Archives for category: School Choice
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

NPE Action Enthusiastically Endorses Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2018 //
7

At last, a gubernatorial candidate who wants to rebuild public education and throw out the profiteers, frauds, and grifters! Voters in Florida have a chance to clean the Augean stables and elect a great Governor for public education!

The Network for Public Educatuon Action Fund is thrilled to endorse Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida!

The Network for Public Education Action is proud to announce its endorsement of Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida.

Andrew Gillum is a strong supporter of public education and he calls Florida’s corporate school reforms “a failure.” He has proposed a $1 billion increase in funding for public schools, which would include a minimum starting salary of $50,000 for teachers and an expansion of Pre-K opportunities.
Mr. Gillum believes that high-stakes testing reforms have failed our students and schools.

When it comes to charter schools and vouchers, Andrew Gillum had the following to say:

“Charter schools have a record of waste and unaccountability that we would never tolerate from public schools. Yet, our state’s education budget continues rewarding charter schools at the expense of public schools; for example, the 2018-19 budget allocates $145 million to charter school maintenance — three times the amount allocated to public schools. As a product of Florida’s public schools, I believe we make a promise to our state’s children to provide high-quality, accessible, public schools. We weaken that promise every time we divert taxpayer funds into private and religious education that benefits some students, but not all.”

On November 6, please cast your vote for Andrew Gillum.

Categories Charter Schools, Corruption, Courage, Education Reform, Florida, Fraud, Networkfor Public Education Action Fund, School Choice, Support for public schools, Vouchers

Arizona: Legislator/Charter Operator Sells His Chain for Millions, Or, How to Get Very Rich in the Ed Biz

By dianeravitch
September 11, 2018 //
26

This is a world-class scandal. And it is all legal!

Arizona’s State Representative Eddie Farnsworth sold his for-profit charter chain to a non-profit for about $30 Million and will reap millions in profits, then get a management fee to continue to operate them.

“Yet another millionaire is made, thanks to the latest in charter school scheming.

“This time, it’s state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who has figured out a way to sell his charter school business – the one built with taxpayer funds – and make millions on the deal and then likely get himself hired to continue running the operation.

“Which now converts to a non-profit and thus will no longer have to pay property or income taxes.

“Sweet plan. Sickeningly so, when you consider that Farnsworth is making his millions off of tax money intended to be used to educate Arizona children.

“Other charter schools are getting rich

“Farnsworth is just the latest operator to use charter schools as his own personal ATM – one that shoots out public funds.

“The Republic’s Craig Harris has spent all year reporting on operators who are getting rich – or at least, making a tidy pile of cash – off publicly funded charter schools, aided by laughable state laws that require hardly any oversight or accountability.

“There’s the Arizona Charter Schools Association’s No. 2 guy, using his position to throw business to a company he co-owns with his wife by giving her the names of students looking for a charter school. She scores a bounty for every student (and the tax dollars that go with that student) she delivers to certain charter schools.

“There’s BASIS Charters Schools founders Michael and Olga Block, who scored $10 million in fees to manage the charter chain of schools last year.

“There’s American Leadership Academy’s founder Glenn Way, who scored at least $18.4 million profit by getting no-bid contracts to build charter schools thanks largely paid for with public money.

“Then there’s Primavera online school, where most of the public funding has gone not to educate students but to elevate the company’s investment portfolio. Damian Creamer, the school’s founder and CEO, last year scored an $8.8 million “shareholder distribution” from the for-profit company that now runs Primavera, according an audit filed with the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Taxpayers pay twice for the same schools

“Now comes Farnsworth with his Benjamin Franklin Charter School scheme, approved Monday by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“Under the arrangement, Farnsworth is selling his for-profit four-school operation to a non-profit run by a trio of handpicked pals who will now select someone to run the schools. Farnsworth has applied for the job.

