No Labels Education Platform: Same Old Same Old

No Labels is supposed to be some sort of centrist break from the raging politics of left and right as a champion of "common sense," and I'm not going to wander down that political rabbit hole (other than to note that saying you're all about common sense while seriously considering Joe Manchin as a Presidential candidate plays about like a vegan eating a hamburger). 

But they've got a platform, and it uses four points to address "America's Youth" and so education, and that's our beat here at the Institute, so let's take a look, shall we?

Idea 11: As a matter of decency, dignity, and morality, no child in America should go to bed or go to school hungry.

The basic idea is solid enough-- it's a bad thing for children to go hungry. Some of the rationale is ...odd? ...off the point? 

Undernourished children "Make smaller gains in math and reading, repeat grades more, and are less likely to graduate from high school, which means they’re more likely to end up in prison." That's an interesting chain of causes and effects. Also, they disrupt classrooms more, interfering with other children's education. 

Despite the heading, there's not a moral argument in sight. And we still have to insert "even though Washington must reduce spending" we wave at some sort of significant expansion of funding or tax credits so children are fed. So nothing systemic about child hunger or poverty, I guess.

Idea 12: Every child in America should have the right to a high-quality education. No child should be forced to go to a failing school.

There is not a molecule of air between these "centrists" and the usual crowd of school privatizers. 

Rich kids get great schools and poor kids get terrible ones, so the solution is NOT to fix  or supplement funding, but to push down the pedal on charters and vouchers. Because, hey-- America spends "more on education per school-aged child than any country in the world, with worse results." Let's also throw in some bogus testing results, and the usual claims about charter school waiting lists.

Because "we like competition too," their common sense solution is to add 10,000 charter schools in the next ten years, to offer a "lifeline" to some students "trapped in failing traditional public schools." I'm not going to take the time to argue any of this (just go looking through the posts on this blog). Let's just note that there's nothing here that Betsy DeVos or Jeb Bush would object to, other than they'd rather see more vouchers. This is standard rightwing fare.

Idea 13: America should make a national commitment that our students will be number one in reading and math globally within a decade.

You know-number one in the international rankings based on Big Standardized Test results, a position and ranking that the United States has never held ever. And yet somehow, leading nations like Estonia have failed to kick our butt. These guys invoke China's test results, when even a rudimentary check would let you know that China doesn't test all of its students. 

If America wants to maintain our lead in the technologies of tomorrow, we’d better spend less time on waging culture wars in our schools and more time focusing on promoting, rewarding, and reaching for excellence.

Remember that, so far, we have maintained that lead without improving our test score ranking.

But if excellence in education is the goal, maybe rethink voucher-based subsidies for schools that mostly are religious and teach creationism and reading only "proper" stuff and just generally waging those same culture wars. Or starting up 10,000 charter schools that don't necessarily do anything better than a public (and who may soon also have the chance to operate in a narrow, myopic, discriminatory religious framework).

Idea 14: Financial literacy is essential for all Americans striving to get ahead

Oh, lordy. Remember all those poor kids in Idea 11? Well, No Labels has an explanation.

Almost six in 10 Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck. Inflation is arguably the biggest driver of this insecurity, but far too many Americans also lack the knowledge and tools to become financially independent and get ahead.

Inflation and bad accounting. You know what helps people become financially independent? Money.

So let's have financial literacy classes so people can get better credit scores.

Also, in Idea 22, they want civics education so people will be proud of America. Idea 24-- "No American should face discrimination at school or at work because of their political view," and I'm going to send them right back to their support for vouchers and charters that are working hard to be free to do exactly that.

Look, I feel the frustration over education's status as a political orphan, an important sector that neither party stands up for. But if you're looking for someone who understands some of the nuances of education and wants to stand up for the institution of public education, No Labels are not the party, either.

This sounds mostly like right-tilted Chamber of Commerce-style reformsterism  from a decade ago. Even in a world in which both parties have lurched to the right, this is not a centrist approach to education. It's the same privatizing reformster baloney we've been hearing since the Reagan administration drew a target on public education's back. If you're looking for the vegan candidate, this burger is not for you.

PA: Commonwealth Action And Vouchers

School privatizers want vouchers (well, more vouchers--we already have tax credit scholarship vouchers) in Pennsylvania so very, very, very, very badly. So badly that they redesigned to voucher program they've been pushing for years so that it would be more palatable to Democratic Governor and Voucher Sort-of-supporter Josh Shapiro.

They whipped up a letter from a bunch of right-wing privatization supporters, which was kind of an odd choice, because what Democratic governor in a purple state wouldn't jump at the chance to be seen as a partner of Betsy DeVos?

They even came up with a way to say that they wouldn't take any money from public schools to fund their $100 million voucher plan (spoiler alert: they totally planned to take it from public schools).

They were so sure they had it in the bag. And then Shapiro broke their hearts and/or stabbed them in the back, depending on how sad they felt.

But they haven't given up yet, because in Pennsylvania it's a not-unusual thing to have budget drama drag out months and months and months past the nominal budget deadline (yeah, it's hard on actual citizens in the state, but oh well).

So the push is still on. Witness, for instance the group Commonwealth Action, a group that appears to exist for no reason except to push this voucher scheme. They've got a single-page website whose only content is there 24 second video. They've got a mailing address--which appears to be a Staples. And a Twitter account that has only existed since May of 2023 (they did spring for the blue check) and has tweeted 56 times so far. 

Their Facebook page is even fresher-- it appears to have become Commonwealth Action on June 30, 2023. But before then...

From November of 2014 on, they were Keystone Community Action. That website has gone dark, but the Wayback Machine internet archives tell us that KCA was an equally thinly described group, though the name Mike Herbert is attached. Before that, starting in February of 2013, they were We The Taxpayers, Inc, an organizational name that has turned up in Florida and Georgia, but not PA. So far, I'm not sure who these guys (or this guy) is--though whoever it is has some graphic design skills.

Earlier on, the group was busy pushing Shapiro's budget, but once Shapiro detached himself from vouchers, they became all voucher bill, all the time.

Their video captures the gist of their argument:

Shapiro said he liked vouchers, then didn't back them. "Josh Shapiro is choosing special interests over kids." Low-income and minority students deserve a chance to escape those failing public schools. "Governor Shapiro, don't turn your back on our most vulnerable kids." 

These are the questions to ask this mysterious group and everyone who supports their plea For The Children:

1) What regulations would they like to see requiring private schools to accept any and all voucher students? After all, the voucher doesn't do much good if the school the student chooses won't let the student in.

2) What will they propose to mitigate the effects of private school tuition costs" The proposed voucher will not begin to cover the tuition costs at the pricier private schools in PA.

3) What sort of accountability and oversight do they propose? After all, it would sure suck if some student used their voucher to escape a failing public school and found themselves in a failing private school, or a school that isn't even meeting the state standards that public schools are required to meet. And since vouchers are taxpayer funds, don't the taxpayers deserve a full accounting of how those funds were spent? 

4) Do you support allowing private schools to use the kind of discrimination that is not allowed in public schools? Do you support vouchers going to religious private schools? Why should taxpayers pay for religious training--isn't that a parental right and responsibility?

5) Presumably not every student will be able to escape the failing public school. What do the supporters of this program propose as a way to rescue those students who are still at the school? Does it make sense to deal with a sinking ship by only providing as lifeboat for 10% of the passengers?

6) Who are you? And what are your actual goals in promoting this policy? Are you even someone worth listening to, or are you just one more education amateur no idea what you're talking about?

Of course, to have this conversation, you would have to find the mysterious Mr. Herbert or his associates, or just settle for one of the other many privatization supporters wailing and crying foul over Shapiro's unexpected sudden change of direction. I recommend they have Betsy DeVos publicly pressure him some more. Seems like a super tactic.

ICYMI: A Birthday Edition (7/16)

Not mine-- my father's. He's 88 today, and they've been well spent ones. So raise a glass.

Also, here's some reading from the week.

PENNCREST meeting turns into shouting match over censure resolution

We've visited Penncrest before here at the institute, and I reference this story over at Forbes, but if you want to see the full spectacle of a school board that you're glad isn't yours, here you go.

How to fix the damage done to schools by federal school reform laws

Valerie Strauss at Washington Post takes a look at a new report from a bunch of very smart people considering how to undo some of the damage of the last twenty-some years.

The Trillion-Dollar Grift: Inside the Greatest Scam of All Time

Sean Woods at Rolling Stone with a story that isn't strictly speaking an education one, but still takes a look at the mess of pandemic relief.

Learning to Read in Middle School

You know who learns to read a new language in middle school? Musicians. Nancy Flanagan, retired music teacher, with some observations.

Your only job is to love them.

At Answer Key, a reminder about the heart of the work.

Pennsylvania principals leaving schools at 'substantial' rate, new report finds

The Post-Gazette has a report on Ed Fuller's research at Penn State. It's not encouraging.

Plenty of Black college students want to be teachers, so why don't they end up in classrooms?

Jill Barhsay from Hechinger reports on some research about diversity issues in the teaching force.

As Part of State Budget, Ohio Legislature Ends Third-Grade Guarantee’s Requirement that Children Be Held Back

Jill Resseger reports that the Ohio legislature did get at least one thing right.

Students can handle exposure to different world views in school. It's adults who are fragile.

Lauren Bouchard with an op-ed for USA Today questions exactly whose delicate sensibilities we're trying to protect with reading restrictions.

Questions on Homeschooling.

Stephen Owens blogs from a Christian perspective at Common Grace, Common Schools; this time it's about homeschooling.

Texas private schools look nothing like you imagine

This post is an old one, but it popped up a bunch this week as a reminder of what exactly we're talking about when we discuss private schools in Texas (and elsewhere).

The Woman Who Bought A Mountain for God

We now enter the far right religious section of this week's list. This is not directly about education (though education is one of the Seven Mountains). This piece in the Atlantic by Stephanie McCrummon literally hist home for me. This is my town. The place described is about a mile from my parents' house, and the husband in the story is a guy I graduated from high school with; he and I are both guys who stayed here in town as adults. Probably we'll run into them at lunch today, again. Nice folks. So when someone says that folks with these sorts of dominionist beliefs could be your neighbors, that's a fact.

Pennsylvania’s Prayer Warrior: Abby Abildness And Her Dominionist Crusade In The Commonwealth

In Pennsylvania, this New Apostolic Reformation movement has connections all the way into the capital. Jennifer Cohn writes about it for the Bucks County Beacon.

For too many Christians, the lines between dominionism, nationalism and fascism are blurred

Here's a take on the issues from the Religious News Service. 

It was a busy week for me at Forbes. com--

The Myths of Merits Scholarships-- Akil Bello at FairTest with some hard truths about tests and merit scholarships

Cyber charter reform in PA could finally happen. Maybe.

The trend in punishing people who draw attention to a school district's poor choices.

Join me on substack and never miss any of my writerly output. All free!

PA: Cyber Schools Spend $16.8 Million On Marketing In One Year

Education Voters of Pennsylvania do some extraordinary work for public education here in the Keystone State, and that has included hounding cyber charters to fork over documentation of how much they spend on marketing. 

It's labor-intensive work--the cybers send over thousands of pages of invoices, heavily redacted, and volunteers just have to go through page by page. Over a year ago, EdVoters ploughed through a trove of documentation and found that from 2019-2021, the cyber charters had spent over $35 million on marketing. Everything from sponsoring local events to newspaper ads to a float in a Philadelphia parade, all paid for with taxpayer dollars. That would be taxpayer dollars taken with the understanding that they would be spent on educating students, but instead, well, not.

Now EdVoters has finished sifting through the materials from 2021-2022, and it's...well, it's something else.

$16.8 million, at least. That's a lot of money, and digging into the details makes it look even worse.

Achievement House Cyber Charter School spent $1,306 per student on advertising.

PA Cyber spent $58,000 on swag, including $9,725 on owl-shaped erasers, $6,750 on custom lapel pins, $8,678 on branded Post-It notes, and $18,120 on branded magnets.

PA Cyber spent $81,000 on branded clothing and mugs.

PA Virtual Charter School spent $132,404 on bus wraps and other transit advertising.

PA Virtual Charter school spent $28,807 on sponsorships of minor league baseball teams.

Insight Cyber Charter School spent $959,053 on a contract for undisclosed services with for-profit management company K-12, Inc.

Your public school might have the occasional pep rally or student assembly to build morale and school spirit, but you've got nothing on the cybers. Reach Cyber Charter School spent $125,308 on Target gift cards for students.

But Commonwealth Charter Academy (CCA), the 800 pound cyber-gorilla of PA cyber schools, has made a real science out of "events" for its customers. Here's some of what EdVoters found CCA spending money on:

More than $17,000 for family parties at Dave & Busters, Ninja Nook, 814 Lanes and Games, and Lehigh Valley Laser Tag.

$60,000 for a three-year sponsorship agreement with the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins and $6,458 on tickets for CCA families to attend games. 

More than $75,000 on catering, concessions, parking, and tickets for CCA students and families to attend Philadelphia Phillies baseball games.

These are, I will point out again, taxpayer dollars at work. Taxpayer dollars collected specifically for educating students. Meanwhile, a bill to bring cyber school funding and transparency into line is awaiting Senate attention, which may never happen because cybers and their lobbyists are making loud noises about not depriving the children of an education, which I guess has to include minor league baseball and Ninja Nook.

Let's Not Try To Make Book Banning Illegal

Illinois has done it. California has a bill in the pipeline, and so does Pennsylvania. And while I absolutely understand the impulse to make book bans illegal, I am extremely leery of the whole business.

PENAmerica has done extraordinary work tracking the new wave of reading restrictions, as has the American Library Association, which has always kept an eye on book banning shenanigans. And you would currently have to have your head firmly planted under a collection of large boulders not to be aware of the current moral panic resulting in call after call after call (enabled by a variety of ill-considered laws) to get rid of naughty books from libraries.

It's the ALA that has provided a sort of template for these proposed laws with its Library Bill of Rights, which includes these three items right up front:

I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

To be clear, I think these are excellent standards to follow. Every library should follow them. But I don't think they should be turned into a law.

Involving government in the enforcement of rules and escalation of penalties (the template here seems to be "follow these rules or lose your funding") is not always a great idea. And I see few benefits and multiple problems with these.

The bill that is being proposed in Pennsylvania appears to be aimed only at public libraries, so not any help for school libraries, which are on the front edge of this issue. School districts like PennCrest or in Bucks County would be unaffected by this bill. 

The measure could slow down local libraries that have boards captured by far-right boards, but we've seen repeatedly that the folks who want to restrict reading aren't worried about going to far. Telling them, "Stop banning LGBTQ books, or we will cut your funding," is going to provide zero motivation to folks who would just as soon see all library funding cut anyway. 

The law also fails the Dark Future test (a test that folks on all sides of the aisles consistently ignore). The test is this: look at your law and ask yourself how it would be used by your political enemies if they were in charge? Don't create a big hammer on the assumption that you will always be the one holding it.

In this case, we don't even have to imagine the "in charge" part.

No library stocks all the books. It can't. This bill requires us to gaze into the hearts and minds of the librarian who does the selecting. "You don't stock Why Fascism Is Great or the 120-book children's book series All Gays Go To Hell because you are proscribing them because of politics." The same crowd that now circulates lists of books to get rid of will then circulate lists of books to demand that the library stock. Should the library include some right-wing stuff? Absolutely. But as with getting rid of naughty books, there will never be a point when those folks say, "Enough." Right wing children's books are already a growth industry--just imagine when they can get a pipeline into libraries.

You may say that the law would not allow big battles over what the librarian's motives may or may not be. Just stick to the written policy. Okay--but then we're right back where we started, because none of these policies say directly that certain subject matter must be banned because it violates a certain socio-political orthodoxy. 

The courts long ago recognized that identifying pornography is complicated and local and beyond the ability of lawmakers to specifically define and codify (though they haven't stopped trying). This is much in the same vein. Librarians have to make choices, and those choices involve other choices about what's appropriate and for whom and for what age groups and that's all complicated stuff. Right now it's further complicated by folks who think that they've done such a lousy job of parenting that if their child sees just one book that says "LGBTQ people exist" or "White folks have at times in our country's history been really bad to Black folks" that somehow all their parenting will be wiped out, plus folks who think they can rewrite history by sheer force of will, and it is really tempting want to come up with a law that would just shut those people the hell up, or at least neuter them. But I don't believe that's the answer.

The solution is more annoyingly time consuming. Make sure you don't elect crazy anti-reading rights people. Have a process for challenging books that isn't a shadow ban request, and then follow the process, and be prepared to stand up to people who want to short-circuit and twist that process. It's an old teacher trick--wear them down before they can wear you down (understanding that it may take way longer than you wish it would). And don't create new, larger regulatory powers that may or may not end up in the hands of people who are not sympathetic to your values.

That's where I am on this right now. You can come at me in the comments and try to change my mind. 

OK: One Tulsan Has Had Enough Of Ryan Walters

Sometimes the GOP generation gap really shows.

In Tulsa, Burt B. Holmes is kind of a big deal. In 1958, he founded QuikTrip, now a big-time convenience store network (1000 stores and counting). He started a massive insurance organization (his father's line of work). The University of Tulsa, his alma mater, named him an Outstanding Entrepreneur in 2010. He's a past chairman of the university's board of trustees, and has served on all manner of boards. In interviews, he comes across as a pretty frank and straightforward guy.

"A believer in lifelong learning, Mr. Holmes is an accomplished entrepreneur and steadfast supporter of arts, education, and community," say one piece.

And as a guy somewhere around 90, he has certainly earned the right to just sit quietly. He's described as "mild-mannered and unassuming," and everywhere as a lifelong Republican, but apparently he has his limits, because here's what ran as a full page ad in the July 9 Tulka World:

That's a full page. From a lifelong Republican and prominent Tulsan. He can join the GOP Attorney General Gentner Drummond and other GOP officials in wishing that the GOP tent was at least a little smaller or that Walters could at least start acting like a grownup.

PA: What the Vouchers Would Cost

The most recent attempt to push vouchers, called Pennsylvania Award for Student Success Scholarship Program, ended up dying at the finish line.  But that certainly is not the end of things, so it's worth it to take a moment to understand what the vouchers really would have cost us.

The argument that voucher supporters made (and which was part of what they had to do to get the vouchers past Governor Shapiro) was that the $100 million voucher program wouldn't take a cent away from public schools. There are a couple of problems with that promise.

1) $100 million spent on vouchers includes an opportunity. If you've got that kind of money lying around, why spend it on private school subsidies instead of fixing the unconstitutional school funding system?

2) The state doesn't have that kind of money lying around. And as much as some politicians love school choice, none of them ever seem to love it enough to just say to the taxpayers, "Look, we think it's so important to run multiple parallel school systems in this state that we are going to raise your taxes to pay for it." 

So that $100 million was going to come from somewhere. And one group has a pretty good idea where.

The volunteers at FixHarrisburg (a joint campaign of Fair Districts PA and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania) dug through various budget documents, and this chart shows what they found. They note that it is probably incomplete, and they don't claim to be forensic accountants. But it certainly gives us a general idea of what the plan was. (Note: you have to add 000 to all of these numbers).

So what was the plan?

$700 million less basic ed funding than the House asked for, which is still an increase over previous years, so we can chalk that up to disagreement over what that number should be. 

Zeroing out the dual enrollment funding. The BOOST program for after-school and summer was started under federal grants as part of that whole pandemic catch-up thing; the GOP would rather not continue it with Pennsylvania money.

$125 mill less than Dems asked for the Level Up supplement (which is also $100m more than the governor asked for--and we probably need to talk about that at some point), a fund set up to bring Pennsylvania's most underfunded schools a bit closer to what they need.

Cutting the School Safety and Security Fund in half! That's supposed to be funding efforts to Harden The Target.

And setting the School-Based Mental Health Supports block grants to zero (instead of $100m). Right now doesn't seem like the time to backing away from mental health supports for students-- particularly if your argument on school safety is that the problem is not guns, but mental health and soft targets.

Republicans can make the argument that they were simply cutting with one hand and adding with the other and the two actions have nothing to do with each other, that they were actually moving $100 million out of mental health supports in order to use that money to subsidize private schools. Budgeting is a mysterious process in which imaginary money appears and disappears, and none of it is real money, so it's hard to discuss whether or not it's the same money.

But if your question is, how does the GOP think we could afford to add a $100 million program to the budget without raising taxes or touching school funding, this is an answer-- by chopping up some education-adjacent programs.