The Fundamental Challenge To Public Education and School Choice

There has always been an obstacle to public education in this country. It's real, its effects are punishing and far-reaching, and school choice doesn't provide the slightest solution.

Over at the Fordham Institute blog, Jessica Poiner is recycling an old reformster falsehood that is baloney wrapped around a kernel of truth. "Traditional public schools aren't open to everyone," she declares. The "So there!" is mostly silent. 

Poiner spins the pro-public ed statement into a "falsehood" by interpreting it as "All traditional public schools are open to all students," and she is absolutely correct that such a statement is absolutely false. Her assertion, however, doesn't really advance the argument because nobody has ever tried to make that argument.               

Poiner goes on to make the argument that between different schools and school districts we find considerable difference in quality and resources, and that access to the "better" schools is inequitable because of the American system ties school attendance to buying a house. Economic inequity is bakes into the US public education system; doubly so in areas where redlining (historically explicit or currently implicit). Poiner appears to be super-pissed that Ohio's voucher program, EdChoice, has been successfully challenged in court by public school districts, suggesting that districts hypocritically trap families so that adults can enjoy the benefits of the public system; students can't just go to the better schools because their parents didn't buy a house in the right place. 

I don't know of anyone who denies that some schools are better supported than others (though there's a whole discussion to be had about how we "know" that East Egg schools are better than West Egg). This points us to one of the most fundamental, long-standing problems of education-- how are we going to provide a good (enough) education for Those People's Children?

There have been a variety of solutions on the table:

1) Guarantee that every single child, no matter where they live, falls within a school district that must provide that child with an education. The use a system of state and federal taxation to even out the disparities between local tax bases.

2) Attach to every family some money and let them search out a school that they'd like to attend, public, private or charter. 

3) Do nothing. Let people sort it out on their own. And maybe cut everyone's school taxes.

Well, 3 is not an actual solution, but it's the MAGA way. Cut all government support for health care, food and nutrition, and education. Some people will end up on the bottom-- sick or ignorant or even dead-- but that's just nature's way of separating the meritorious from the undeserving, and we should not be interfering with God's Plan. But we need to acknowledge 3 because it is not only current federal policy, but it can also easily infect solutions 1 and 2. 

The trouble with 1 and 2 is that they share a critical problem-- both of them require taxpayers with money to help pay the education freight for families with much less money. When that doesn't happen in the public system, the result is schools without enough resources to fully serve their students. When that doesn't happen in a choice system, students just don't get a choice. Which is really the choice supporters' complaint. After all, we have always had school choice; the choice movement has not been about creating choice, but about getting tax dollars to subsidize it. Well, some of it. For some students.

The obstacles to school choice are not policy or bureaucrats or teachers unions or entrenched adult interests. The main obstacles have always been high cost and discriminatory policies.  

Poiner puts it this way:      

The bottom line is this: If you’re rich enough to buy or rent a home in a high-performing district, your kid gets to go to an excellent school. The world is your oyster. If, however, you can’t afford to pay your way into one of these districts, then most—if not all—high-performing public schools are closed to you.

She's not wrong. My problem is that modern taxpayer-funded school choice programs don't really change that at all. Your voucher dollars aren't enough to get you into East Egg Academy. Worse, East Egg can reject you for any reason. The public school system promise is that wherever you are, there is a public school that must provide for your education; wherever you live, there is no charter or private school that has to provide for your education.

I posted that last bit on the dead bird app, and Derrell Bradford replied with an alternative reformster view. 

Wherever you live there is a public school with the power of compulsory attendance and the ability to tax based on your inability to leave or choose no matter how near or far you are from it.

Bradford leads choice advocacy group 50CAN and works with pretty much every other pro-choice group out there, and he's about the most civil reformster out there (sort of the anti-DeAngelis). And here he pretty much encapsulates the point of view that views a local public school as a "have to" instead of a "get to," an infringement on rights rather than a means of exercising them. On this, we disagree. 

What I see as a commonality between the two views is the need for more resources. I've seen one true school choice program in the country, in tiny Croyden, NH, where the deal was that, lacking a local high school, the district would pay full tuition to any school of a student's choice. But I only learned about the program because the local Libertarians were trying to chop its budget. Meanwhile, voucher programs

A choice program that fulfilled the promise of an good education for every child, would A) cost a bunch of money, B) require charter and private schools to stop discriminating against students they wanted to reject and C) require useful measures of "good education." A public school program that fulfilled its promise would take whatever steps necessary to make sure that every school in every was providing a good job, which would A) cost a bunch of money and B) require useful measures of "good education."

Both visions are up against the same challenge-- people whose approach to education is some version of, "Yeah, education is important, but can't we do it for a lot less?" And if you let them keep talking, some version of, "I don't mind educating my own kid, and I welcome government help to do that, but I don't want to pay taxes to make a nice school for Those Peoples' Children." Also, a suggestion that compulsory education is a bad thing.

It has never not been an issue, going back to the days when many folks just didn't need a fancy education for anything (in 1950, 34.3% of Americans over age 25 had a high school diploma) all the way through to the days when Brown v. Board of Education spurred white taxpayers to bitch and moan about the Communist plan to take their money to educate Those Peoples' Children all the way up through recent history when states argued that students on the McDonald's track don't need courses like algebra. As a culture, we wave vaguely in the direction of the importance of education, but we'd rather not pay for it for Other People (see also: health care, food, families, and children). 