“According to state records, Farnsworth will score at least $11.8 million in profit from the deal. He’ll also keep nearly $3.8 million in “shareholder equity” accumulated over the years since starting the suburban charter school chain in 1995. But Farnsworth declined to disclose the total profit he will make on the deal.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” he told the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

“And you wonder why Farnsworth has fought efforts to require better oversight and reform of Arizona’s charter schools?

“The Republic’s Harris reports that when the sale closes, taxpayers will have paid twice for the same schools – once to essentially pay the mortgage on the Farnsworth-owned buildings and now to assume more debt in order to buy the buildings.

“And – by the way – it’s all legal

“The most outrageous part of this outrageous story is that what Farnsworth is doing is apparently legal.”

Craig Harris of the Arizona Republic reported on Farnsworth’s meeting with the state charter board (which includes other charter operators):

“[Farnsworth] told them he was requesting the change in organization to strengthen the finances of the roughly 3,000-student school chain. Farnsworth said the new structure will allow Benjamin Franklin to avoid property taxes and to qualify for federal education funds.

“The Legislature gives charter operators up to $2,000 more per student in state education funding than traditional district schools. That’s because charters cannot access local property taxes for building debt.

“Farnsworth acknowledged he would make a profit on the deal.

“Board member Erik Twist, who runs the Great Hearts charter schools, tried to press Farnsworth on how much he stands to gain. But Chairwoman Kathy Senseman interrupted him and changed the direction of the discussion.

“Farnsworth told the board that if he had wanted to make money, he merely could have sold the schools and cashed out.

“I make no apologies for being successful,” Farnsworth said.

“The transfer plan calls for the new non-profit operator to hire a contractor to manage the schools, an arrangement similar to other charter chains like Basis and American Leadership Academy.

“Records submitted to the Charter Board appeared to show Farnsworth had already been hired to manage the schools, but he said the document was a “draft” intended to give board members an understanding of the management contract.

“That’s what happens at Basis schools, many of which rank atop U.S. News & World Report’s “best schools” lists. A private contracting arrangement has paid about $10 million in “management fees” to a private firm run by Basis founders Olga and Michael Block.

“Farnsworth told the board, however, that he had submitted an application for the contract to the company’s new three-member board, all of whom he recruited and are his friends.

“Rebecca McHood, a Gilbert resident who attended the meeting, called the board vote “crazy.”

“They just gave a charter to a non-profit, but they didn’t vet them,” said McHood, a charter school critic whose relatives attended Farnsworth’s schools. “Here we are paying for his private property with our tax dollars, and then he can sell them.”

“State to pay twice for campuses

“Farnsworth built his school chain over more than two decades ago and became its sole owner in 2017, when he used $2.2 million of Benjamin Franklin funds to buy out his partners, Sharon Clark and Roy L. Perkins Jr., records show.

“That deal also made him sole owner of LBE Investments, a Gilbert company that owns the four campuses and leases them to Benjamin Franklin. Both companies are headquartered at 690 E. Warner Road in Gilbert.

“Once the planned sale to the new non-profit business closes later this year, taxpayers will have paid for the same schools twice. That’s because Benjamin Franklin, for years, has used education funding from the Legislature to make lease payments to LBE Investments, records show.

“(A 2017 audit showed Benjamin Franklin paid $4.9 million a year in lease payments, and that the remaining lease balance for three elementary schools and one high school was $53.9 million.)

“Farnsworth told the Charter Board that an appraisal of the schools is underway, and they will be sold at fair-market value.

“Documents submitted to the Charter Board indicate the plan is to borrow $65.7 million through the Arizona Industrial Development to purchase the schools. A sale for the projected loan amount would result in an $11.8 million profit for Farnsworth by retiring the outstanding lease balance.”

Why do Arizona taxpayers acquiesce to this blatant Profiteering with money intended to educate children?

