of the lies of the charter movement– that we can finance multiple school systems with the same money that wasn’t enough to fund one. Not that I expect any choicers to say so out loud. But no school district (or any other business) responds to tough money times by saying, “I know– let’s build more facilities.” The inevitable side effect of choice systems is that taxpayers end up financing redundant facilities and vast amounts of excess capacity, which means taxpayers have to be hit for even more money. Legislators continue to find creative ways to A) ignore the issue and B) legislate more paths by which taxpayer money can be funneled to choice schools.
This bill hasn’t died yet. Tell your Congressperson to drive a stake through its heart.
In addition to blogging at Curmudgucation, Peter Greene is a Senior Contributor to Forbes, where this review appeared.
He reviewed my book in Forbes. You may be tired of seeing the wonderful reviews of my book by fellow bloggers. I agree with you….but…the book has been overlooked by the mainstream media. It is the first book I have published that was not reviewed by the New York Times.
I am thrilled that well-informed bloggers have taken the time to read and review it.
Peter Greene writes:
Diane Ravitch is one of the biggest turncoats in education policy history, and American education is better for it.
She tells the story in her newest book, her memoir An Education. From humble beginnings in Houston, she moved on to Wellesley, where she rubbed elbows with the likes of future Madeline Albright and Nora Ephron. Upon graduation. she married into the prestigious Ravitch family. Casting around for a career, she gravitated toward education history, starting with researching and writing a massive history of New York City public schools, launching her career as an academic.
She was in those days considered a neoconservative. She believed in meritocracy, standards, standardized testing, and color blindness, and these beliefs combined with her academic credentials formed a foundation for a burgeoning career of advocacy for the rising tide of education reform. By the time the 1990s rolled around, she was tapped for a role as Assistant Secretary of Education under President George H. W. Bush. She appeared in television, met and socialized with top political leaders, enjoyed other odd in-crowd perks like a visit to George Lucas at Skywalker Ranch. She was brought onto an assortment of conservative think tanks, served in various commissions and agencies under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and wrote several books that brought rounds of interviews on major media. She was a committed supporter and promoter of No Child Left Behind, which included all the emphasis on standards and testing that she thought she wanted to see in education.
When she graduated from high school, her English teacher gifted her with two quotes. The second was from Alfred, Lord Tennyson: “To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” Those turned out to be prescient words for a woman who was about to engage in a public re-evaluation of her entire body of professional beliefs.
Michael Bloomberg was elected mayor of New York City and brought in Joel Klein to run the schools, and for four years Ravitch watched the ideas she championed implemented, and she saw the down side. She was critical, though carefully so (it was still not common knowledge that she had years ago left her husband for a woman). But she could see that Bloomberg and Klein were “faithfully, if erratically, imposing the right-wing policies that I had once endorsed and demonstrating their ineffectiveness.”
In the following years, Ravitch “step by step” abandoned her long-held views about education. Those long-held views had been her bread and butter, the web that sustained personal and professional networks. And Ravitch was willing not just to break those ties, but determined to “expose the big money propelling the cause of what I called corporate education reform.”
I changed my mind when I realized that the ideas I had championed sounded good in theory but failed in practice. I thought that standards, tests and accountability would lead to higher achievement (test scores). They didn’t. Even if they had, the scores would not signify better education, just a fortunate upbringing and the mastery of test-taking skills. I originally thought, like other so-called reformers, that competition and merit pay would encourage teachers and principals to work harder and get better results. They didn’t. The teachers were already working as hard as they knew how.
Ravitch came to view the punitive attempt to use test scores to determine teacher careers as demoralizing, destined to discourage young people from choosing the profession. The “toxic policy” of high-stakes testing was ‘inflicting harm on students and teachers.”
Ravitch became a key figure in the movement to support public education in the US. She co-founded the Network for Public Education and spoke out repeatedly against the education reform movement. Her blog became a popular outlet that connected many of the far-flung supporters of public education.
Ravitch has written page upon page critiquing the education reform movement of the past few decades, and in the final chapters of this memoir, the reader can find a clear, crisp encapsulated version of her conclusions and beliefs about the top-down government mandates and big-money attempts to dismantle the public school system and replace it with a multi-tiered privatized system. This brisk, readable book provides a historical recap of the ed reform movement and the resistance to it, as well as the rich history of a woman who, more than any other observer, has examined the pieces of the movement from both sides.
Tom Ultican was a teacher of physics and advanced mathematics in California for many years. He now writes about education issues.
In this post on his blog, he dissects a recent publication which seeks to alarm the public about the state of math education. It seems that the best way to get attention is to raise an alarum about “the crisis in the schools…” Reading is in crisis! Math is in crisis! Students are in crisis! Teachers are in crisis! The nation is at risk! Estonia has higher scores than ours!
Some of us have become jaded after so many crises, but the crisis talk is meant to grab attention, and it usually does.
The crisis talk has an insidious goal: to delegitimize public schools; to persuade parents that they should send their children to charter schools or voucher schools.
After 30 years of experience, we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that choice schools are not better than public schools. When they record higher test scores, it is because they choose their students carefully, bypassing students who are likely to get low scores.
But, lo! That “math crisis!”
What about this latest alarming report?
Tom Ultican shows that it’s another in a long line of fraudulent reports, distorting statistics to reach a predetermined conclusion. He read it so you don’t have to.
John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, is concerned about the snake-oil salesmen pitching the Mississippi “miracle” in his home state. It’s amazing how quickly quack ideas spread.
He writes:
As Oklahoma’s legislative leaders became even more devoted to the “Mississippi Miracle” narrative pushed by “astroturf” think tanks like Jeb Bush’s ExcelinEd, and the Chamber of Commerce, I’ve been taking a closer look into the so-called “studies” they spread. I’ve long been wary of cheap, simplistic solutions to complex, interconnected problems. But, the research I’ve been analyzing provides warning that their agenda is more dangerous than I would have anticipated.
After discussions with advocates for large numbers of retentions of children who don’t produce grade level reading scores, I’ve focused on the need to fund and build the support services, like high-dose tutoring programs – before holding student back. Apparently, many of them believe that we were on track to an Oklahoma Miracle in 2014 when we held back 21,000 children, second only to Mississippi. In fact, our scores had been improving before the retentions, almost certainly due to meaningful funding increases that ended in 2008. And, like Mississippi, our retention-driven approach didn’t increase 8thgrade scores, indicating that they taught young children how to improve test scores, without improving reading comprehension.
After federal Covid funding ended, Mississippi shifted to a cheaper method of tutoring students, known, ironically as the “Paper” online tutoring. In 2023, the reliable Chalkbeat did a deep dive into “Paper,” which documented, “This online tutoring company says it offers expert one-on-one help. Students often get neither.”
Chalkbeat found a system which required single tutors to multitask, working at a breakneck speed to serve multiple students. One tutor served up to 12 students at once. And “Paper” incentivized outputs with “surge” bonuses of 2 to 3 times more than their regular wages for tutoring multiple students at a time.
I wonder what parents would think if their 3rd graders had to undergo the stress that that sort of online technology can generate. And since Mississippi spent $10.7 million dollars for online tutoring for kids from 3rd to 12th grade, how will such a system effect the learning cultures of schools?
Moreover, National Public Radio recently presented the findings of the Brookings Institution’s study of A.I., which concluded, “At this point in its trajectory, the risks of utilizing generative AI in children’s education overshadow its benefits.”
NPR reported:
At the top of Brookings’ list of risks is the negative effect AI can have on children’s cognitive growth — how they learn new skills and perceive and solve problems.
The report describes a kind of doom loop of AI dependence, where students increasingly off-load their own thinking onto the technology, leading to the kind of cognitive decline or atrophy more commonly associated with aging brains.
One of the report’s authors warned:
When kids use generative AI that tells them what the answer is … they are not thinking for themselves. They’re not learning to parse truth from fiction. They’re not learning to understand what makes a good argument. They’re not learning about different perspectives in the world because they’re actually not engaging in the material.
And, NPR quoted one student who’s comment on A.I., “It’s easy. You don’t need to (use) your brain.”
There are some reasons for hope in Oklahoma. It is my understanding that more business leaders have been listening to real education experts, and people in our schools.And, Representative Dick Lowe has filed HB 3023 which says:
Reading intervention shall not be provided solely by digital technology. Reading intervention shall include a majority of direct instruction from a teacher, specialist, or literacy coach and shall be led by a teacher or specialist trained in the science of reading.
But, our budget will remain flat, at a time when federal cuts for agencies and nonprofits that provide essential services to schools, are struggling to finance their own programs.
And, it is hard to be hopeful in regard to legislators and business people who believe, or claim to believe, and join in spreading, the lies told by true believers in reward-and-punish, free market ideologies, and think tanks like ExcelinEd.
Sadly, we must continue to push back against corporate school reformers, at a time when we we face world history levels of challenges, such as the rapid rise of A.I. increased inequality, and Trumpism.
Diane Ravitch's blog 