There are many many more issues to wrestle with in the larger education debates, but I'm trying to focus on just one point. Economic inequity is manifest in our education system. Modern choice programs, welded to free market ideology, do not offer a real solution to that inequity, and in many ways promise to make it worse. 

Ohio: CCSS on the Ropes, Maybe

The Ohio PTA has called an all-hands-on-deck because it looks like HB 597, the "Get That Damn Commie Core Out of Our Schools" bill is rumored to be on the lame duck legislature's plate.

It is possible that this is all part of an Ohio scheme to put on a last-minute surge to try for the 2014 State Most Hostile to Public Education medal. They've been really working it, from the attempt to cut elementary specialists off at the knees to the proposal to trash teacher pay scales. So how did this bill end up back on the big pile of crazy?

HB 597 has been around since the summer, pitting the two wings of the GOP against each other. Its sponsors come from Glen Beck wing of the party. The bill's stated intention is to rid Ohio of the Common Core, which is embedded somewhere within Ohio's more expansive more-than-just-ELA-and-math standards.

But the bill has turned out to come with plenty of fun extras. Originally it included a provision that 80% of all works taught in 8-12 English classes be from English and American authors prior to 1970. The sponsors called that a "drafting error" which I suppose means "crazy thing we decided to take out before we submitted this." The bill also required phonics and... oh, did I forget to mention that this didn't just remove the Common Core, but replace it with a new set of standards. Those appear to be based somewhat on the old Massachusetts standards, but include some tweaks. So something pretty much like CCSS, only with some cool chrome accents.

One controversial tweak is a replacement of old science standards with standards that include a provision to "prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another." Some people, including, apparently the bill's sponsors, seem to think the new science standards open the door to teaching intelligent design. It also bizarrely restricts science teaching to scientific facts, but puts the kibosh on teaching scientific method. Apparently, science teachers are supposed to just teach facts and leave students to assume that these facts were delivered in a vision or straight from wikipedia.

Social studies would be restricted to "real" knowledge, which-- what the hell? Since we're no longer aware of the scientific method, I'm not even sure how real knowledge is constructed. One thing it apparently is not is "designed to avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic or racial stereotypes" because that language was scraped off the MA standards when they came to Ohio.

Then there's the provision that says that the state cannot impose any financial penalties on a school district just because it chooses to ignore the state's standards. Which of course means that the local districts could adopt any damn standards they want. When these guys say "local control," the by damn mean it. 

The Republican head of the Senate education committee, State Senator Peggy Lehner has characterized the repeal attempt as "a circus." Before you start cheering for her, note that she thinks the repeal effort is terrible because the Common Core are the greatest thing since critical thinking was used to slice a loaf of bread into a state of college and career readiness.

Jessica Poiner, writing over at the Fordham blog in the summer, noted with alarm the lack of any state control of districts under this bill. She also unfurled one of the Fordham's favorite talking points from the summer-- it would be really expensive to throw away all those fine investments made in the Core and start over. You can call this the "stay the course" talking point, or the "throw good money after bad" talking point.

It is, in short, a stupid reason for sticking with the Core. "We spent a bunch of money on a bad piece of equipment that doesn't do what it's supposed," is not logically the first part of a sentence that ends with "so let's spend even more money on it and never replace it." When the engine in your car blows up, you don't say, "Well, let's buy new tires for it."

So what's a supporter of public education to do? Well, for one thing, the kerfluffle is a fine reminder that in all things political, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy, too. Also, when educational amateurs go head to head with educational amateurs, it's education that gets punched in the face.

The Ohio PTA wants everyone to call and write their legislator and tell it to vote no (a sample letter template appears below), and I think that's maybe probably the correct answer, though passage of the bill would inevitably result in such a massive crash-and-burn debacle that the Ohio legislature might be forced to get help from actual grown ups and professional teacher persons. The letter is not a winner because it is A) making the stay-the-course money argument and B) suggesting that educational experts really want to protect the lovely Core. I wouldn't send the damn thing without rewriting it. Something simple like "Dear legislator: Common Core is terrible crap, but this bill probably makes matters worse. And if anybody over there has any more stupid ideas about screwing with public education, please just keep them to yourself until forever."

I'm not sure I'm rooting for either side in this clusterfinagle; there are no heroes here. I have a hard time imagining the legislature passing this, even if some GOP folks were spanked in the election for not hating Common Core enough. It's hard to envision a responsible government leaping into such a stupid set of rules, but for the past few years, every time I've "Surely they wouldn't do something that stupid" I've turned out to be wrong. Best wishes to Ohio on their medal quest. May you do your teachers and children a favor and lose.





Sample letter:

Dear Representative _____________

I live in _____________ and I urge you to oppose H.B. 597.

Our local school district, like many other districts across the state, has invested a significant amount of time, effort, teacher education, and money toward the implementation of Ohio’s New Learning Standards since 2010.

If Ohio halts the implementation of Ohio’s Learning Standards, this investment will be lost in more ways than monetary! H.B. 597 jeopardizes the future of Ohio’s public schools and educational opportunities for Ohio’s children.

Forcing an ongoing upheaval in Ohio’s academic standards is reckless and is in no one's best interests. This legislation is bad for Ohio and is bad for our schools.

Please listen to the education experts in your constituent school districts and oppose H.B. 597.