<

Categories Arizona, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization, Scandals, School Choice

Arizona: State Pays 75% More to Subsidize Students in Private Schools

By dianeravitch
September 9, 2018 //
29

The Grand Canyon Institute of Arizona audits the use of tax dollars that are spent for public and private schools. Under Governor Douglas Ducey, the state has been very generous to private, religious, and charter schools, but not with public schools.

Here is its latest report:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, (602) 595-1025 Ext. 2
Amy Pedotto, Communications Manager
apedotto@azgci.org, 602-595-1025, Ext. 3

State pays $10,700 subsidy for private school students;
75 percent more than their public school peers

Phoenix — According to a new policy paper, Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs cost the state $10,700* on average per regular education student who would not otherwise have enrolled in private school. This imposes an additional $62 million expense on the state’s General Fund.

Published by the non-partisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), the policy paper $10,700 Per Student: The Estimated Cost of Arizona’s Private School Subsidy Programs looks at how the state’s two private school subsidy programs — private school tuition tax credit scholarships and Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) vouchers — have impacted private school enrollment and then estimated a per student cost to taxpayers. The paper looks at regular education students; it does not include students with disabilities because of the significant cost differences in providing their education.

The study’s findings also include that:

The estimated cost per subsidized private school student has increased $700 in the two years since GCI first analyzed the cost of the subsidy programs in Arizona.

On average, taxpayer-funded private school subsidies cost an additional $4,700 or 75 percent more per student than the $6,000 the state pays to educate a regular education public school student when paid entirely from state funds.

In 2015-16, private school subsidies cost Arizona’s General Fund a total of $141 million, nearly a 50-fold increase from $3 million in 1999-2000.

In 2015-16, GCI estimates that 13,170 students who used the taxpayer-subsidized program would have attended public school if the scholarships and vouchers were not available.

Private school as a percentage of total student enrollment has declined from 5.9 percent to 4 percent since Arizona first introduced a private school subsidy in the late nineties. An increase in the percentage of private school enrollment would have occurred if the programs were more effective.

“GCI’s research of academic studies found that lower income families using similar subsidy programs in other states frequently had negative academic impacts compared to public school peers,” Wells says. “The study raises questions about the efficacy of private school subsidy programs as voters are asked to expand Arizona’s ESA voucher program with Prop. 305 this November.”

George Cunningham, GCI’s board chair and former state legislator, commented, “Arizona can’t afford fiscally irresponsible private school subsidies that siphon money away from its public education system. These subsidy programs are placing an increasing burden on the state’s General Fund meanwhile research shows they provide no academic benefit when comparing demographically similar students attending public and private schools.

“Given these facts, it is appropriate to ask why our state government would continue tuition tax credit scholarships and seek to expand ESA vouchers to the general education population. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that the total amount in tuition tax credit scholarships a student can receive be limited to the amount paid by the state for regular education public school students similar to ESA vouchers.”

What are Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs?

Tuition tax credit scholarships were introduced two decades ago. They divert individual and corporate taxpayer dollars from the state’s General Fund, providing donors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes owed while decreasing the state’s revenue. GCI’s research found that in many cases students are receiving more than one tax credit scholarship by applying for funding from multiple School Tuition Organizations (STOs), the private organizations that accept tuition tax credit donations and distribute them to students.

ESA vouchers were introduced in 2011. Distributed by the state’s Department of Education and financed from the General Fund, ESA vouchers allow certain categories of students to attend private schools such as those with disabilities, students from D and F rated public schools, foster children and children of veterans. GCI’s paper did not include vouchers used by students with disabilities in its analysis due to the significant cost differences in meeting their needs. In November 2018, Prop. 305 will give Arizona’s voters the opportunity to decide whether ESA vouchers should be made available to all students, a significant expansion to the program.

Click here to read the full report.

*Methodology:

First, GCI’s analysis estimated that 13,710 out of 46,252 regular education students attending private school in Arizona did so because of the state’s private school subsidies. The ratio of Arizona to US private school enrollment as a portion of all students (0.45) was the dependent variable used in the regression analysis to control for any factors outside of Arizona that impacts private school enrollment such as recessions or economic growth. All of these factors impact private schools generally and would not have a separate impact on Arizona’s private schools. The analysis’ independent variables were the state’s enrollment growth of charter schools and private school subsidies because in both cases Arizona far exceeds the national average.

