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

Steven Singer Was Blocked by Facebook for Writing This Post: ”School Choice Is a Lie”

By dianeravitch
October 7, 2017 //
20

Steven Singer was blocked by Facebook for a week because of the post you are about to read. This post “violated community standards.” Steven Singer was censored by an algorithm. Or, Steven Singer was censored by the Political Defense team that tries to prevent any criticism of charter schools and TFA. This team swarms Facebook and other social media and complains that a post or tweet is “offensive” and the machine blocks the offending post.

This is the post by Steven Singer that has been blocked. This is the lie about “school choice” that DeVos and ALEC and charter promoters don’t want you to read.

He writes:

Neoliberals and right-wingers are very good at naming things.

Doing so allows them to frame the narrative, and control the debate.

Nowhere is this more obvious than with “school choice” – a term that has nothing to do with choice and everything to do with privatization.

It literally means taking public educational institutions and turning them over to private companies for management and profit.

He adds:

There are two main types: charter and voucher schools.

Charter schools are run by private interests but paid for exclusively by tax dollars. Voucher schools are run by private businesses and paid for at least in part by tax dollars.

Certainly each state has different laws and different legal definitions of these terms so there is some variability of what these schools are in practice. However, the general description holds in most cases. Voucher schools are privately run at (at least partial) public expense. Charter schools are privately run but pretend to be public. In both cases, they’re private – no matter what their lobbyists or marketing campaigns say to the contrary.

They take money from public schools that serve all students and give it to privatized schools that choose their students and expel those they don’t want.

Charters and vouchers are the Walmartization of public education. They introduce corporate chains to run what used to be neighborhood public schools. The only difference is that everyone may shop at Walmart, but not everyone who applies will be accepted at a choice school. The school does the choosing, not the family.

Steven reinforces what I wrote in Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. “School choice” is a hoax, a lie. It is promoted by rightwing ideologues and by Democratic politicians hungry for funding by the financial sector, which sees schools as an emerging industry. Don’t be fooled.

School choice is privatization. And privatization is very bad for those who are not chosen. And very bad for our democracy.

Categories ALEC, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Democracy, Education Industry, For-Profit, Lies, Privatization, School Choice, Virtual Charter Schools, Vouchers

Shocker: Starbucks Supports Rightwing Policy Group in Washington State, DeVos Scheduled to Speak

By dianeravitch
October 7, 2017 //
20

Starbucks is my favorite brand of coffee, but I won’t be buying it anymore.

I just learned that Starbucks supports the Washington Policy Center, a rightwing policy group in Washington State that supports right-to-work (for less) laws, opposes a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and supports charters and vouchers. Bear in mind that the Supreme Court of Washington State ruled that charter schools are not public schools and not entitled to public funding. The Washington Policy Center supports school privatization.

Its last event featured Nigel Farage, the British politician who led the movement for Britain to secede from the European Union, or Brexit.

WPC has invited Betsy DeVos as its keynote speaker at its annual dinner on October 13 in Bellevue. Her views on school privatization are the same as those of the Washington Policy Center.

Melissa Westbrook, community activist, contacted Starbucks for their response. The statement she received by Email confirmed that Starbucks sponsors the Washington Policy Center but had nothing to do with the choice of speaker. This is an irrelevant answer. Why is Starbucks supporting a rightwing policy center at all? Next year the speaker might be Scott Walker or Charles Koch.

Express your disappointment with this hashtag: #whyStarbucks. Or sign this petition.

Corporations that bill themselves as “progressive” should not support rightwing policy centers that promote school privatization.

Starbucks is free to support any cause it chooses, and I am free not to buy their coffee anymore.

Categories Accountability, ALEC, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers, Washington State

Peter Greene: Why College is Not Like K-12

By dianeravitch
October 6, 2017 //
34

Betsy DeVos keeps trying out different metaphors and analogies in her effort to persuade the public that school choice is way better than public schools.

She has referred to cell phones (you choose among many different providers but the government doesn’t underwrite your choice), Uber (you choose but the government doesn’t underwrite your choice), food trucks outside the U.S. Department of Education (because there are no nearby restaurants but the government also doesn’t pay for your lunch).

