Archives for category: School Choice

 

First it was New Orleans, its public schools crippled by a devastating hurricane, which was used to sweep away public education. Now, it is Puerto Rico, crushed by a powerful hurricane, with most of the island left by the federal government without access to electricity or clean water.

Now Puerto Rico will abandon public education and turn its students over to private operators and religious schools. Let someone else run the schools. The government prefers to abandon them.

Steven Singer writes a cogent analysis of the death of public education in Puerto Rico.

“More than five months since a devastating hurricane hit the island’s shores, some 270 schools are still without power.

“Roughly 25,000 students are leaving with that number expected to swell to 54,000 in four years. And that’s after an 11-year recession already sent 78,000 students seeking refuge elsewhere.

“So what do you do to stop the flow of refugees fleeing the island? What do you do to fix your storm damaged schools? What do you do to ensure all your precious children are safe and have the opportunity to learn?

“If you’re Puerto Rico’s Governor Ricardo Rossello, you sell off your entire system of public education.

“After an economic history of being pillaged and raped by corporate vultures from the mainland, Rossello is suggesting the U.S. Territory offer itself for another round of abuse.

“He wants to close 300 more schools and change the majority of those remaining into charter and voucher schools.

“That means no elected school boards.

“That means no public meetings determining how these schools are run.

“It means no transparency in terms of how the money is spent.

“It means public funding can become private profit.

“And it means fewer choices for children who will have to apply at schools all over the island and hope one accepts them. Unlike public schools, charter and voucher schools pick and choose whom to enroll.

“Make no mistake. This has nothing to do with serving the needs of children. It is about selling off public property because it belongs to poor, brown people.”

 

You have to hand it to Betsy DeVos. She never gives up on a bad idea, no matter what the evidence shows. With clear findings that vouchers don’t produce better results, with increasing numbers of charter frauds, and declining enthusiasm for charter schools, she does not waver in her commitment to destroy public education. No matter how much damage she inflicts on children, she pushes forward with her failed libertarian theories because she is “doing it for the kids.”

And now, DeVos puts Backpack funding in place in a federal pilot:

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/02/essa_weighted_student_funding_pilot_devos.html

“DeVos and her team have been especially interested in the pilot, pretty much from the time they took office. That could be because, in theory, adopting a weighted student funding formula could make it easier for districts to operate school choice programs, since money would be tied to individual students and could therefore follow them to charter or virtual public schools. Importantly, though, districts that opt to participate in the pilot don’t necessarily have to use it to further school choice.”

My advice: if you get the money, spend it where kids have teachers are certified to meet the needs of children with disabilities and children learning English.

Choice that busts up the public schools does not help children. Itcadvances the long term goals of libertarian zealots like the DeVos family and the Koch brothers.

It is so rare to find a mainstream newspaper that supports public schools and opposes privatization, that it is worth paying attention when you see one. Our reader Chiara sent this one in. If you see one in your city or state, send it in. Iowa has long been renowned for its excellent public schools. Community support is a big part of that excellence. Thank you, Des Moines Register!

The editorial begins like this:

Let’s just call the “school choice” movement what it really is: an effort to funnel taxpayer dollars from public schools to vouchers, private schools and home schools. Supporters seem to believe Iowa children are being held hostage in collapsing government education institutions. 

“If there’s a public school that’s failing, we have a responsibility to those children that we give them the best opportunity possible,” said Sen. Mark Chelgren, a Republican from Ottumwa.

Actually, if schools are failing, the Iowa Legislature has a responsibility to help fix them, which includes adequately funding them. Despite the rhetoric of Chelgren and other school-choice advocates, Iowa parents have numerous choices in educating their children.

That is exactly right. When a school has low test scores, help it. Support the kids and the teachers. Don’t kill public education by betting on vouchers (a proven failure) and charters (privately run schools that typically do no better than the public schools they replace).

 

 

 

 

The notorious billionaire Koch brothers have decided to target K-12 public schools. This fits neatly with their decades-long campaign to destroy public programs like Social zsecurity, Medicare, and anything else that taxes their ample pockets for the benefit of the common good.

Jeff Bryant writes here about the assemblage of Dark Money that includes not only the Kochs, but the DeVos family and nearly 700 others willing to put $100,000 into a common fund to destroy democratic institutions.

It is not surprising that rabid libertarians want to ruin the commonwealth.

The question, however, is what the Democrats will do about it. Will they join the Kochs and DeVos to support charters and choice? Will they defend public schools?

Given the abysmal record of the Obama administration, it seems that the people have to fight for their schools and not wait for a political savior.

 

According to the Hill, Betsy DeVos will do a trial run of debit cards for higher education. 

This will enable the Department of Education to track where the money is going.

”The Education Department will be launching a pilot program to place financial aid dollars on debit cards — a move that would allow officials to track how that federal aid is being spent.

“The program, which was announced in a notice posted in the federal register this month and reported on by BuzzFeed News, would begin next month and include up to 100,000 students.