Next, GCI determined the cost of private school subsidies to the state, for those regular education students that chose private school because of the subsidy programs. This amount was calculated based on the total value of subsidies allocated for regular education students ($140,874,776) divided by the number of students that opted for private school due to the subsidies (13,710). GCI determined that subsidies cost the state an average of $10,700 per regular education private school student for those that would have attended public school if the private school subsidy programs weren’t available.

Finally, Arizona’s private school subsidies cost $140,874,776 for regular education students who would not have otherwise attended a private school. For this analysis, GCI uses the cost of educating a charter school student ($6,000) for comparison because the state government uses this amount to determine the value of ESA vouchers for a regular education student. The cost of educating a charter school student is used in GCI’s analysis because they are completely state funded, whereas the cost of educating a public district school student varies per district based on a state and local funding. (This provides a more conservative comparison because the average cost of educating a regular education student in a district school is less than a charter school.) Arizona would have spent $82,260,000 to educate taxpayer-subsidized private school students if they had attended a charter school instead. Therefore, Arizona’s private school subsidies increased the cost of educating these regular education students by $4,700 each or $62 million in total.

If information like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute to support our continuing work.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Education Reform, Funding, School Choice, Vouchers

“Hijacked by Billionaires:” The Shameful Role of Big Money in Buying Education and Undermining Democracy

By dianeravitch
September 8, 2018 //
21

This morning, the Network for Public Education Action has published a major report on the role of Big Money in buying elections to control education and undermine democracy.

“Hijacked by Billionaires: How the Super Rich Buy Elections to Undermine Public Schools” examines several districts/states where the super-rich have poured in money from out-of-state to buy control of school boards and buy policy, with the goal of advancing privatization.

The case studies include: Denver, Los Angeles, Newark, Minneapolis, Perth Amboy, N.J., Washington State, New York City, Newark, Rhode Island, and Louisiana.

This carefully documented report deserves your attention. It names names.

The rich use their money to steal democracy and local control.

Their only idea is privatization. They use their vast wealth to take away what belongs to the public.

Read it. Share it with your friends and colleagues. Post it on social media.

If you want to help the Network for Public Education and the Network for Public Education Action Fund continue its work to support public education, sign up, donate, come to our annual meeting in Indianapolis on October 20-21.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Networkfor Public Education Action Fund, Privatization, Scandal, School Choice, Vouchers

Washington Post: Why Betsy DeVos Failed

By dianeravitch
September 6, 2018 //
49

The Washington Post has a new national education writer, Laura Meckler. She published an excellent article yesterday about the big-time failure of Betsy DeVos to accomplish anything in D.C. as Secretary of Education.

Despite Republican control of Congress (for now), her budget proposals have fallen flat. She arrived with Trump’s promise to transfer $20 Billion from other federal programs to create a federal school choice program for charters, vouchers, and online schools. That went nowhere. She has repeatedly proposed a $1 Billion plan for school choice. Congress rejected it.

Her only victory was to get a big increase in charter school funding, now up to $450 Million. This despite the GAO report in 2016 warning of waste, fraud, and abuse in the charter industry.

DeVos has helped to galvanize the opposition to school choice and to energize supporters of public schools, who now recognize that charters and vouchers take money away from public schools, a traditional community institution whose doors are open to all.

She is such a toxic figure, her contempt for public schools is so evident, her arrogance and snobbishness so transparent, that she has alienated even some Republicans. Many rural Republicans treasure their local public schools. As Meckler shows, conservatives are divided over the DeVos effort to create a federal school choice plan. Libertarians fear (rightly) that federal funds will be accompanied by federal regulations.

