Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, How the 5th US Revolution Begins and About the Author. Many entries are formatted as conversations. Occasionally I do a “sense check” about the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution. Entry #318 is the most recent “sense check.” One more note — sometimes I write about another topic that does not quite fit the theme of the blog. Those comments are available on the page titled “JRD Thoughts and Comments.”
In the entry describing the coming technology tsunami (#319), I suggested a way to help mitigate the impact of the inevitable tsunami was increasing support for public education. A major step toward achieving that goal would be prohibiting publicly funded charter schools…and publicly funded vouchers for private schools.
So what’s the problem with charter schools? Why insist on publicly run schools? The private sector always accomplishes a task more efficiently and effectively than the public sector. Besides public education is broken and needs to be fixed. More support for public schools sounds like more socialism. Well, supporters of charter schools, if public education is socialism, then what would you call public support of private institutions through tax breaks and lower tax rates…try calling it by its real name, “welfare for the wealthy.”
First, most everyone agrees certain aspects of public education need to be fixed. But maybe what needs to be fixed is not what advocates of more publicly funded charter schools claim needs to be fixed.
Public education per se is not the problem. What makes any school a good educational institution, whether public or private, is not the source of funding, not the school building, not how much money is spent on fancy support materials, not how good the sports team are…and a host of often discussed other “nice-to-have” items. What makes a good educational institution is commitment by all involved – students, faculty, parents and community. Education truly requires a community effort.
Look at schools where students get a great education and you will find a community supporting that educational institution. I agree that families which opt for charter schools may be more committed to education than other families. But why do we…again the proverbial ‘societal we’…allow communities to “evolve” – maybe “dissolve” is more appropriate characterization – to a point where there is a lack of commitment to public education?
Charter schools do not help a community rebuild its commitment to quality education for all students. In fact, charter schools do just the opposite. Charter schools further erode a community’s commitment to quality education for all by diverting mental support and tax-dollar support to privately run schools.
The idea of having a “specialized school” or certain education track is a good one. Both can be accomplished within the public school system. While the term might not be politically correct today, I was part of a group that for four years of high school had all “accelerated classes,” other than physical education. As far as I know, the “accelerated” classes were based strictly on merit and anyone meeting the academic requirements was eligible.
New York City and other urban areas have long had schools specializing in certain academic fields. These schools have been open to all students in the system who met certain criteria. Thus, if a community wanted a more-specialized “charter-like” school, there’s no reason why such a school could not be created within the exiting school system – many systems have “magnet” schools that operate within the larger public system.
A key aspect of charter schools not often discussed is the lack of scrutiny. Charter schools receive public funds, yet are not subject to the same oversight as public schools. Why? The answer is simple…but the answer should not be accepted by taxpayers. The lack of scrutiny is by the design of ownership groups of charter schools. The lack of scrutiny allows charter-school owners to avoid many of the rules required of public schools.
The theme of the charter-school owners? Just give us public money but don’t ask how we spend it. Stating the incredibly obvious, charter schools are another version of efforts by the political far right to privatize major portions of the government and with privatization, minimize, if not eliminate public scrutiny.
A second key aspect of charter schools not often discussed is the true cost. Proponents of charter schools may claim the cost for operating a charter school is the same or less than a public school. The “proof” of the same-as or lower-cost claim is that charter schools receive only a certain amount from the state and do not charge tuition. But do charter schools really cost less?
Let’s look at some costs. A very high percentage of the cost of education is fixed, or semi-fixed. Fixed/semi-fixed costs do not vary with changes in volume. As an example, think of your own house. Fixed costs for the house are the mortgage payment, taxes, maintenance, utilities and similar expenses.
Say there are two parents and three children living in the house. Then one child heads off to college. Now there’s an extra bedroom not being used. So does the family just pack up and move to a smaller house?
No, the family stays in the house. And the mortgage payment is the same; the major maintenance expenses are the same; the cost for heat, electricity, water, internet is the just about the same whether five people or four people live in the house. If you were calculating the cost per person to live in the house, the cost per person would be lower for five people compared to four people. While some other costs do vary with the number of people – food, e.g., — the overall cost per person in higher for four people than for five.
The same cost structure applies in education. What are primary fixed costs in education – teachers’ salaries, administrative overhead, building maintenance, utilities, much of the food-service staff and some other items. Thus, if say 20-25% of the students of a public school transfer to a charter school (think of the one child going off to college), most of the expenses for the public school remain the same.
