Archives for category: School Choice

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, former talk show host, really wants vouchers for the millions of students in Texas. Fortunately, he has been defeated year after year by a coalition of rural Tepublicans and urban Democrats.

The battle is on again this year. Patrick and his fellow ideological zealots are headed for a showdown on the issue. There is no evidence that vouchers “work,” and much evidence that they don’t. In a state like Texas, the voucher proposal is strongly opposed by a brave group called Pastors for Texas Children. (Make a donation if you can to help them.)

Supporters of vouchers insist that the schools that receive public funds should be exempt from state tests or any other accountability measures, which might limit their “freedom.”

“A bipartisan group of state representatives hammered private school choice proponents at a heated legislative hearing on Monday, signaling an enduring uphill battle in the Texas House for proposals that would use taxpayer dollars to help parents send their kids to private or parochial schools, or educate them at home.

“Rural Republicans and Democrats in the lower chamber have long blocked such programs — often referred to in sweeping terms as “private school vouchers,” although there are variations. Passing one has emerged as a top priority in the Texas Senate for Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who unsuccessfully pushed a private school choice program when he was a Republican state senator from Houston and chairman of the Senate Education Committee.”

Of course, the proposal for vouchers is a pathetic excuse for failing to restore the $5 billion cut to the public schools in 2011.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities documents how states are disinvesting in K-12 education.

This report shows the dramatic contradiction between political rhetoric and economic reality. The state’s that are cutting education spending are also demanding higher test scores, and many have launched charters and vouchers, which further diminish funding for public schools.

It begins:

“Public investment in K-12 schools — crucial for communities to thrive and the U.S. economy to offer broad opportunity — has declined dramatically in a number of states over the last decade. PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN K-12 SCHOOLS HAS DECLINED DRAMATICALLY IN A NUMBER OF STATES OVER THE LAST DECADE.Worse, most of the deepest-cutting states have also cut income tax rates, weakening their main revenue source for supporting schools.

“At least 23 states will provide less “general” or “formula” funding — the primary form of state support for elementary and secondary schools — in the current school year (2017) than when the Great Recession took hold in 2008, our survey of state budget documents finds. Eight states have cut general funding per student by about 10 percent or more over this period. Five of those eight — Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin — enacted income tax rate cuts costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each year rather than restore education funding.

“Most states raised general funding per student this year, but 19 states imposed new cuts, even as the national economy continues to improve. Some of these states, including Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Carolina, already were among the deepest-cutting states since the recession hit.

“Our country’s future depends heavily on the quality of its schools. Increasing financial support can help K-12 schools implement proven reforms such as hiring and retaining excellent teachers, reducing class sizes, and expanding the availability of high-quality early education. So it’s problematic that so many states have headed in the opposite direction over the last decade. These cuts risk undermining schools’ capacity to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs.

“Our survey, the most up-to-date data available on state and local funding for schools, also indicates that, after adjusting for inflation:

“Thirty-five states provided less overall state funding per student in the 2014 school year (the most recent year available) than in the 2008 school year, before the recession took hold.
In 27 states, local government funding per student fell over the same period, adding to the damage from state funding cuts. In states where local funding rose, those increases rarely made up for cuts in state support.”

This helps to explain the lure of school choice. It is a thinly-veiled way to divert attention from a state’s failure to fund its public schools. It offers a cheap alternative.

Lloyd Lofthouse, veteran of the military and veteran teacher, wrote this explanation of the ingredients of school success. He writes that school choice undermines success because it destroys community support for the community’s children.

He wrote in a comment:

The neos (liberal and conservative) are always looking for language loopholes to subvert the constitutions of the states and nations.

How can schools compete unless the students compete because using student test scores to rank schools forcing schools to compete can’t work unless every single student competes by actually paying attention to teachers, what teachers teach, cooperating, no behavior problems, no disruption, and every child reads every day for fun and learning in addition to doing all the work?

Find me a teacher in almost all the public schools who’s taught for at least 10 years and claims that every one of their students has is is always on track and working/learning, and I will show you a liar. If you can’t cherry pick the students and cherry pick the facts, then you can’t be successful with 100 percent of the students.

Choice means the end of a free public education for every child even if the child is a challenge to engage in the process for learning.

The formula for a child’s education takes a village. Schools can’t do it alone. Teacher’s can’t do it alone. Children can’t do it alone. Parents can’t do it alone. They all have to come together and work together for learning to happen.

Choice will never replace the village. That why the community based, locally controlled, democratic, transparent, non-profit, traditional public schools are the only way to allow the opportunity for every child to be offered an education to work.

Children also have a choice when they walk into a school. They have a choice to learn or not to learn and some of them choose not learning when they do not do the work and do not read for whatever reason and there are a lot o reasons why those children do not join the village to learn what teachers teach.

Even Donald Trump was a challenging child to teach. I’ve read that Trump was kicked out of his expensive private school because he was a challenge to teach so his father sent him to a military boarding school, a boot camp school similar to Eva’s Success Academy.

Mercedes Schneider has written a book every summer for three years in a row, during her break from teaching high school English. Thomas Ultican reviews her latest book, School Choice: The End of Public Education?

The book traces school choice to libertarian economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Mercedes shows the centrality of school choice to the segregationist diehards in the South in the 1950s and 1960s.

