Archives for category: Privatization

Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Washington Post, wrote an uninformed opinion piece urging Trump to invite cities to become “laboratories of choice,” where every student could go to the school of his or her choice. He says this would be “the right kind of choice.” “Uninformed” is the polite term. I was tempted to say “absurd” or idiotic,” but decided to be polite.

 

He begins his article by reciting the specious claims of the right wingers that everyone exercises choice except the poor. I know these claims because I was part of three rightwing think tanks where they were repeated again and again. Some people choose parochial schools; some choose private schools; others choose safe suburbs and neighborhoods. Only the poor are “stuck” in “failing schools.”

 

The assumption behind these assertions is that choosing schools will improve education. But there is no evidence for this claim.

 

Here is some news for Mr. Hiatt.

 

We already have laboratories of choice. First, there is New Orleans, which has no public schools. The scores are up, but most of the charter schools continue to be low-performing, probably because they have the poor kids who were not accepted in the top-performing charters. The district as a whole is low-performing in relation to the state, which is one of the lowest-performing in the nation.

 

Then there is Milwaukee, which has had vouchers and charters for 25 years. Three sectors compete, and all are low-performing. How is that for a “laboratory of choice,” Mr. Hiatt?

 

Then there is Detroit, in Betsy DeVos’ home state of Michigan. Detroit is the lowest-performing urban district tested by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It is overrun by charters, many of them operating for profit. Now there is another fine example of a failing “laboratory of choice.”

 

Mr. Hiatt, why don’t you take a look at other nations’ school system. The one that most people admire, Finland, has well-resourced schools, highly educated teachers, professional autonomy, a strong professional union, and excellent results. What it does not have is standardized testing, competition, or choice.

 

Please, Fred, read my last two books Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education and Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Read Samuel Abrams’ Education and the Commercial Mindset. Read Mercedes Schneider’s School Choice. Pay attention. Be informed before you write.

 

 

 

 

Alan Singer reviews the ways that hedge funds will benefit by the privatization of public funding for public schools.

 

Consider Michigan, just one state:

 

Michigan, Betsy DeVos’ home state, has 1.5 million children attending public elementary and secondary schools and spends about $11,000 per student. If charter networks operated all of Michigan’s schools, we are talking about $16.5 billion. Now that is real money! The charter network could stash away profits of $5.5 billion just my having high teacher turnover.

 

But that’s not the only way the hedge fund charter networks and private schools will make money. Inexperienced teachers need scripted lessons, staff development, and supervision, so the hedge fund schools can outsource these activities to subsidiary companies. They can also buy books, tests, supplies, computer software and hardware, and guidance services from their own companies and award maintenance contracts to themselves.

Thomas Ultican left the private sector to teach high school physics and mathematics.

 

In this post, he surveys the wreckage of education “reform” policies and the damage they have inflicted on schools and teachers, students and communities.

 

Trump, he recognizes, is prepared to double down on failures.

 

The issue for all of us is to identify the strategies that will enable us to survive what lies ahead.

 

He concludes on a hopeful note:

 

With the coming of Trump and Betsy Devos, everything I read leads me to believe that the federal government will continue and accelerate the failed Bush/Obama education policies. However, it will be out in the open because there are no fake progressives in this group to hide behind. Americans of all stripes do not want their public education system parceled out and sold. Most conservative like most liberals believe in public education. They do not want their schools taken over by faceless corporations and distant bureaucracies.

 

A national consensus on the need to protect America’s truly great public education system is probable.

 

Education profiteers will over-reach in 2017 and we will make significant strides toward winning back local control of our schools.

 

Let’s agree that the best way to awaken the public is to call the privatization and profit movement out and name it. Name it. Say that they are stealing what belongs to all of us. They are not “reformers,” they are vandals.

 

That is the fight ahead.

Rhode Island state officials gave their permission to triple the enrollment of politically connected no-excuses charter chain Achievement First.

 

As reported here previously, increasing the enrollment of these charters will drain students and millions of dollars from the public schools of Providence.

 

Thousands of children in the Providence public schools will suffer budget cuts so that a much smaller number may enroll in a dual system under private control.

 

The final decision is up to the mayor of Providence, who is also chair of the charter chainboard.

 

 

Mike Klonsky, a longtime political activist in Chicago, warns that the rise of Trumpism in the US and Europe signals a dangerous white nationalism that threatens the fabric of civil society.

 

The rise and seizure of political and military power by a narrowly-based clique of white supremacists and neo-fascists, in the U.S. and much of Europe, combined with an inadequate response on the part of liberal democrats, is plunging the world closer to a global conflagration than it’s been since World War 2 and Trump hasn’t even been inaugurated yet. The Trumpists are too weak and their base too narrow to rule primarily through diplomacy and negotiation. Their strong suit is their control of military (including nuclear capacity) and police powers (including an apparent willingness to use torture)….

 

Then there’s the Trump’s war on the press; trade war with China; Betsy DeVos’s war on public schools; Trump’s war on science; Trump/Pudzer’s declared war on labor unions; Trump/Perry/Tillerson’s war on the environment; Sessions’ war on civil rights; and so it goes….

 

As for teachers and educators, we have a significant role to play in resisting the Trumpists drive towards war and in defense of civil society. War is the enemy of education, families, children, women, and democracy. Resistance to Betsy DeVos war on public education will be a key part of the opposition movement. Defense of public space and of public decision-making, teaching students to think critically and to become shapers of their own future, are some of the essential pieces of the resistance movement based in the schools.

 

 

This morning I posted a question written by Doug1943, rehashing corporate reformer arguments about “allowing children to escape failing public schools.” I invited readers to answer his question(s).

 

Peter Greene put his answer into a post. 

 

This should satisfy Doug (or not), and this is only an introduction to the rest of the post where Doug will find answers:

 

Most public ed advocates that I know and interact with would agree that, particularly in some large urban districts, there are some schools with serious problems. I would never tell you that all public schools are flawless and there are no huge problems. There are, from serious underfunding to long-standing institutional racism to a lack of any sort of vision from leaders. There are absolutely some serious issues, but it does not appear to me that choice-charter-voucher advocates are proposing anything that will actually solve any of the problems.

 

They call to mind lying with a broken leg on the sidewalk, and someone runs up with a chain saw and says, “Hey, I’m going to take off your arms” and I ask what help that will be and are they even a doctor and they reply, “Well, no– but we have to do something!” No, thanks.

 

Do charters generally do a better job? There’s no clear evidence that they do– often they get the same results with the same kids (as far as we can tell, given that we have no good way in place to measure school success– your reservations about standardized tests are on point) and a little too often they do worse. Do charters solve poverty? No. Do charters and choice spur competition that leads to greatness? There’s zero evidence that they do. Do they allow children to “escape” bad schools? Maybe– but here’s the big problem as charters are currently handled: the escape comes at the cost of making a bad school worse by stripping it of resources. And as I frequently point out, the free market can’t handle this problem. The free market survives by picking winners and losers and dropping the losers out– there is not one single business or business sector in this country that serves every single citizen, but serving 100% of US students is exactly the education gig.

 

So in short, yes, there are problems and no, the charter-choice-voucher idea doesn’t solve any of them.

 

So what are my alternative suggestions? Let me first note that the guy who wants to treat my broken leg by chainsawing off my arms is the person carrying the burden of proof. But as someone who is invested in public education, and who has already noticed most of the issues that charter fans holler about in their marketing materials. In the interests of not writing an entire book, let me offer just a quick list of some major steps that, I believe, would help.

 


I am trying to take a break. Reading all the comments, but posting only when I must.

 

Doug1943 asked a long question. He is immersed in the privatization narrative, as you will see. His email ID suggests a connection to a libertarian institute.

 

My short answer to him is: read my last book, “Reign of Error,” which goes into detail about what children and schools need. No school is so bad that it can’t be improved. No high-performing nation in the world has turned its public schools over to the private sector. Test scores are primarily measures of family income. Choice promotes segregation by race, religion, income, and social class.

 

 

Here is Doug’s question:

 

“I think the problem is this: the people opposing allowing people to escape from bad public schools don’t seem to want to acknowledge that there is such a thing as bad public schools. Or, at most, they seem to believe that if we just raised taxes and put more money into these schools, they’d be better. Or, that there is nothing the schools can do, it’s general poverty that is the problem.

