Bernie Sanders Confuses Making Money With, Well, Something Like Scabies
A tweet:
Do you care enough about my kids to let us choose the school that's best for them? https://t.co/lQdETUu357
— David Boaz (@David_Boaz) November 14, 2019
I looked up Sanders' POV at Reason. Billy Binion writes:
"I believe in public education, and I believe in public charter schools," explained Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a CNN town hall in March. What the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination doesn't believe in, he said, are "privately controlled charter schools."The problem with that distinction is that all charters are privately controlled to some degree. They are also all public schools, funded with taxpayer money. That dual nature is what distinguishes charter schools from every other kind.
Sanders clarified his stance when he released an education plan in May. While he wants more "accountability" for nonprofit charters, he would entirely ban their for-profit counterparts.
According to data obtained from the National Alliance for Charter Schools, schools run by for-profit companies make up roughly 12 percent of charters nationwide. One of the goals of these schools--at least on paper--is to make money. Regardless of what they do for their students, that makes for-profit charters a perfect target in the eyes of democratic socialists like Sanders.
How well they serve students matters, however. Such charters exist because parents prefer them to the state-run alternative. "Charter schools are held accountable by parents, who can choose or not choose to enroll their children there," says Lindsey Burke, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education at the Heritage Foundation. "Charters only receive [public] funding if families are selecting into them."
By contrast, Burke says, "public schools are in the position of near-monopolies that receive students--and funding--regardless of how poorly they perform.
,,,These educational alternatives have become scapegoats for poor outcomes in traditional public schools, from whom charters supposedly siphon difference-making dollars. But charter schools collect just 64 percent of the funds that traditional public schools receive. Students enrolled in the latter cost an average of $13,764 in state funding per year, or nearly $170,000 for each individual who receives a K-12 education. Yet only one-third of high schoolers are able to read proficiently.
The goal should be the education of students, the building of informed future citizens. If private schools, even for-profit ones, can do this better and at a lower cost, why not use them?
Lefties argue only government-run schools can deliver this; this despite decades of presidents and other high-ranking politicians on both sides of the aisle coming from private preparatory schools - Phillips (Exeter and Andover), Friends Pacific, Choate, Groton, Punahou, Kew-Forest, et al.
Yet private schools are where wealthy lefties prefer to send their children. How many lefty presidents arguing against vouchers or opposed to privatizing education have sent their children to be educated at the private Sidwell Friends and not at the local public high school? Say what you will about Jimmy Carter (I'll likely agree with most of it), but he did at least put his money where his mouth was and sent Amy to a DC public school.
One can argue that Sidwell and its kin are a "non-profit." That only means a school's goal is not -- on paper at least -- to turn a profit and provide dividends to investors. It does not mean the school ignores fiscal discipline; it still strives to take in more money than it spends.
One thing of which we must beware is that the student loan program handed fly-by-night private, for-profit, proprietary trade schools money like water and they delivered loan defaults. If an education system is going to allow private, for-profit schools, it must have a method by which to hold those schools accountable - and not just parents, who may not be well-educated enough to recognize the fraud (perhaps graduates of these fraudulent proprietary trade schools). Oversight could be a good role for a government agency.
Conan the Grammarian at November 14, 2019 4:26 AM
Yeah, I think most of the problems in the for-profit education industry have been at the community-college and trade-school level. That sector justifiably has a bad reputation, and it's their own fault; nobody is calling out the bad actors. Then again, nobody is calling out the bad actors in the not-for-profit sector either.
One might ask why the Republicans aren't hammering the Democrats on their private-school hypocrisy. I suspect the answer is that the Republicans are doing the same thing. There aren't really that many people in the GOP who strongly support school choice for the masses.
Cousin Dave at November 14, 2019 6:30 AM
Because the all knowing, all powerful, all caring apparatus of The State knows better than you how to educate the children The State mercifully allows you to raise.
Shot:
Besides, they have a teacher's union or three to placate.
Chaser:
Ron DeSantis is probably governor of Florida because his opponent was able to alienate enough black moms who enjoy school vouchers and/or charter schools who either stayed home or voted for DeSantis. In a close enough for recount election, that's something. His opponent is black, but beholden to the unions.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 14, 2019 9:05 AM
Silly David Boaz. You can choose any school you like; you just have to pay for it yourself and not use my tax dollars.
Kevin at November 14, 2019 9:30 AM
Silly David Boaz. You can choose any school you like; you just have to pay for it yourself and not use my tax dollars.
Kevin at November 14, 2019 9:30 AM
What about the tax dollars he pays? Maybe Tax payers who don’t put their kids in public school should get a credit?
Maybe people who pay taxes but don’t have any kids should get a credit also?
Public schools should be forced to downsize or close to serve diminished demand, just like private businesses.
Instead they are a cesspool of unionized special interests with entrenched administration, and ridiculous amount of overhead.
Isab at November 14, 2019 10:36 AM
not use my tax dollars
I take that to mean that you won't be drawing Social Security, Medicare and the other social welfare you may become eligible for?
There is a reason is why I don't mind paying for primary and secondary education - assuming the local education system is adequate - because I hope they become very successful taxpayers and not dropouts, junkies, or other dependents of the modern state.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 14, 2019 11:27 AM
As yet another person who pays taxes, I prefer that my money go to institutions that actually fulfill their intended purpose, even if it's private/religious/for-profit/self-selecting.
ahw at November 14, 2019 11:54 AM
What about the tax dollars he pays? Maybe Tax payers who don’t put their kids in public school should get a credit
Now we’re getting someplace. If people who don’t have kids in public schools could get a credit, that would be swell.
Kevin at November 14, 2019 3:23 PM
The private schools wealthy lefties send their kids to aren't for-profit, though. At least none of the wealthy lefties I know.
NicoleK at November 15, 2019 6:38 AM
The big difference between trade schools and K-12 schools (both for=profit) is that the latter have to be accredited. If you send your kid to one that isn't--even if you pay for it yourself--you're in violation of truancy laws. So from the point of view of taxpayers and parents, there's no downside to charter schools and voucher programs. It's the educational bureaucracy that stands to lose out.
Rex Little at November 15, 2019 3:27 PM
Leave a comment