“Currently, institutions receive the federal dollars, applying them to students’ tuition bills and then provide students with the excess funds. Under the program, students would receive the funds on the debit cards.

“The draft proposal for the pilot program says it would “enable more informed customer decision-making that helps Customers understand the financial implications of their student loan debt” and provide students “real-time, continuous counseling” through a mobile app.”

Two things to note here:

1. Students are described as “customers.”

2. The debit card could be a trial run for K-12.

 

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education, explains here how Mike Pence expanded and deregulated Indiana’s voucher program, with substantial cash infusions from Betsy DeVos and Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com.

Despite state law, failing voucher schools were renewed. Failing charter schools converted to voucher schools to evade accountability. The voucher program has subsidized churches and paid tuition for students who never attended public schools and thus were not “escaping” to better schools. Many of the religious schools teach fraudulent science and history.

School choice is a big step backward for education in Indiana

This article by Carol Burris was published in January but it remains as pertinent as ever.

Tell this to your friends and neighbors:

It is time we have an honest discussion about the true cost of school choice. It is a policy with steep fiscal consequences for our communities and our nation. Here is what every taxpayer should know:

Billions of federal tax dollars have poured into charter school promotion, without regard for success and with insufficient oversight.

By 2015, the federal government spent more than $3.7 billion to boost the charter sector — with millions wasted on financing “ghost schools” that never opened. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, Michigan spent $3.7 million of its federal dollars on 25 “ghost” schools. In California, more than $4.7 million federal dollars went to charter schools that shut down in a few years. And the flow has not stopped. In 2016, the federal government poured another $333 million to push charter schools, yet put forth no reforms to prevent waste. The same year the Department of Education’s own Inspector General warned of “the current and emerging risk” that is posed by charter management organizations for fraud and abuse.

Some charter schools spend more tax dollars on administration and less on teaching.

Most taxpayers want their tax dollars to go to the classroom for teaching and learning. Yet time and again, some charters spent far more than public schools on administration. In 2014-2015, Arizona charter schools spent over $128 million more than Arizona public schools on management costs. One charter chain, Basis, spent nearly $12 million on administrative costs in one year, for fewer than 9000 students — all hidden from public review.

When the latest federal study of D.C. voucher schools showed that students who take a voucher go backwards, not forward, Betsy DeVos responded that it didn’t matter. She said that when choice is fully implemented, all sectors–public, charter, and voucher–will get the same results.

Some investment! Divide up the money, undermine public schools (that take the neediest kids), and get the same results in all sectors.

 

Dr. Yohuru Williams, scholar and dean of the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, writes in The Progressive  about the sleight of hand played by advocates of school choice. 

The choice they offer is actually a “Hobson’s Choice,” meaning no choice at all. If you leave your public school, you defund it, harming the education of those who remain. You won’t get a voucher large enough for the best private schools. You may get into a charter school but there is no assurance they will keep you.

It is a hoax. It is backed by the Koch brothers, the DeVos family, evil ALEC, and others who long to destroy the public sector.

 

Linda Lyon, a retired Air Force colonel and president of the Arizona School Boards Association, responds to a reader who supports school choice, charters, vouchers, and home schooling.

She writes:

”Yes Charles, you are correct that the military industrial complex does provide a valuable service to our military mission. There are many functions that are not a core competency of the military (such as building airplanes) that have made sense to be outsourced. But, outsourcing the defense of our nation is not one of those functions. Where we’ve done that, as with Blackwater, it has not ended well.

“Of course education is “built” on a mix of public and private. After all, our public district schools don’t publish their own textbooks, or build their own buses or computers. But, as with the military, the core mission of our districts — to educate ALL our children, should not be outsourced. I maintain this function, to ensure it remains a common good, should not be privatized.

“I believe you intimate that when private schools siphon funding away from our district schools, it doesn’t matter because the student (and presumably the cost to educate them) goes with them. Unfortunately, all the costs don’t follow. Research shows that about 19% of the fixed costs (utilities, facility maintenance, administration, teachers, etc.) remain.

“Ultimately, your “tell” about your perspective is that you used the term “government run schools.” This tells me that you believe government is the problem and that privatizing our schools is the answer to reducing the size of our government. I believe our public district schools, are critical to the good functioning of our democratic Republic in that they are the only schools that truly take all comers, are totally transparent and accountable, and represent their communities through locally elected governing boards. I believe that anyone’s right to “choose” where they send their child to school, should not be more important than my right to know how my tax dollars should be spent and what the return on investment is. I believe in REAL fiscal responsibility…that we get what we pay for.”

Edward Johnson is an advocate for high quality public schools for all children. He lives in Atlanta. He has studied the works of G. Edwards Deming, who understood that you don’t blame frontline workers for problems with the system. If things go wrong, fix the system.

He wrote the following letter to Rev. Diane Daugherty about the absurdity of “choice” as a fix for the system (see her letter after his). In fact, “choice” is an abdication of responsibility by those who have the power to fix the system. They turn problems over to the market and hope for the best, ignoring the well-documented fact that the market deepens pre-existing inequities.