So she tried again: You choose your college, why not choose your school?

Peter Greene explains here why this analogy fails.

Here a few of his wise observations:

“In the higher education system, it is primarily the interests of students that are at stake. In K-12, all of society has a stake in the system. Public schools do not exist to serve only parents. The interests of the students, their future employers, their future neighbors and co-workers, their future fellow voters, the community as a whole– all of these interests are represented. That’s why all taxpayers chip in (unlike the higher ed system). That means that all stakeholders get a say, and all public schools should be subjected to a considerably higher level of oversight and accountability than a school ike Harvard.

“Why is choice wrong for K-12? Believe it or not, I don’t think it has to be wrong. But as currently proposed and practiced, it’s wrong because

* There must be accountability for where and how public tax dollars are spent (that includes both issues of quality and issues of violating separation of church and state)

* The system must be fully funded. You cannot run three schools for the money previously spent on one. Don’t make it a zero-sum game– fully fund it.

* Do not leave leftover students behind. Do not push students out because they don’t fit your model. If you want choice, make it parents’ choice, not the school’s choice.

* Students before profits. No for-profits choices. And stringent rules on not-for-profits, most of whom are currently just for-profits with good money-laundering systems.

* Total transparency and complete local control.

“None of these are features of the system that brought those students to Harvard. That’s why choice in higher education, while not always very successful, is less objectionable than choice for K-12.”

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Higher Education, School Choice

Jeff Bryant: DeVos Dispenses $253 Million to Fund Failures and Frauds in Charter Industry and Undercut Needy Public Schools

By dianeravitch
October 6, 2017 //
13

Jeff Bryant, writing for the Education Opportunity Network, analyzes the U.S. Department of Education’s recent award of $253 Million to the Failing Charter Industry. He is especially appalled by the funding of charters in New Mexico, whose state auditor has identified numerous frauds in the charter sector, and whose public schools are shamefully underfunded.

He writes:

“Previous targets for federal charter grants have resembled a “black hole” for taxpayer money with little tracking and accountability for how funds have been spent spent. In the past 26 years, the federal government has sent over $4 billion to charters, with the money often going to “ghost schools” that never opened or quickly failed.

“In 2015, charter skeptics denounced the stunning selection of Ohio for a $71 million federal chart grant, despite the state’s charter school program being one of the most reviled and ridiculed in the nation.

“This year’s list of state recipients raises eyebrows as well.

“One of the larger grants is going to Indiana, whose charter schools generally underperform the public schools in the state. Nearly half of the Hoosier state’s charters receive poor or failing grades, and the state recently closed one of its online charter schools after six straight years of failure.

“Another state recipient, Mississippi, won a federal grant that was curiously timed to coincide with the state’s decision, pending the governor’s approval, to take over the Jackson school district and likely hand control of the schools to a charter management group.”

(Coincidentally, Stephen Dyer just posted about Ohio’s scandal-plagued charter sector. He wrote that nearly one-third of the charters that received federal funding never opened or closed right after they got the money, I.e., they were “ghost schools.”)

Worst of all, writes Bryant, is the $22.5 Million that will be sent to New Mexico, which has high child poverty and perennially underfunded public schools, as well as a low-performing charter sector.

What possible reason is there to fund a parallel school system when the state refuses to fund its public schools?

“According to a state-based child advocacy group, per-pupil spending in the state is 7 percent lower in 2017 than it was in 2008. New Mexico is also “one of 19 states” that cut general aid for schools in 2017, with spending falling 1.7 percent. “Only seven states made deeper cuts than New Mexico.”

“New Mexico’s school funding situation has grown so dire, bond rating agency Moody’s Investors Service recently reduced the credit outlook for two-thirds of the school districts in the state, and parent and advocacy groups have sued the state for failing to meet constitutional obligations to provide education opportunities to all students.

“To fill a deficit gap in the state’s most recent budget, Republican Governor Susana Martinez tapped $46 million in local school district reserves while rejecting any proposed tax increases.

“Given the state’s grim education funding situation, it would seem foolhardy to ramp up a parallel system of charter schools that further stretches education dollars, but New Mexico has doubled-down on the charter money drain by tilting spending advantages to the sector.”