But how are public schools funded? While the formula can vary by state or locale, many public schools are funded based on a payment per student. So if students leave for charter schools, the payment to the public school is reduced because of fewer students. The money follows the students so money that was formerly paid to public school is diverted to a charter school. While the number of students in the public school has declined, the costs for educating students did not decline as much as the loss of funding to the charter school.
So how is the loss of funding made up? Where does the extra money come from? Two sources: (i) taxpayers, state and/or local, who end up having to increase the amount of funding per student for public schools…and by default also charter schools; (ii) cutbacks of expenses at the school level. Students end up getting short-changed as less money is available to spend for supplies, extracurricular activities, teachers’ aides, and maintenance. As maintenance is deferred over time, the building and infrastructure deteriorate. Eventually repairs and/or building a new facility end up costing even more than the deferred maintenance…another hit to taxpayers.
I did a rough calculation about the increased cost to taxpayers of charter schools. The estimates need to be refined with more analysis. Say 25% of the students transferred from public schools to publicly funded charter schools. Under this scenario, the cost per student for taxpayers would not go down, as some proponents of charter schools claim; the cost per student would not remain the same as other proponents claim; the cost per student would increase 20-25%.
Where is the added cost coming from? With the creation of charter schools, a parallel overhead cost system is also created. Rather than one “superintendent”, there are now two – one for public schools and one for charter schools. Rather than one principal for a given school, there are now two because a second school was added. Rather than one building, there are now two. In addition, there are more teachers.
How does the public school manage with lower funding? The number of teachers for core topics remains about the same. What the public schools end up eliminating are teachers for what some people label as “non-essential” topics – art, music, Phys Ed…and oh, yes, those nurses and other health-care workers in the school system.
What is the motive behind charter schools? Why support a system that costs taxpayers more when there are no demonstrable benefits? Yes, some charter schools are more successful at increasing graduation rates. But many…and possibly more…are not.
With these uneven statistics, why not tweak the public school system to provide more specialized schools as many urban areas have for decades? The underlying reasons why charter schools are supported? (Stay tuned. More to come.)
Gelly: “Maybe not but you have lots of study time…and a bunch of experience in the real world using economics stuff. Remember, KISS, okay?”
Jordan: “When Siri tells you Michigan beat Indiana, that’s a form of AI.”
Gelly: “How does she do that?”
Gelly: “So for Siri, Alexa and their siblings, they’re best at providing quick access to available information. At the same time, the working stiffs most affected by Siri and siblings are people employed to provide information. The example might seem a bit dated but as a kid I remember being able to pick up the phone and have the operator get someone’s number, right?”
Gelly: “What about AI replacing some functions of what lawyers do, or at least law clerks do? Same with some portion of information gathered when visiting a doctor. Seems as if a lot of people could be replaced, or maybe have been replaced already by some form of Siri and siblings. What about using AI for tasks that are a lot more complicated than say picking up boxes or searching a database?”
Jordan: “Well, some clothes are already being made 100% or nearly 100% by machines. And over time, machines will make clothes that require more steps.”
Gelly: “Another case of the working stiff getting screwed?”
Jordan: “Excellent example. I’m impressed you remembered.”
Gelly: “Now I’m starting to get even more confused. What happened to KISS…keep it simple, stupid?”
Gelly: “First, let me make sure I understand the idea of trade between two countries. I get the part where one country might have stuff the other country needs, or makes some product more efficiently than the other country. That all seems logical. What also seems logical is that trade should be fair. Maybe I’m being naïve but shouldn’t trade between countries be like what we were all supposed to learn as kids…you know, treat your neighbor as you want to be treated?”
Gelly: “Critical such as growing and exporting coffee beans might be critical to the economy and welfare of the people of say Costa Rica? Coffee’s probably a big deal to Costa Rica but hardly of any importance to the US…other than maybe Hawaii.”
Jordan: “For countries with only a few products to export and where those products do not have much competition, tariffs might work. But, for most countries, tariffs are a high-risk poker game. While coffee can’t be grown in every country, in can be grown in many countries. Unless your country is a real big dog for that product or commodity, the country adding tariffs runs the risk of losing exports.”
Jordan: “Well, for one thing, China can then decide to add tariffs to some goods imported in China from the US – say corn or soybeans, which is exactly what they did after Trump put tariffs on Chinese steel.”