From our point of view, as supporters of public education, DeVos has been the gift that keeps on giving. She remains deeply uninformed about education policy. Her solution to everything is School Choice. She is a champion of charters, stripping away their thin progressive veneer. She wants to roll back civil rights protections for everyone but accused rapists. She has removed protections for students defrauded by for-profit “colleges,” while stopping federal efforts to regulate the institutions that defraud students.

In short, if you care about public schools and civil rights and the ability of students to get a good education, she is a disaster on all fronts.

The fact that she became a national figure at the very time that Research converged on the negative effects of vouchers was fortuitous. Similarly, the growing national recognition that the charter industry is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse undermines her cause.

Now our goal must be to convince members of Congress, especially Democrats, to stop acting as the biggest funder of charter schools, whose aggressive expansion hurts public schools, you know, the schools that enroll 85% of America’s students.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Corporate Reformers, Democrats, Education Industry, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

New Hampshire: How to Get More Spending, Higher Taxes, Less Opportunity

By dianeravitch
September 2, 2018 //
4

Tom Loughman writes here about the harmful impact of vouchers, which were recently defeated by a slim margin in the state legislature.

He writes:

“When I was a little boy, we lost my father to cancer. Not long after, my family lost everything else too and we struggled to make ends meet. We were always thinking about getting through the week and end of the month. But for all its challenges, my childhood taught me empathy, grit, and drive; drive to make a better life for myself. I knew I only needed the opportunity.

“That opportunity came in the form of a public education. The one thing we never had to worry about was whether I would get a great education and a hot lunch at school. I made the most it and have made a better life for my family.

“As a parent now, I followed closely the efforts of New Hampshire Republicans to pass Senate Bill 193, which would establish one of the most comprehensive school voucher programs in the country. It would siphon money from our public schools and divert them to private, religious and home schools.

“Fiscally responsible constituents would be alarmed at the financial implications of the school voucher bill. According to the legislative staff, it would have siphoned off $100 million over the first 11 years from public schools to send 2,000 children to private, religious and home schools. As expensive as that is, Sen. Dan Innis voted for a far more sweeping version twice, which would more than double those costs.

“You can imagine the impact: a reduction in public school quality and big increase in local property taxes. Despite all that spending to privatize more of our education system, there is no anticipated improvement in achievement. According to studies like the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, private schools were not better than public in producing higher achievement.

“The bottom line is that the school voucher bill significantly increases the costs of education in New Hampshire and puts the burden on local property taxpayers. Don’t take my word for it; take Republican fiscal hawk and House Finance Chairman Neil Kurk’s who said, “this bill downshifts $99 million to local property tax payers in ways that they will not be able to avoid by reducing expenses. I was not elected to downshift money on my constituents.” A few Republicans stood with him and House Democrats to defeat the bill by a slim margin. Fiscal responsibility prevailed.

“Sen. Innis and his colleagues have pledged to try again. Innis said in a recent op-ed that he believes in school choice for all New Hampshire children. However, the vouchers would not cover the full cost of private school tuitions. Therefore, the only families that can take advantage of these vouchers and attend private schools would be people who can afford a few thousand dollars difference between the voucher and tuition.

“The results of this voucher bill are entirely predictable. Children from families who can afford private education could pay less by applying a voucher to their tuition bill. Children from families who cannot afford to pay thousands will remain in public schools that would now face budget shortfalls. It’s actually even worse because private schools can deny admissions to students with disabilities, excluding them entirely from the “choices” vouchers give their fellow students. That makes education opportunity less equal.

“These reverse Robin Hood policies of taking resources and opportunities from lower income families to give to wealthier ones is a non-starter. The high costs of living on the Seacoast are already impacting our seniors, working families and small businesses. New Hampshire Republicans should stop pushing a radical bill that would significantly increase our spending, raise property taxes, and hurt our public schools.