To make matters worse, charter schools are funded at a higher level than public schools, and the state’s three online charters operate for profit. Despite their funding advantage, the charters do not perform as well as public schools. There is seldom any penalty for failure.

The state auditor in New Mexico has called attention to frauds and scams that result from lack of oversight in the charter industry.

So the U.S. Department of Education under Betsy DeVos is now in the business of funding failure. Quality doesn’t matter. Ethics don’t matter. Undermining the educational opportunity of the majority of children doesn’t matter. For sure, money matters, but only when it is spent for privatization.

A few pundits predicted that DeVos would be unable to inflict harm on the nation’s public schools. They were wrong.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Corruption, Education Industry, Education Reform, Ethics, Failure, For-Profit, Fraud, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Privatization, School Choice

Jersey Jazzman: The Education “Reform Movent” is a Rightwing Movement

By dianeravitch
October 4, 2017 //
58

Jersey Jazzman is a teacher, blogger, and doctoral student in New Jersey. He has been writing brilliant statistical analyses of the differences between charter schools and public schools for years. He is no ideologue. He is a pragmatist.

In this post, he concludes what I long ago concluded: the so-called “reform movement” is a rightwing endeavor. I believe its real goals are to stamp out unions, deprofessionalize teaching (think TFA), and turn a profit on school funding.

JJ (aka Mark Weber) notes that Eva Moskowitz gets sizable funding from Wall Street and such notorious right wingers as the Mercer Family, which is also funding Steve Bannon. He notes the racist comments of the chairman of her board, as well as the Republican ties of other board members.

It is no secret that the notoriously rightwing Walton Family Foundation claims credit for opening one of e rey four charter schools in the nation. The Waltons hate unions.

One could go on and identify ALEC model legislation for charters. The connections are too glaring to overlook or excuse.

Betsy DeVos, Trump, ALEC, the Waltons, the Mercers…it is hard to find a rightwing politician or organization that is not pushing charters and vouchers.

That’s why the subtitle of my last book was “The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s public schools.”

The “hoax” was that the “reform movement” was actually a rightwing privatization movement.

As JJ writes:

“I really don’t know how much more clear this could be:

“- The education “reform” movement provides a pretext for underfunding public schools, which aligns with right-wing values.

“- The education “reform” movement is inherently anti-union, which aligns with right-wing values.

“- The education “reform” movement thrives when communities of color lose agency over their schools, which aligns with right-wing values.

“- The education “reform” movement is financed by wealthy people who openly profess conservative values.

“Can we please, then, stop this nonsense about charter schools and vouchers being a policy embraced by the left? Yes, there are some Democrats and other folks who are otherwise liberals who support “choice.” But their embrace of “reform” — whether out of ignorance or hypocrisy or, yes, even genuine belief — is inconsistent with the liberalism they espouse in other policy areas.

“Education “reform” is a right-wing movement. There is nothing remotely liberal about privatizing schools, demonizing unions, and making excuses for underfunding education. If you support charter schools and vouchers and call yourself a liberal, that is, of course, your right. But it’s really no different than being a pro-assault weapon liberal, or a pro-life* liberal: you’re holding a position on at least one issue (and likelyothers) that is philosophically aligned with the right.”

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

Jennifer Berkshire Interviews Richard Rothstein on the Racial Wealth Gap and How to Fix It

By dianeravitch
October 2, 2017 //
10

In this post, Jennifer Berkshire interviews Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law.

She writes:

The gap between how much wealth Blacks and Whites have in the US is stark. If current trends continue, the median wealth of Blacks could fall to zero, even as wealthy Whites remain blissfully, even delusionally, unaware of the economic divide. But what is the source of the racial wealth gap, and how can we upend what is essentially a caste system in this country? AlterNet education editor Berkshire talks to Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law, about the federal housing policies that segregated cities, neighborhoods and schools, dividing the economic prospects of Blacks and Whites in the process.

Rothstein blows up the myth that residential segregation is the product of millions of private choices. And he has little patience for arguments that school choice is the solution to cities and neighborhoods segregated by design. “We’re not going to solve this problem by choosing schools. We’re going to solve this problem by enforcing the neighborhood school concept in integrated neighborhoods.” Listen to the interview here.

