The week of January 22-28 has been declared “National School Choice” week by, well,…National School Choice Week. NSCW is a coalition of organizations, mostly private schools and charter school operators, whose mission is “..effective education options for every child.” This mission sounds good, but when it comes to education reform groups words are often misleading.
Baltimore Education Reform Examiner Morna McDermott studied the partners of NSCW and found them to consist largely of profit-driven interests seeking a share of the billions of dollars spent on public education every year. As she said, “A rose by any other name still spells privatizing education.”
McDermott noted that many of the organizations associated with NSCW are also associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a billionaire-backed group that also includes countless far-right legislators; and authors legislation for them to introduce in states across the country. With no exceptions, ALEC-penned bills come from a “free market solves everything” perspective.
Profit itself isn’t inherently bad. Living in a capitalistic economy, we all depend on it. However, there are some institutions in which profits are not necessary or even desirable. When it comes to public schools, any money passed on to CEO’s and shareholders is money NOT spent on students. Larger classes, fewer resources, and cheaper, hastily-trained, inexperienced teachers all pave the way for profits at the expense of student’s education.
But is there value to the concept of school choice itself? Again, it sounds good on its surface but upon study it simply is not the way to provide the best possible education for all students. Some needs of society are best met with a single public system.
Take national defense, for example. Where is the National Defense Choice Week? It doesn’t exist, because as a society we understand that our national security is best maintained with a single, publicly-funded and publicly-run system. Just think what would happened if we tried to establish choice in defense: chaos.
Not only would there be insurmountable confusion in planning, sharing (or lack of sharing) information, and a complete lack of coherent foreign policy; but the costs would skyrocket. Each and every private defense company would need funding sufficient to defend the nation. If we can’t (or won’t) raise enough tax revenue to fund ONE system, how would we fund multiple systems?
And how would a single Commander in Chief manage multiple systems which, due to their private nature, felt more obligated to answer to their shareholders?
State and local law enforcement provides another example. Where is the National Police Choice Week? It doesn’t exist, because as a society we understand that our state and local security is best maintained with a single, publicly-funded and publicly-run system. What would happen if we established a system of police choice?
If each citizen had a choice of police departments, multiple departments would still need funding sufficient to patrol the entire area and respond promptly to emergencies. Costs would skyrocket. If we can’t (or won’t) raise enough tax revenue to fund ONE system, how would we fund multiple systems?
And if people had their choice, would an officer from one department be able to pull over an erratic driver who had selected a different police service?
And if the free market drove choice of police departments, who among us would continue to use a department that gave us a speeding ticket? Would we in time select those departments which ignored traffic violations and perhaps even white-collar crime?
Real school choice would require sufficient funding for multiple school systems in every community. Each system would require its own infrastructure, staffing, transportation, and more. Costs would skyrocket. If we can’t (or won’t) bring in enough tax revenue to fund ONE system, how would we fund multiple systems?
The very nature of public services – whether they are police, fire, medical, roads, defense, or schools – guarantees that privatization would lead to a monopoly under market forces. Duplicate services are simply not sustainable. When a profit-driven monopoly runs vital public services, and places profit over public good, the original “choice” disappears and so does quality service. The charter school system that took over public schools in New Orleans is proof enough of that.
And what of the competitor school systems that failed as businesses? In a free-market system, some businesses win and others lose. If we were talking about restaurants or car washes, that’s fine. But if we privatize education, who really loses when a business fails?
When one for-profit school system closes, will the remaining business(es) be immediately able to accept schools full of additional students? Or will their own cost-cutting efficiency measures find them barely able to serve the students they already have?
What becomes of the students in the meantime?
And what happens to students when the only remaining school business in town decides your community just isn’t profitable, so they close up shop; leaving your town with no schools at all? Boeing’s recent decision is proof that many years in a community is no guarantee a business will stay. Are those the kinds of schools we want?
There are needs in society that are best met with a single, public system; and education is one such need. Many if not most advocates of school choice are really seeking profit for a few rather than quality education for all. The word “choice” is simply code for “legislation to facilitate shifting public money into private hands.”
As the current legislative session gets underway in Kansas, watch closely for “choice” and other code words in new bills. ”I’ve had several legislators say they’re working on charter school reform,” said Rep. Clay Aurand, R-Courtland and chairman of the House Education Committee. “There is interest in expanding it.”
Peter Groff, former chief executive officer of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in Washington, D.C., has testified to the House Education Committee this year. “…strengthen your charter statute and expand the roll of charter schools here in Kansas,” he said.
Goff said the Legislature should grant authority to organizations, in addition to public school districts, to start charter schools. “Other organizations” is code for profit-driven charter school management companies.
Goff also thinks Kansas should “expand oversight of charter schools, remove barriers that inhibit classroom innovation and grant autonomy for the schools to hire and fire staff.” Again, Goff’s statement is ripe with corporate-education-reform code: “expand oversight” is code for transfer of power to profit-driven companies. “Remove barriers” is code for removing accountability for educational results and expenditures of public money. ”Autonomy to hire and fire” is code for removal of licensure requirements – so cheaper teachers can be hired; and circumventing of teacher due process laws – allowing expensive and/or outspoken teachers to be fired at will.
If those statements aren’t such code, then we should expect the legislative solution to be not privatization but rather simply removing those barriers from our public schools. What we see, however, is just the opposite applied to public schools: stricter top-down oversight and more hoops to jump.
Money and logistics aside, if people had their choice of schools; would this competition improve the quality of education? Stay tuned for more examination of “school choice.”
Similar Posts:
- Is the Debate on Educational Choice Over?
- Universal Vouchers In Sweden
- Bill would give schools 15% of forfeited funds
- Funding bodies stump up cash in open access agreement
- Ohio’s Biennial Budget Sets the Conditions for Education Success