“We are proud of our public schools. On the Seacoast, they are without a doubt, one of the best draws we have to attracting working families to live and work here. I believe Sen. Innis’ support for defunding them and prompting tax increases is an untenable position to hold as our senator. It does not reflect our values or interests.”

Categories Budget Cuts, Funding, New Hampshire, School Choice

Florida: State Appeals Decision to Knock Amendment 8 Off the November Ballot

By dianeravitch
August 23, 2018 //
11

The state of Florida moved quickly to appeal the judicial decision to knock Amendment 8 off the November ballot.

The decision will be rendered by the state’s Supreme Court.

The Florida League of Women Voters filed suit against Amendment 8 because it bundled three different school-related issues into a single amendment to the state constitution. The case was argued by the Southern Poverty Legal Center. The circuit judge in Tallahassee said the language of the amendment was confusing and misleading.

Critics say the true intent of the amendment is to strip local school boards of their authority over charter schools, cyber charters, and other forms of school choice.

A circuit judge in Tallahassee on Monday ruled Amendment 8 was “misleading” and ordered it removed from the Nov. 6 ballot. He ruled in a lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Florida, which argued voters should not be asked to change Florida’s Constitution based on Amendment 8’s unclear and deceptive language…

The most controversial of the three deals with charter schools and the other two with term limits for school board members and the teaching of civic literacy.

The league’s lawsuit focused on the section of Amendment 8 that would add a phrase that says local school boards could control only the public schools they established. It was proposed as a way to make it easier for charter schools — publicly funded but privately run schools — or other new educational options to flourish. Now, charter schools need local school board approval to open, but that requirement would vanish if the proposal passed.

Circuit Judge John Cooper said that the amendment’s wording did not make it clear what it would do and that the three items should not have been packaged together.

Critics of Amendment 8 said it would unconstitutionally take power away from locally elected school boards and allow charter schools — some of which have private, for-profit management companies — to operate with little oversight. Proponents said it would allow the Florida Legislature to open the door to more charter schools and other options, giving parents more choices and a greater ability to decide the school best for their children.

The amendment is an effort by Reformers, led by Jeb Bush and his ally Patricia Levesque, a member of the Constitutional Revision Commission, to deceive voters into approving unlimited expansion of charter schools.

Despite their claims about the popularity of charter schools, they dared not be clear about their purpose. They tried to pull a fast one. Let’s see if the Supreme Court of Florida lets them trick the voters.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Florida, Fraud, School Choice

Who Are the Funders of Jeb Bush’s School Privatization Efforts?

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2018 //
31

Jeb Bush has been promoting school choice and disparaging public s hoops for years. Betsy DeVos was a member of the board of his Foundation for Excellence in Education until Trump chose her as Secretary of Education.

Jeb Bush invented the nutty notion of giving a letter grade to schools.

Jeb Bush zealously believes in high-stakes standardized testing and VAM. In Jeb’s Odel, Testing and letter grades are mechanisms to promote privatization.

Who funds his foundation?

See the list here.

The biggest donors in 2017 were Gates, Bloomberg, and Walton, each having given Jeb more than $1 Million for his privatization campaigns.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Bloomberg, Michael, Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, School Choice, Segregation, Standardized Testing, Vouchers, Wall of Shame, Walton Foundation

Trump Nominee Kavanaugh is a Sure Vote to Destroy Separation of Church and State

By dianeravitch
August 16, 2018 //
31

Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh—like his first nominee Neil Gorsuch—is good news for voucher advocates. He is the linchpin to achieving Betsy DeVos’s dream of sending public money to religious and private schools, despite the fact that many teach creationism as science, exclude LGBT students and staff, and teach bizarre doctrines. When Democrats regain control of the institutions of government, they should be sure to establish strict government regulations that establish strict accountability for private and religious schools that take public money so that they are held to the same standards of curriculum, testing, teacher qualifications, and non-discrimination as public schools.

The New York Times reports on his record of challenging the “wall of separation” between church and state.

“Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a speech last year, gave a strong hint at his views on taxpayer support for religious schools when he praised his “first judicial hero,” Justice William Rehnquist, for determining that the strict wall between church and state “was wrong as a matter of law and history.”
Mr. Rehnquist’s legacy on religious issues was most profound in “ensuring that religious schools and religious institutions could participate as equals in society and in state benefits programs,” Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, declared at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research organization.

“Words like that from a Supreme Court nominee are breathing new life into the debate over public funding for sectarian education. Educators see him as crucial to answering a question left by Justice Kennedy after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the state of Missouri to exclude a church-based preschool from competing for public funding to upgrade its playground: Can a church-school playground pave the way for taxpayer funding to flow to private and parochial schools for almost any purpose?

“Over his decades-long legal career, Judge Kavanaugh has argued in favor of breaking down barriers between church and state. He has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of school prayer and the right of religious groups to gain access to public school facilities. He was part of the legal team that represented former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida in 2000 when he defended a school voucher program that was later ruled unconstitutional. The program had used public funds to help pay the tuition of students leaving some of the state’s lowest-performing schools for private or religious schools.

“School voucher champions see Judge Kavanaugh as a critical vote in overturning longstanding constitutional prohibitions, often called Blaine Amendments, that outlaw government funding of religious institutions in more than three dozen states. The amendments have been used to challenge programs that allow taxpayer funding to follow children to private and parochial schools, and are seen as the last line of defense against widespread acceptance of school voucher programs.”

Categories Education Reform, Religion, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

“School Choice Is the Enemy of Justice”

By dianeravitch
August 15, 2018 //
56

The editorial pages of the New York Times have been an echo chamber for school choice for years. The editorials regularly applaud charter schools as escape hatches from public schools and repeat the talking points of the billionaires and hedge fund managers who have gleefully replaced public schools with privately managed schools. I can’t recall an editorial that acknowledged the importance of rebuilding, revitalizing, and strengthening public education as a major responsibility of our society. I can’t recall one that criticized the onslaught of privatization against public education in our nation’s urban schools, where parents of color have lost not only their public schools, but their voice as citizens in creating public schools that serve the entire community. The editorial board has steadfastly ignored the coordinated and bipartisan assault on democratic governance of public schools in cities and states across the nation. The op-ed page, which was created to provide a space for views different from the editorial page has seldom challenged school choice orthodoxy. Almost every regular opinion writer has lauded the “miracle” of charter schools, including David Brooks, Nicholas Kristof, and David Leonhardt. The op-ed page recently included an article urging liberals not to give up on charters even though Betsy DeVos likes them too, even though they are segregated and non-union.

But now comes a new and welcome voice.

Erin Aubrey Kaplan writes that school choice is the enemy of justice. She has been selected as a regular opinion writer, which is more good news. She writes about her personal experience as a child in California, a state that is controlled by Democrats but purchased by the billionaires who sneer at public schools and want to replace them with charter schools. She reminds us that school choice was the battle cry of segregationists. In many states and cities, it still is.

Her article poses an essential question: Is public education, democratically controlled, still part of the social contract? And she writes that many white liberals, including Jerry Brown (and in New York, Andrew Cuomo) have said no.

She writes:

“LOS ANGELES — In 1947, my father was one of a small group of black students at the largely white Fremont High School in South Central Los Angeles. The group was met with naked hostility, including a white mob hanging blacks in effigy. But such painful confrontations were the nature of progress, of fulfilling the promise of equality that had driven my father’s family from Louisiana to Los Angeles in the first place.

“In 1972, I was one of a slightly bigger group of black students bused to a predominantly white elementary school in Westchester, a community close to the beach in Los Angeles. While I didn’t encounter the overt hostility my father had, I did experience resistance, including being barred once from entering a white classmate’s home because, she said matter-of-factly as she stood in the doorway, she didn’t let black people (she used a different word) in her house.

“Still, I believed, even as a fifth grader, that education is a social contract and that Los Angeles was uniquely suited to carry it out. Los Angeles would surely accomplish what Louisiana could not.