The interview begins like this:

Jennifer Berkshire: The Color of Law takes aim at what you argue is a false narrative about the origins of residential segregation. Here’s your opportunity to set the record straight.

Richard Rothstein: I wrote this book in response to a national myth that the reason we have residential segregation in every metropolitan area in this country is the result of private activity. It’s the result of rogue real estate agents steering White families to White neighborhoods and Black families to Black neighborhoods. Or it’s the result of people wanting to live among same-race neighbors. Or it’s because of income differences and African-Americans are not able to afford to buy homes in White neighborhoods. Or it’s because of private individuals discriminating. It’s very hard to figure out what to do about the residential segregation that exists in every metropolitan area in this country if it’s the result of millions of accidental private decisions. But once we understand that residential segregation is the product of very explicit and intentional public policy, then it’s easier to understand that we can do something about it. If it was created by public policy it can be reversed by public policy.

JB: You lay out the history of a handful of federal housing policies that created the segregated cities and neighborhoods that remain with us today. In many ways the legacy of those policies comes down to a single word: equity.

RR: The Federal Housing Administration, which was created 1934, subsidized builders of large subdivisions, entire suburbs, with the explicit condition that no homes be sold African-Americans. The most famous of these is Levittown just east of New York City. William Levitt, the developer, could never have acquired the capital necessary to build all those homes on his own. He went to the Federal Housing Administration, which approved his plans on the condition that no homes be sold to African Americans, and further, that deeds include a clause prohibiting resale to African-Americans. There were hundreds of places like Levittown around the country; all of California, suburbs in places like Lakewood south of Los Angeles or Panorama City. was developed in this way with Federal Housing Administration requirements that no African-Americans be admitted.

At the time those homes sold for about twice the national median income; they were affordable to working class families. Today they sell for $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000. The White families who moved into those homes in the mid-twentieth century gained over the course of the next two or three generations. Half million dollars in equity. Maybe a little bit less but a lot of equity the Black families who were required to live in rented apartments either in public housing or private housing in urban areas get no equity. The result is that today nationwide African-American incomes on average are about 60 percent of White incomes. But African-American wealth is only about seven percent of White wealth and that enormous disparity 60 percent income ratio a percent wealth ratio is entirely attributable to unconstitutional federal housing policy practice in the mid 20th century.

JB: The cities that appear in your book include not just Chicago or St. Louis, metropolitan areas that we’ve come to associate with, say, segregated public housing, bt places we consider progressive bastions, like San Francisco and Cambridge.

RR: I like to talk in the book about the places like San Francisco and Cambridge, which also had government-created segregation because I think that if people can understand that this happened in places that are considered the most liberal places in the country it must have happened everywhere. Richmond, CA across the bay from San Francisco was at the center of shipbuilding. Its population was less than 20000 at the beginning of World War II, and by the end of the war was 100,000 Clearly the shipyards couldn’t keep working if the government didn’t provide housing for these workers.

So government in this neighborhood that in this community that never known segregation and didn’t even have an African-American population to speak of before the war created separate housing for African-Americans and for Whites. The housing for African-Americans was located along the railroad tracks near the shipyards in the industrial area of Richmond. The housing for Whites was located in the residential area further inland. It’s not that Whites happen to pick those those units and Blacks happened to pick the units in the industrial area. This was explicitly designated. All over the country the government created segregation where if it existed before it existed in a much less rigid form or in places like Richmond where it never existed before.

You should listen. Richard Rothstein is brilliant, as usual.

Categories School Choice, Segregation , Racial Isolation and Integration

New Study: Education Is Important, But It Is Not the Key to Economic and Social Mobility

By dianeravitch
October 1, 2017 //
20

Rachel M. Cohen writes in The Atlantic about a new study by Jesse Rothstein, showing that education is important but it is not the key to economic and social mobility.