Jordan: “Some but the US steel companies did what often happens in the US when tariffs are implemented – the US companies immediately raised prices.”
Gelly: “Then, unless I’m missing something, the tariffs really end up being a tax on consumers. The government might collect revenue from the tariffs but the consumer – the working stiffs – are the ones who gets screwed.”
Jordan: “A lot Trump’s tariffs were head scratchers. In fairness, sometimes trade between countries does get out of whack. And tariffs can help resolve the issue. But tariffs are like a Band-Aid, for small wounds and to help only temporarily. There’s a better way to solve issues when trade gets out of whack…and a better way to manage trade.”
Jordan: “Yes, trade agreements. The agreements usually include what you might call a trade court. That court helps revolve issues and avoids tariffs.”
JC: “Look, I like the idea of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ as the standard for behavior. But let’s not be naïve. What do we do about those people who don’t follow the rules?”
Greenie: “Until Trump. Then he and his gang basically gave the finger to everyone. He even trashed people in his cabinet who supported him from the get go. Some display of appreciation and loyalty, huh?”
Greenie: “A start would be to reinstate the 60-vote rule in the Senate for approving appointments, whether for the agencies or the courts. A 60-vote rule would force the White House to offer nominees toward the middle politically…not the extremes.”
Jordan: “On the Judicial side, even with the 60-vote rule, what about limiting tenure of Senate-approved judges? Right now these judges have lifetime appointments.”
Jordan: “Re-upping.”
Greenie: “I don’t know if the limit should be at the court level or in total. For now, let’s assume the limit applies to a specific level. Otherwise someone might get to SCOTUS with only 6-7 years left out of the 30-year limit. That doesn’t seem fair.”
Greenie: “OK, Jordan, any ideas how to stop such behavior? And what about all the obvious ethics violations by Trump, the Trump family and some cabinet officials? How do we stop that going forward?”
JC: “More teeth and more transparency. I realize there’s some information cannot be disclosed. But, and this should be a big but…no comments, please about personal appearance…the baseline should be to make the public as aware as possible of the shenanigans and unethical behavior by people inside the government, especially members of Congress and high-ranking agency personnel. The disclosures might force some people to stop.”
Greenie: “Make it in addition to impeachment. Some of the behavior will be illegal. Why shouldn’t that behavior get punished like the rest of us are subject to?”
Greenie: “I agree the president and cabinet need to pass the same end-of-year test given to 8th graders. Let me add another, ‘Duh, are you serious?’ idea.”
JC: “You mean the idea of treating your neighbor the same way you want to be treated?”
Greenie: “I don’t know if Sessions had kids or grandkids but do you think he’d want his kids or grandkids separated from their parents?”
JC: “Maybe there would a cabinet officer or some high-ranking staffer whose job it is to go around and ask ‘Would you want this whatever-idea-is-being-discussed to happen to your family?’ The person could be titled the ‘sanity-check maven.’”
JC: “Let’s hope going brain-dead is past tense. We have a new opportunity to begin rebuilding American values post Revenge Revolution. Even if it is kindergarten like, using ‘treat thy neighbor’ as a check mark for policies and legislation seems like a good way to keep things from getting too out of control again.”
Greenie: “You mean like when public pressure force king Trump to stop separating children from families at the border?”
JC: “Don’t make me laugh? Not know what an 8th grader know? Still not sure what you’re talking about.”
JC: “Now I think I see where you’re headed. What about Trump implying…or at least asking…if Canada burned down the White House in 1812? No that was the British. Gee, Donald, in case you didn’t know Canada has been a long-time friendly neighbor. Canada is north of the continental US, except for one area near Detroit, and a major trading partner until you tried to ruin the relationship.”
Jordan: “So, Greenie, exactly what are you proposing?”
Greenie: “I don’t know how we’d test for some things but by forcing candidates for Federal office and Cabinet nominees to take 8th-grade end-of-year exams, you can assume that those who pass at least paid some attention to teachers along the way. And anyone who failed…”
Greenie: “Why not be straightforward? No reason to sugarcoat. I think we give some examples of basic information that Trump and the Cabinet members did not know. There are lots of examples where it looked as if they hadn’t graduated from 8th grade and/or should have been wearing dunce caps. It was embarrassing for the country.”