“I was wrong. Today Los Angeles and California as a whole have abandoned integration as the chief mechanism of school reform and embraced charter schools instead.

“This has happened all over the country, of course, but California has led the way — it has 630,000 students in charter schools, more than any other state, and the Los Angeles Unified School District has more than 154,000 of them. Charters are associated with choice and innovation, important elements of the good life that California is famous for. In a deep-blue state, that good life theoretically includes diversity, and many white liberals believe charters can achieve that, too. After all, a do-it-yourself school can do anything it wants.

“But that’s what makes me uneasy, the notion that public schools, which charters technically are, have a choice about how or to what degree to enforce the social contract. There are many charter success stories, I know, and many make a diverse student body part of their mission. But charters as a group are ill suited to the task of justice because they are a legacy of failed justice.

“Integration did not happen. The effect of my father’s and my foray into those white schools was not more equality but white flight. Largely white schools became largely black, and Latino schools were stigmatized as “bad” and never had a place in the California good life.

“It’s partly because diversity can be managed — or minimized — that charters have become the public schools that liberal whites here can get behind. This is in direct contrast to the risky, almost revolutionary energy that fueled past integration efforts, which by their nature created tension and confrontation. But as a society — certainly as a state — we have lost our appetite for that engagement, and the rise of charters is an expression of that loss.

“Choice and innovation sound nice, but they also echo what happened after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, when entire white communities in the South closed down schools to avoid the dread integration.

“This kind of racial avoidance has become normal, embedded in the public school experience. It seems particularly so in Los Angeles, a suburb-driven city designed for geographical separation. What looks like segregation to the rest of the world is, to many white residents, entirely neutral — simply another choice.

“Perhaps it should come as no surprise that in 2010, researchers at the Civil Rights Project at U.C.L.A. found, in a study of 40 states and several dozen municipalities, that black students in charters are much more likely than their counterparts in traditional public schools to be educated in an intensely segregated setting. The report says that while charters had more potential to integrate because they are not bound by school district lines, “charter schools make up a separate, segregated sector of our already deeply stratified public school system.”

“In a 2017 analysis, data journalists at The Associated Press found that charter schools were significantly overrepresented among the country’s most racially isolated schools. In other words, black and brown students have more or less resegregated within charters, the very institutions that promised to equalize education.

“This has not stemmed the popular appeal of charters. School board races in California that were once sleepy are now face-offs between well-funded charter advocates and less well-funded teachers’ unions. Progressive politicians are expected to support charters, and they do. Gov. Jerry Brown, who opened a couple of charters during his stint as mayor of Oakland, vetoed legislation two years ago that would have made charter schools more accountable. Antonio Villaraigosa built a reputation as a community organizer who supported unions, but as mayor of Los Angeles, he started a charter-like endeavor called Partnership for Los Angeles Schools.

“This year, charter advocates got their pick for school superintendent, Austin Beutner. And billionaires like Eli Broad have made charters a primary cause: In 2015, an initiative backed in part by Mr. Broad’s foundation outlined a $490 million plan to place half of the students in the Los Angeles district into charters by 2023.

“I live in Inglewood, a chiefly black and brown city in Los Angeles County that’s facing gentrification and the usual displacement of people of color. Traditional public schools are struggling to stay open as they lose students to charters. But those who support the gentrifying, which includes a new billion-dollar N.F.L. stadium in the heart of town, see charters as part of the improvements. They see them as progress.

“Despite all this, I continue to believe in the social contract that in my mind is synonymous with public schools and public good. I continue to believe that California will at some point fulfill that contract. I believe this most consciously when I go back to Westchester and reflect on my formative two years in school there. In the good life there is such a thing as a good fight, and it is not over.“

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Education Industry, Education Reform, Inequity, Justice, Privatization, Racism, School Choice, Segregation , Racial Isolation and Integration
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »