I’m not sure whether it was the author or the headline
writer, but someone in the New York Times
produced a headline that certainly constitutes false news: “Dismal
Results from Vouchers Surprise Researchers.” The problem with it is that
those researchers who have been paying attention already know that public
policy driving families to put their children into private schools will achieve
dismal results. Objective researchers in the pursuit of knowledge aren’t, or
shouldn’t be surprised that kids using vouchers to attend private schools experience
declines in academic performance. Perhaps Kevin Carey, who wrote the article,
or the unknown specialist who composed the headline, meant to say that it surprised
right-wing policy wonks and political pundits, who for the better part of a
quarter of a century have been pushing vouchers, charter and private schools as
a means to destroy teachers’ unions and produce new income streams for
businesses.
Certainly Carey, who directs the education policy program
for the ostensibly non-partisan think tank New America, must have read The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools
Outperform Private Schools, a 2013 study by Sarah
Theule Lubienski and Christopher A. Lubienski that
demonstrates without a doubt that public schools outperform private schools when
we correct raw data to account for wealth, per student spending, disabilities
and other factors. I wouldn’t expect the Times headline writer to know of this important
book, as a Google search at the time it came but revealed just one review in
the mainstream media. The media doesn’t like to review books that disprove the
current political nonsense, whatever it is.
Using two recently generated large-scale national
databases, the Lubienskis show that demographic factors such as wealth and disabilities
explain any advantage seen in private school performance in the 21st century.
Private schools have higher scores not because they are better at educating
children but because their students come mostly from wealthy backgrounds. After
correcting for demographics, the Lubienskis demonstrate conclusively that gains
in student achievement at public schools are great and greater than those made at
private ones. The Lubienskis take on the critics of real educational reform, the
politicians and other factotums of the rich who don’t want to do anything that requires
greater spending on students, such as teacher certification programs and curriculum
and instruction advances. The Lubienskis show that these reforms do work.
The latest research reported by Carey in his Times article concerns the results on
standardized tests of students who have used voucher programs to enroll in
private schools. Vouchers, which right-wingers and Republicans have been pushing
for years, give money earmarked for public education to families, which they pay
to private schools to educate their children. The never-proved principle
underlying vouchers, first proposed by right-wing economic mountebank Milton Friedman,
is that giving parents choice will improve public education by forcing it to
compete with other schools.
Over the past few years, Republican legislatures have implemented
widespread voucher programs in a number of states such as Indiana, Louisiana
and Ohio. As Carey reports, vouchers have largely failed to improve school
performance, and in fact, have harmed the performance of many children:
·
Indiana children who transferred to private
schools using vouchers “experienced significant losses in achievement” in math
and saw no improvement in reading.
·
Children, primarily poor and black, who used
vouchers to switch to private schools in Louisiana, achieved negative results
in both reading and math; elementary school children who started at the 50th percentile
in math and then transferred via voucher to a private school dropped to 26th percentile
in one year.
·
A study financed by the right-wing, anti-union
Walton family and conducted by a conservative think tank found that Ohio
students using vouchers to attend private schools fared much worse when compared
to their peers in public school, especially in math.
·
It turns out that the best charter schools,
another variation on school choice liked by the right wing, are those that are
nonprofit public schools open to everyone and accountable to public authorities.
The more “private” a charter school, the worse its student perform.
There could be many
explanations for the lousy performance voucher students in private schools achieved
compared to public schools, but I think it comes down to the simple fact that
the teachers tend to be more experienced, more educated and more professional
in public schools. Why is that? Because they are better paid.
In the real world, the best get paid the most. The
best lawyers tend to make the most money. The best accountants tend to make the
most money. The best writers—business and entertainment—tend to make the most
money. The best musicians tend to make the most money. Forget the obscene fact
that Beyoncé makes about 200 times what the concertmaster for the New York
Philharmonic and the masterful jazz pianist Orrin Evans do. They both do quite
well when compared to the average piano teacher who gives lessons at the Jewish
Community Center or YMCA.
Public school teachers make more money than private
school teachers. Doesn’t it make sense that they would therefore do a better
job and that public schools would therefore do better in quantitative
comparisons? I know that there are some very competent and dedicated
private school teachers,
but
in general, how could the aggregate of private school teachers keep up with
public school teachers, who make so much more money?
The reason that public school teachers make more
money is one of the primary reasons right-wingers want to dismantle public
schools: unions. Right-wingers hate unions because they force employers to pay
better wages to employees, leaving less profit for the company’s owners and
operators. In unionized workplaces, employees make a far larger share of the
pie than in nonunionized ones. Thus by leaving public schools and going into
private ones, children leave an environment in which their teachers are highly
paid but administrators make less than they would in the private sector for an
environment in which teachers are paid less and administrators more, and if the
school is for-profit, money is siphoned off as profit for investors. By
definition, less money is spent on education in private schools. That is, unless the tuition is so high that
the voucher covers only a small part of it, in which case the voucher is merely
a subsidy to the wealthy, who likely would have sent their children to the chichi
expensive private school no matter what.
The reason companies bust unions is greed. Greed
also plays a major role in the insistence against all facts and reasoning that
school choice will solve every educational challenge. Choice is the preferred
answer because it doesn’t involve spending more money and raising taxes. In fact, over time, vouchers can be used to
cut educational budgets if the stipulated voucher amounts do not keep up with
inflation.
Despite the fact that taxes on the wealthy are
still at an historic low for a western industrial democracy, rich folk and their
political and policy factotums do not want to raise the taxes needed to create
an educational system that works for everyone. Here are some of the things that
we could do with added tax revenues earmarked to public education:
·
Smaller classroom sizes for elementary and middle
school children.
·
Computers for every student in every class.
·
A return to the days of art, music and other
enrichment programs.
·
New textbooks that reflect the latest findings in
science and social science.
·
More special programs for both the disabled and the
gifted and talented.
·
True school choice, which involves vocational
programs in the technology, hospitality and healthcare industries for high
school students.
Keeping their taxes low and busting unions are not
the only reasons well-heeled ultra conservatives advocate for vouchers. Some,
like our current Secretary of Education, hope to profit by investing in
for-profit schools. Others, and again Secretary DeVos is among them, want to
use public funds to finance the teaching of religion in private religious
schools. Perhaps not ironically, moral education of the masses and suppression
of unions seem always to go hand-in-hand since the industrial revolution of the
19th century. In this sense, religion is a form of social control and a social
solvent that dissolves the perception of class differences.
Thus, when you hear Trumpty-Dumpty, DeVos and other
supporters of voucher programs for education spout their pious homilies,
remember that they have absolutely no interest in providing our children with a
high-quality education that prepares for a meaningful life and rewarding career.
Nor are they dedicated to a higher principle they call freedom that trumps all
other concerns in a free society. Remember, there are all kinds of freedoms,
such as freedom from hunger, from ignorance, from illness, from pain. Be it
education or healthcare, when they cry freedom, they only mean freedom of
choice or freedom to make money unencumbered by social concerns.
No, it’s neither an interest in America’s children
nor dedication to principle that motivates the rich folk behind the school
choice movement. It’s simple greed.