Of course, anyone who thinks that the Walton family, the DeVos family, Trump, ALEC, and other plutocrats are committed to civil rights and equity is either hopelessly naive or on their payroll.

He writes:

 

Rev. Diane Daugherty,

Thank you for lending your voice to the matter. Interestingly, one may take your understanding as a key aspect of the law research paper Opt-Out Education: School Choice as Racial Subordination, by Osamudia R. James, currently Vice Dean, University of Miami School of Law.

Atlanta superintendent Meria Carstarphen, Atlanta school board members, and BOOK, including especially its supporters UNCF and Andrew Young Foundation, would do well to learn from Vice Dean James’ paper.

But it may be unreasonable to expect any of them would. For example, this AJC article makes clear the superintendent, arguably Atlanta school choice proponents’ leader, holds an unshakable mindset fixated on commercializing public education in Atlanta by transforming it from a systemic public good into disparate private consumer goods, à la KIPP and others. So transformed, and unlikely to have resulted in improved schools, parents as consumers may then choose a school for their child just as they would choose a McDonald’s Happy Meal for the child. So goes the superintendent’s reasoning.

The pushback that arose in response to the superintendent’s profane conflation of consumerism and public education prompted school choice advocate Robert Holland to rise in her defense, with an attempt to say what the superintendent really meant to say. Holland, at the conservative and libertarian public policy think tank The Heartland Institute, blogged “The School Choice Generation Wants a Full Educational Menu.”

The Atlanta superintendent, school board, and BOOK would also do well to take from their partner and supporter, Walton Family Foundation, a lesson about how consumerism’s choice really works. Last week, the AJC and other media reported that, “based on a number of factors, including financial performance,” the Waltons made the decision to close their Lithonia Sam’s Club at Stonecrest. Was the store’s consumer community consulted or otherwise involved beforehand? Nope. Did the store’s consumer community have a choice? Nope. Now that once consumer community fears the Waltons have put upon it more problematic, if not new, food desert they did not “choose.”

The lesson, then, is who, in consumerism’s commercialized world, truly has choice and who truly does not.

Diane Ravitch offers an excerpt from Vice Dean James’ paper that amplifies the lesson (my emphases):

“James advocates for limitations on school choice ‘to prevent the disastrous social consequences–the abandonment of the public school system, to particularly deleterious consequence for poor and minority schoolchildren and their families–that occur as the collective result of individual, albeit rational, decisions. I also advocate for limitations on school choice in an attempt to encourage individuals to consider their obligations to children not their own, but part of their community all the same….The actual impact of school choice cannot be ignored. Given the radicalized realities of the current education system, choice is not ultimately used to broaden options or agency for minority parents. Rather, school choice is used to sanitize inequality in the school system; given sufficient choices, the state and its residents are exempted from addressing the sources of unequal educational opportunities for poor and minority students. States promote agency even as the subjects supposedly exercising that agency are disabled. Experience makes clear that school choice simply should not form an integral or foundational aspect of education reform policy. Rather, the focus should be on improving public schooling for all students such that all members of society can exercise genuine agency, initially facilitated by quality primary and secondary education. Ultimately, improving public education begins with preventing its abandonment.’”

 

This is Dr. Daugherty’s letter to the Atlanta Board of Education:

 

From: Diane Dougherty [mailto:doughertyadd@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:01 PM
To: EdJohnsonAfQPE <edwjohnson@aol.com>
Cc: AfQPE@aol.com; bamos@atlantapublicschools.us; cbriscoe_brown@atlanta.k12.ga.us; epcollins@atlantapublicschools.us; jesteves@atlantapublicschools.us; lgrant@atlantapublicschools.us; nmeister@atlantapublicschools.us; pierre.gaither@atlanta.k12.ga.us; mjcarstarphen@atlanta.k12.ga.us; annwcramer@gmail.com; Erika Y. Mitchell <eymitchell@gmail.com>; Kandis Wood <kandiswood@gmail.com>; Michelle Olympiadis <michelle.olympiadis@gmail.com>; education@naacpatlanta.org; president@naacpatlanta.org; info@bookatl.org; david.mitchell@bookatl.org; Naomi.Shelton@uncf.org; sekou.biddle@uncf.org; cmeadows@morehouse.edu; mbinderman@geears.org
Subject: Re: BOOK and newly installed Atlanta Board of Education Members

BOOK seems to promote better outcomes outside any effort to make existing public education better. Their methodology seems to create parallel academic structures diminishing schools that need an infusion of structures and funds. To me their short term efforts will not evolve into a sustainable plan 30 years from now. Without any data that supports their perceived “Better Outcomes, BOOK’S emphasis on School Choice has proven a poor strategy in decimated African American schools in Tennessee, Michigan and Louisiana….in spite of billions spent…why would there be improved outcomes here if it has not worked there? Rev. Diane Dougherty

Diane Dougherty, ARCWP

Avondale Estates, GA 30002

678-918-1945

doughertyadd@gmail.com