 

“Of course, if any or all these views are correct, then you must carry on doing what you’re doing (which seems to me, as an ‘outsider’, is just talking to yourselves, which is the norm for American forums on both Left and Right).

 

“However, I think you ought to give some thought to trying to address the issues that proponents of vouchers, charters, etc. claim are real: that at least some public schools are unreformably bad, and parents who have some ambition for their children should be allowed to escape from them. In other words, should have the same opportunities that the Clinton and Obama children had.

 

“Or, if you agree that some public schools are bad, but not unreformably so, how can they be reformed?

 

“It’s this that — again as an outsider — strikes me as your great weakness: you don’t seem to admit that there is a problem at all. Thus your quotes around “better” in your reply: you seem to dismiss good exam results that some charters get. Now, maybe you’re right about these results– I certainly have huge reservations about multiple-choice standardized tests. But you ought to make the case.

 

“By the way, I personally would prefer there to be a system of state schools that had high standards, and educated all children to the limits of their inherent capabilities, so that the issue of ‘charter schools’ and vouchers wouldn’t even arise.. I assume that such a system would cost substantially more than the current system, but that it would be well worth it. But we don’t seem to be allowed to have that choice.”

This is one of the most important–and frightening–articles I have read in a long while. If you care about the future of our democracy, I urge you to read it.

 

It is about the takeover of North Carolina by the Tea Party, their tactics, their voter suppression aimed at black voters, and their cynical manipulation of anti-gay sentiment. The article doesn’t mention the enactment of school privatization laws, which have been a central plank in the putsch. But it is a cautionary tale.

 

In North Carolina, Some Democrats See Their Grim Future – POLITICO
https://apple.news/ASZaPmPZ4T-Cz6sPNG5kncg

 

 

This is a very interesting article that appeared in the New York Times. It was written by Stanley Greenberg and Anna Greenberg. He, I recall, was a pollster and advisor to Bill Clinton.

 

They credit Obama with major accomplishments, but note that over 1,000 Democrats list office during his two terms, and Republicans took control of most states. His personal popularity did not help his party. Now Republicans will control the White House and both houses of Congress.

 

One of his great errors, they write, was neglecting his base.  As Republicans passed anti-union laws, Ibama remained silent.

 

The Greenbergs fail to mention that Obama s major effort in education was an extension of the GW Bush program of test and punish. Teachers, always an important part of the Democratic base, were repeated assailed as incompetent by Arne Duncan and alienated by his insistence on high stakes testing. Duncan and RTTT promoted privatization, worked closely with reformers like Jeb Bush noted for their hostility to public schools, sent millions to TFA to undermine the profession, and turned the Department of Education into a marketing arm of the education industry.

 

 

 

 

Steven Singer writes that at the heart of the school choice is selfishness: me first, and to heck with everybody else.

 

The public schools were created for everyone in the community. They are subject to democratic control. They are free. If you don’t want to go to the public school, you can go to a private or religious school, but your family must pay tuition.

 

The school choice movement wants everyone to choose among public schools, charter schools, and voucher schools. Whenever children leave the public school, the public money follows them. But the public school must still operate its facilities, and it must adapt to the loss of enrollment by laying off teachers, cutting programs, eliminating electives, and reducing the quality of education available to most children. School choice harms the majority of students, so that a few may leave for charters or voucher schools. As school choice grows, the public schools wither.

 

There is nothing so compelling in the research to show that this is a good tradeoff. Vouchers have a shoddy record. Charters are the luck of the draw; some get high scores by demanding strict discipline, some are no better than the local public schools, some are far worse. Why destroy the quality of the community’s public schools to open charters of dubious quality and to send children to religious schools at public expense?

 

Yet this is what Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump plan to do.

 

This is a risky scheme, that puts an essential democratic institution at risk.

 

Singer writes:

 

Though the media would have you believe otherwise, traditional public schools do a much better job of educating children than charter or voucher schools. Some choice schools have better outcomes, but the majority do no better and often much worse than traditional public schools. Moreover, children who continually move from school-to-school regardless of its type almost always suffer academically.

 

So when parents engage in these choice schemes, they often end up hurting their own children. The chances of children benefiting from charter or voucher schools is minimal.

 

It is worth noting that the world’s highest performing nations have strong and equitable public schools, not charters or vouchers.