What Koch Wants From Candidates

The Very Rightward Washington Examiner just ran an op-ed from Craig Hulse entitled "How GOP candidates can win on education." Like most such pieces, it would be better titled "These are policies we want these guys to support, so we're going to argue that supporting them is a way to win elections." It's marketing, not analysis, but in this case it's worth looking at for a second because of Hulse's job.

Craig Hulse is the executive director of Yes Every Kid. He's been a busy guy. He's been back and forth through the revolving public-private door. Staff assistant for Congress, legislative liaison for Nevada governor, state policy advisor in Nevada, Nevada state director of StudentsFirst, director of government relations for Las Vegas Sands, public policy/public affairs manager for Uber, the Ready Colorado choicer advocacy group, state government affairs for JUUL, policy and government affairs for Tesla--most of them for a little over a year. His job is to oversee "the lobbying team with efforts across the United States to direct education and influence campaigns to shape education policy that is open to the free flow of ideas and innovation."

Yes Every Kid is the education wing of the kinder, gentler Kochtopus. It was a sort of prequel to Koch's 2020 announcement that the country was too partisan and he was, by golly, going to stop contributing to that. He followed that announcement up by throwing a giant pile of money behind GOP candidates, including those endorsed by Trump. A cynic might conclude that Koch's change of heart was just a rebranding exercise, a shiny coat of lipstick on the same old pack of porcine politics.

So what does this arm of Kochtopus want the GOP to do?

2023 has been a banner year for education freedom, with nearly all families in nine states now empowered to direct education funding in a way that best meets their kids’ needs. These state laboratories of democracy are innovating, and voters are responding. With all this progress, it’s no surprise that Republicans are seen as more trustworthy than Democrats on education — a development that will have major implications for next year’s presidential election.

"Voters are responding" is a cagey way of framing voter response. Voters, who have never passed an "education freedom" program at the ballot box, have been kicking back at the MAGA takeover of school boards. I have no idea what Hulse's basis for saying that the GOP "are seen" as more trustworthy. Are seen by whom, exactly? And that last line hints at what the current culture-war-based MAGA Moms assault on public education is about--activate the base and win some elections.

Hulse was unhappy with the GOP debates, and he singles out DeSantis as the one guy who has fallen in line with the desired ed policy. Hulse would like to see all candidates seize "the opportunity to illustrate a future where educational decisions are made by families." AKA a future in which families are on their own in trying to get their children an education.

What would this future look like? We must reaffirm what we mean by “public education.” It means curating educational experiences that best meet each student’s needs — regardless of where and how they take place. The traditional brick-and-mortar school building filled with rows of desks is an outdated idea.

Um, yes. That's why so many people were delighted when the bricks-and-mortar buildings were shut down during the pandemic and families were forced to curate other educational experiences wherever and however they could. Could it be that the idea that Koch et al find outdated is the idea of a system in which people with money pay taxes in order to finance education for those people with less money.

Hulse has three specific proposals.

First, "Empower families to direct funding." In other words, vouchers. He says some nice things about the potential of children and how the system is set up to push a "one size fits all system," because education reformsters love to rail against the schools of sixty years ago. The fact that he praises nine states suggests that he wants full-on ESA vouchers, so that families can spend it on public, private, micro or home schools (see once again how microschools help plug the hole in this pitch). 

Second, allow families to enroll students in schools outside their attendance zone. And he offers this striking analogy. "Imagine if, on a hot summer day, you could be denied access to a public pool or park because you live in the wrong neighborhood." I'm pretty sure lots of folks have no trouble imagining what that would be like, and that experience of Those People's Children being chased out of local facilities tells you something about the actual obstacles that this idea would face. Or history from Little Rock. Or the many post-Brown stories of cities where white students were allowed to switch schools, and Black students were not. Not saying this is the worst idea; I am saying that it would take a lot of thought and enforcement to keep it from being anything other than another mechanism for white flight.

Third, unbundle education. This is an old favorite, but his examples are uninformed. Why can't a homeschooled kid play on his local school's football team? No reason. My rural-ish school district has been doing that sort of thing for years and years. But his reasoning is a bit askew. They should be able to pick and choose bits of public education to access because "public schools are public institutions funded by taxpayer dollars" so "why should students have to enroll full time to participate." Except that if he gets his way on vouchers, that students' "share" of the taxpayer dollars will have gone elsewhere. 

But the whole "part time public school" idea is one more way to plug the problems with choice. Can't find a microschool or software program or faux teacher who can teach your kid calculus? Just go back to the public school to pick that up. Which seems like a backhanded way to admit that public schools are the best one stop shop to meet whatever educational needs you might have.

Hulse wraps up with some unsourced poll numbers about choice, and can we all just agree that what the public "wants" when it comes to school choice is pretty much a function of how the question is worded? 

Final pitch?

Candidates can unite the nation with a vision to promote freedom, empower families and improve public schools. On such a crowded debate stage, those who champion families will make a real impression on voters.

Really? Because DeSantis, the second Florida governor to pin his Presidential hopes on bold education policy, doesn't seem to be making much of a unifying visionary impression on voters. Koch certainly has money to throw at this dream of a pig and its wish for lipstick; we'll see what it gets him.