She writes:

“A new working paper authored by the UC Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein builds on that research, in part by zeroing in on one of those five factors: schools. The idea that school quality would be an important element for intergenerational mobility—essentially a child’s likelihood that they will one day outearn their parents—seems intuitive: Leaders regularly stress that the best way to rise up the income ladder is to go to school, where one can learn the skills they need to succeed in a competitive, global economy. “In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education,” Barack Obama declared in his 2010 State of the Union address. Improving “skills and schools” is a benchmark of Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan’s poverty-fighting agenda.

“Indeed, this bipartisan education-and-poverty consensus has guided research and political efforts for decades. Broadly speaking, the idea is that if more kids graduate from high school, and achieve higher scores on standardized tests, then more young people are likely to go to college, and, in turn, land jobs that can secure them spots in the middle class.

“Rothstein’s new work complicates this narrative. Using data from several national surveys, Rothstein sought to scrutinize Chetty’s team’s work—looking to further test their hypothesis that the quality of a child’s education has a significant impact on her ability to advance out of the social class into which she was born.

“Rothstein, however, found little evidence to support that premise. Instead, he found that differences in local labor markets—for example, how similar industries can vary across different communities—and marriage patterns, such as higher concentrations of single-parent households, seemed to make much more of a difference than school quality. He concludes that factors like higher minimum wages, the presence and strength of labor unions, and clear career pathways within local industries are likely to play more important roles in facilitating a poor child’s ability to rise up the economic ladder when they reach adulthood….

“Jose Vilson, a New York City math teacher, says educators have known for years that out-of-school factors like access to food and healthcare are usually bigger determinants for societal success than in-school factors. He adds that while he tries his best to adhere to his various professional duties and expectations, he also recognizes that “maybe not everyone agrees on what it means to be successful” in life….

“Rothstein is quick to say that his new findings do not mean that Americans should do away with investments in school improvement, or even that education is unrelated to improving opportunity. Certainly the more that people can read, write, compute, think, and innovate, the better off society and liberal democracy would be. “It will still be good for us if we can figure out how to educate people more and better,” he says. “It might help the labor market, our civic society, our culture.” But Americans should be more clear, he says, about why they are investing in school improvement. His research suggests that doing so in order to boost a child’s chances to outearn their parents is unlikely to be successful. According to Rothstein, education systems just don’t go very far in explaining the differences between high- and low-opportunity areas.”

Union membership is another factor that explains whether children can escape poverty. But unions are under siege, and that route has been nearly closed off by the joint efforts of ALEC, the Koch brothers, the Walton family, and other billionaires who want to pull the ladder up behind them and claim that school choice will solve the economic disparity that benefits them.

Categories ALEC, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Economy, Research, School Choice, Unions

Peter Greene to Betsy DeVos: Schools Are Not Like Food Trucks

By dianeravitch
September 30, 2017 //
18

Betsy DeVos keeps searching for an analogy that will convert non-believers to her love of school choice.

Choosing a school is like choosing Uber. Or a cellphone. Or anything.

At her Harvard address, she compared schools to making a choice between a restaurant and a food truck. Do you think Billionaire Betsy buys lunch from a food truck? I will donate $300 to the campaign of Mark Weber’s (blogger-teacher Jersey Jazzman) wife, Linda, who is running for Congress in New Jersey, to the first person who can produce a photo of Betsy DeVos buying lunch from a food truck in front of the ED in D.C. Linda is trying to flip a Republican seat to Democratic. She will be a friend and ally to public education.

Peter Greene explains that schools are NOT food trucks.

“Note that DeVos continues to drift further and further away from any interest in accountability for quality– in this analogy we pick the choice that tastes good, and if it happens to be unhealthy or toxic or laced with fried dog meat, none of that matters. Taste is not a bad guide for matters of food, but with schools, what “tastes good” today is not necessarily what will best serve the student, the family, the community and the nation over the coming decades. “Tastes good this moment” and “provides a solid education for a lifetime” are two entirely different metrics

“Like every other commercial enterprise, the food trucks of DC are not geared to handle all customers. There are many reasons that comparing schools to businesses is a huge fail, but this is one of the hugest– there is no business sector in this country built on the idea of serving every single person in the country. Each food truck operates on the idea that some people will eat there and other people won’t, and as long as enough people eat there, the food truck is good. But if there are people who don’t eat at any of the food trucks, some people who don’t eat at all– well, that is not the food truck operators problem.