There is a terrible irony in the fact that today’s advocates of school choice claim to be fighting for civil rights when they are promoting racial segregation. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would not have allowed them to get away with this deceptive rhetoric.

Ultican notes that school choice has encouraged not only racial segregation, but class segregation as well. He tells this anecdote:

“Around 2003, a friend tried to convince my wife and I to send our daughter to High Tech High. This mother did not want her daughter to be exposed to all those bad influences at Mira Mesa High School. Mira Mesa High School is a quality school that graduates amazingly gifted students every year and sets them on to a course of academic and social success. But the new charter school that Bill Gates and Irwin Jacobs had put so much money into surely would not have all those feared “bad kids.””

Schneider’s book is the go-to book to understand the current vogue for vouchers and charters, as well as public ignorance of the ways that charter operators scam public funds. The most lucrative angle is in real estate; the charter operator buys the building, rents it to his charter school, charges double the going rate, and passes the bill to taxpayers.

Ultican urges you to buy the book, read it, and share it with friends.

Lisa Haver, retired teacher in Philadelphia, points out that that families in Philadelphia have experienced closures of their local public schools, leaving them no choice but charter schools.

“Two years ago, Superintendent William Hite allowed parents at two North Philadelphia schools to vote on whether to allow a charter company of the district’s choosing to take control of the schools. Parents at both schools voted overwhelmingly to remain public. Thus, in 2015, parents and students at three more district schools were given no vote, but simply informed that their schools were to be placed in the Renaissance program. The choice had been made for them.”

The goal of “choice” is to give parents no choice at all.

If you care about public education, don’t vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.

Johnson told Politico that he does not believe in public education. He does not understand that the entire community must pay for education, and no one will vote for a bond issue

GARY JOHNSON’S EDUCATION IDEAS: The Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson is selling himself as the golden alternative in an election year of unpopular major-party presidential candidates. Double-digit poll numbers and a couple of newspaper endorsements have brought unprecedented attention to the former governor of New Mexico – a self-professed “fringe” candidate campaigning on a platform of small government and social liberalism. On education, Johnson’s most popular proposal is to disband the Department of Education entirely. POLITICO’s Mel Leonor caught up with Johnson to talk about his education proposals and the Libertarian ideal for American schools: http://politico.pro/2c85QJC

– We asked Johnson what the federal government’s role is in public education. “I don’t see one,” he responded. The third-party candidate, who strongly supported universal vouchers in New Mexico, is a backer of full-blown school choice, which he believes would kick-start competition and, in turn, drive better performance. “I do think ultimately it would be the end of traditional public schools and that would be for the better. Public schools are not going to go away, but they are going to embrace the innovation that would occur if students had a choice.” On the student debt crisis, Johnson backs a federal investment to refinance existing debt at lower interest rates to relieve students hurt by a crisis “caused” by the federal government: “If there were no guaranteed government student loans, higher education would be much more affordable.”

Peter Greene delves into 16 policy ideas for education, proffered by Bellwether Education Partners, a consulting group populated by and for reformers.

You will not be surprised that at the top of the list is school choice. Despite any evidence that charter schools are intrinsically superior to public schools, they are the solution put forward, as well as increasing the federal tax breaks to incentivize more investments in charters.

Peter reviews the 16 policies and finds not much new.

He concludes:

Some points worth thinking about, and a whole lot of swift repackagings of the same old reformster profiteering sales pitches. As I said at the top– Clinton already knows all of this and all Trump really wants is a tub of gasoline and a blowtorch, so I’m not sure to whom this pitch is aimed. But it’s on the reformster radar, so it should be on our as well.

EduShyster interviews two scholars (that is, grown-ups with doctorates at universities, not children in no-excuses charter schools) about their new study of the marketing and branding of schools. In the brand new world of school choice, schools have to find ways to attract both students and teachers.

Sarah Butler Jessen and Catherine DiMartino wrote a study called “Privatization, Choice, and Online Marketing” for the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Jessen and DiMartino explain to EduShyster that aggressive charter schools flood their target zones with mailings in order to produce more applicants than there are openings. This helps to brand them as “popular.”

Donald Trump’s campaign released an ad to show how unlimited choice would “make America great again.” If every parent could choose to send their child to a religious school, a charter school, a storefront school, or whatever, then everyone would get a great education!

Here is the ad.

Our students do not need certified teachers or principals. They do not need smaller classes. They do not need anything but choice.

Forget the fact that the research on charters shows they do not produce better results than public schools (unless they exclude low-performing students), and that voucher schools perform worse than public schools.

Jeff Bryant writes here about a well-known phenomenon: School choice promotes self-segregation.

Donald Trump and the entire Republican party supports school choice.

The irony is that Secretary of Education John King, like Arne Duncan before him, also promotes school choice and believes that it will open opportunities to children of color. As Bryant shows, school choice has the opposite effect. The most advantaged families get the best choices. The least advantaged do not.

Mercedes Schneider recently wrote a book titled School Choice: The End of Public Education?, which documents that school choice was the central strategy of those who wanted to preserve racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s.

In addition, there is international evidence that choice programs will exacerbate segregation, unless there is an effort to “control” choice by giving larger subsidies to disadvantaged children or limiting the enrollment of certain groups in the most desirable schools.