“And as a customer, you can’t get whatever you want– you can only get what the trucks are serving.

“The modern charter industry is a business model, and just like any other business model, it is built on serving some customers. Making sure that every student in America gets a good education is not the goal, the purpose or even the concern of the charter industry. But it has to be the concern of a public school system.

“Schools are not businesses. Students are not customers. And education is not a side of fries.”

Find another analogy, Betsy.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, School Choice

Key Appointment at U.S. Department of Education Goes to Swamp Dweller

By dianeravitch
September 29, 2017 //
25

Politico reports that a key position at the U.S. Department of Education will go to one of the nation’s most outspoken opponents of public schools, Jim Blew. Blew has long experience at the charter-loving, union-hating Walton Family Foundation and served as president of Michelle Rhee’s public school-bashing Students First. The position he is slated to assume is the policymaking arm of the department. It is supposed to be a nonpartisan, expert role, judging the efficacy of Department initiatives. It might as well be abolished because we already know that school choice, charters, vouchers, union-bashing, and inexperienced teachers will be the policies of this administration.

“TRUMP TO NOMINATE JIM BLEW FOR ED SPOT: Jim Blew, director of the education advocacy group Student Success California, is Trump’s pick to become the Education Department’s assistant secretary of the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. POLITICO reported he was the frontrunner in July. The administration announced late Thursday that the president plans to formally nominate him for the role. The announcement touted Blew’s experience as the former president of Students First, a national advocacy organization founded by former D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. It also said that for more than a decade, he was a key adviser to the Walton family, serving as director of K-12 reform investments for the Walton Family Foundation.”

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Rhee, Michelle, School Choice, U.S. Department of Education, Unions, Vouchers, Walton Foundation

Florida: New Study Finds That Schools are Rapidly Resegregating

By dianeravitch
September 29, 2017 //
9

A new study released by the Leroy Collins Institute and conducted by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA finds that Florida’s schools are resegregation at an alarming rate. Here is the study that is cited in the article.

Bear in mind that Florida is the utopia of school choice. Its policies for the past twenty years have been shaped by Jeb Bush, and Betsy DeVos thinks that Florida should be a model for the nation.

“Student enrollment trends in Florida over the past decades show growing racial isolation for Hispanic and black students on some measures, with signs of continuous segregation on others,” the study said.

Some 32 percent of Hispanic students and 35 percent of black students in Florida attend “intensely segregated” schools, defined as have a nonwhite student body of 90 percent or greater, according to the study.

One out of every five schools was intensely segregated in the 2014-2015 academic year, about double the 10.6 percent of the schools that fell into that category in 1994-1995.

The more heavily segregated schools had more poor students. In schools with at least a 50 percent nonwhite school body, low-income students represented 68 percent of the population. Low-income students represented 82.5 percent of the population in the schools with a 90 percent or greater nonwhite student body.

“Florida is the third-largest state in the country and has the most diverse student body in our state’s history, yet one-fifth of our public schools are intensely segregated,” said Carol Weissert, a Florida State University political scientist who leads the Collins Institute. “Similar segregation is evident for low-income students. All Floridians deserve equal access to a quality education, regardless of race or economic standing.”

As the students have become more diverse, the schools have become more segregated:

Since 1980, Hispanic students have increased from 8 percent of Florida students to about 31 percent in 2014, the report showed. White students declined from 68 percent to just under 41 percent, while black students remained about 22 percent during that period.

The study also showed that the number of students defined as low-income has been rising over the last two decades, increasing from 36 percent in 1994-1995 to nearly 59 percent in 2014-2015.

Calling the trend “double segregation,” the report showed typical black students were likely attending schools with 68 percent low-income students, and Hispanic students were in schools with a 65 percent low-income population, “while the typical white student and Asian student are in schools where less than half of the students are poor.”

Florida’s answer to education issues: School choice. Charter schools, tax credits, virtual charter schools.

This is an avoidance of the problem, not a solution.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Bush, Jeb, Florida, School Choice, Segregation
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »