Teachers Are Delusional

December 17, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

Teachers Are Delusional.

I don’t necessarily mean this in a bad way, although it does have a few downsides.

As you probably know, public education in general and teachers in particular were thoroughly rebuked in the recent state elections. SQ779 went down in flames after polling rather well only weeks before, largely due to the efforts of mysterious groups who appeared out of nowhere and began panicking on our behalf over the sad, if well-intentioned, error we were all clearly about to make.

They embraced the new, “reality-optional” approach so popular these days with an effective, two-pronged strategy. First, make up a bunch of stuff people could easily refute if they bothered to read the actual question but didn’t. Second, treat this 1% tax as a misguided starting point for growthful discussions rather than a desperate, if flawed, last-ditch effort to overcome a decade of one-party rule and overt hostility towards the idea that every kid deserves committed, effective educators dragging them towards enlightenment.

They promised a “better way,” which apparently involves disbanding and vanishing as soon as the votes were tallied.

Then again, I guess they didn’t say exactly who it was better for.

Smirking legislators quickly joined the chorus of assurances that of course they’d immediately be doing everything they possibly could to give teachers huge raises, first thing! For totes realsies this time! Why would we doubt them? They’re our government – they live to serve!

In their defense, legislators have no real reason to do anything about teacher pay or school funding in general. Incumbents responsible for draconian tax cuts and vocal belittling of all things government-financed were re-elected almost universally, often by landslide margins. They’d be silly to change course now – it’s working.

For them, I mean.

Stubborn advocates insist they’ll be calling their elected officials weekly, demanding they do something about school funding – which, let’s face it, is adorable! I can hear the conversation now: “If you don’t do something this session, next time we’re only re-electing you back into office by a twenty percent margin! And the time after that could dip as low as a fifteen! Also, you should come visit my class! I made muffins! We’re forming relationships!”

No doubt legis find this hopeful yapping amusing, if not exactly endearing – at least until tiny pedagogists pee on their leg in excitement.

Many teachers have already left, or changed professions. Many more are looking to go. We’ve always lost a percentage of edu-graduates to surrounding states, but now we’re having trouble keeping any of them. You know things are bad when we’re not as civic-minded as, say… Texas.

Texas. We’re not as focused on equity and the social contract and the value of modern education as TEXAS.

What’s more shocking, though, is how many teachers are staying. Doubling down. Resolving to do everything they can to make this the “best year yet”! Holding assemblies, bake sales, and smothering Donate.org with requests. Personally, I find this to be the worst sort of enabling – of protecting and encouraging bad behaviour. As several of my therapists over the years were fond of saying, “They won’t change until you stop making THEIR problems YOUR problems, and let THEIR problems be THEIR problems.”

Or maybe that was Dr. Phil. They all kinda blur together.

So why is it that teachers and other educators are so quick to believe that this time Lucy really will hold that football until it’s kicked? Why are we so quick to embrace the mantra that we can change our elected abusers with our love – and that if we’d only put a little more makeup on that bruise, maybe this time they’ll love us back?

It’s the nature of the profession. You can’t be a successful public school teacher for any length of time unless you embrace a certain amount of denial and delusion. You don’t expect musicians to be on time. You don’t expect surgeons to be humble and self-effacing. No way you can expect teachers to be bound by reality. They’d never last.

Why?

1. We spend our day chasing the idea that we’re somehow reaching 150 very different kids with very different backgrounds, needs, and abilities. We utilize our personal skill sets as best we can (while always on the lookout for better ideas), but in the end it’s just us flinging possibilities around and hoping some of them take.

Making this work requires a healthy dose of self-delusion. What’s really crazy is how often it does succeed, and so much better than it should.

2. We embrace curriculums and guidelines not usually of our own design, circumscribed by rules and procedures certainly not of our own making. We take whatever we’re assigned and decide it will be meaningful, and engaging, and good for kids – their druthers and ours be damned.

This isn’t as entirely misguided as it sounds. Most any subject or skill has merit, depth, and meaning if you dig enough – but it does require a certain degree of inner adjustment. Selling yourself and your kids on, say, the academic value and personal fulfilment of analyzing the Battle of Honey Springs takes a bit of imagination. It demands taming a few chimeras. And if you don’t believe it, they’ll never buy into it.

Although, if you think about it, that particular battle really did have some fascinating elements that –

You know what? Never mind.

3. Surviving in the world of public education requires an ability to go through the motions of countless state and district-mandated trainings, reports, and meetings about what you teach and how you teach it and what we’re calling it this year – all without ending up under your desk in a fetal position, clutching a shiv made out of dry erase markers, daring anyone to say “flipped classroom” to you ONE MORE TIME.

It requires embracing and adapting to ever-shifting evaluations of your kids and of what you do – a bedlam of rotating standards and priorities and trends and buzzwords. Usually without Dramamine.

You want to flourish in that alternate reality? Unleash the ignis fatuus.

4. Finally, a career in education requires looking beyond the tangible, the visible, the measureable, with an almost religious faith. Maybe fanaticism.

Of course the numbers matter. Of course the data has its uses. We’re delusional – not ignorant.

But if faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, then teaching requires a great deal of it. If you ARE doing any good, you’re unlikely to see the most important results during the nine months those kids are yours. If you ARE making a difference, in that silly, idealistic way you signed up for back-in-the-day when choosing between this or veterinary school, you’ll never actually KNOW that for a fact.

It’s not that kind of difference.

So yeah, we’re a bit quick to believe, even when we know better. And I do get annoyed by the naiveté shown by those who so easily and repeatedly trust elected leadership, wealthy reformers, or anything cloaked in lofty ideals.

But that’s the trade-off, I guess. If we were realists, we’d all be selling shoes or doing your taxes or something.

So delusional it is.

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part Three (The Majority Opinion in Zelman)

December 8, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

We’ve been looking at Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the case most often cited when I’m researching vouchers and their constitutionality.

If you haven’t been with me on this lil’ journey so far, you might want to check out Part One or Part Two of this series. Or you might not. You might decide to consult other bloggers or experienced voices instead – it’s completely your choice.

And as it turns out, “choice” is central to the Court’s 5-to-4 determination that Ohio’s voucher program was, in fact, constitutional.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State of Ohio has established a pilot program designed to provide educational choices to families with children who reside in the Cleveland City School District. The question presented is whether this program offends the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not.

It’s worth noting that the question before the Court was about separation of church and state, and involved this specific program. The Court did NOT decide that all voucher programs everywhere were constitutional, and it certainly did not proclaim that they were equitable, justifiable, or in any way a good idea.

Perhaps most significantly, this decision does nothing to address the question of whether vouchers worked.

Rehnquist goes on to lay out the severity of the situation in Cleveland and to describe state efforts to address it before getting to the legislation in question.

It is against this backdrop that Ohio enacted, among other initiatives, its Pilot Project Scholarship Program… The program provides financial assistance to families in any Ohio school district that is or has been “under federal court order requiring supervision and operational management of the district by the state superintendent” …
The program provides two basic kinds of assistance to parents of children in a covered district. First, the program provides tuition aid for students in kindergarten through third grade, expanding each year through eighth grade, to attend a participating public or private school of their parent’s choosing… Second, the program provides tutorial aid for students who choose to remain enrolled in public school…
The tuition aid portion of the program is designed to provide educational choices to parents who reside in a covered district. Any private school, whether religious or nonreligious, may participate in the program and accept program students so long as the school is located within the boundaries of a covered district and meets statewide educational standards.

Meets statewide educational standards? So that’s already different than anything proposed in Oklahoma.

Participating private schools must agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background, or to “advocate or foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.”

Here’s a fun little game. Go to Google Images and type the name of any private school – religious or not – in your area, and the word “students.” Look at all the wonderful photos which come up in your search results. Notice anything they all have in common?

I’ll give you a minute…

I’m not suggesting any of these institutions are consciously screening out students of color, or overtly shunning lower socio-economic segments of the community. I doubt they even see themselves as “white” or “affluent” or “privileged.”

They’re “normal.” It’s just that so many other people, well… aren’t.

Aren’t you curious as to how many of these places would agree to some sort of racial equity in order to participate in a state voucher program? That’s not the specific issue being considered by the Court in Zelman, but it’s certainly a potential snag in any variation Oklahoma is likely to offer.

Any public school located in a school district adjacent to the covered district may also participate in the program. Adjacent public schools are eligible to receive a $2,250 tuition grant for each program student accepted in addition to the full amount of per-pupil state funding attributable to each additional student.

As discussed last time, this is a critical element of Ohio’s program – there are vouchers, yes, but they arrive with substantial additional support for public schools as well.

All participating schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in accordance with rules and procedures established by the state superintendent.

I can’t hammer this point enough. It makes all the difference in the world not that there simply be choice, but who is making that choice. If schools get to pick and choose, that’s not parent choice. If parents can’t send their kid to the school they prefer, whatever its costs, expectations, or cultural norms, then by definition that’s NOT. PARENT. CHOICE.

Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need. Families with incomes below 200% of the poverty line are given priority and are eligible to receive 90% of private school tuition up to $2,250. For these lowest-income families, participating private schools may not charge a parental co-payment greater than $250.

Private institutions who choose to participate cannot charge the neediest parents a significant amount beyond the value of the voucher. Period. (See previous point.)

For all other families, the program pays 75% of tuition costs, up to $1,875, with no co-payment cap. These families receive tuition aid only if the number of available scholarships exceeds the number of low-income children who choose to participate.

In other words, parents who qualify for that 90% deal above are prioritized when allocating resources.

Where tuition aid is spent depends solely upon where parents who receive tuition aid choose to enroll their child. If parents choose a private school, checks are made payable to the parents who then endorse the checks over to the chosen school.

As discussed last time, this is a big part of what makes the program constitutional from a “wall of separation” standpoint.

The tutorial aid portion of the program provides tutorial assistance through grants to any student in a covered district who chooses to remain in public school. Parents arrange for registered tutors to provide assistance to their children and then submit bills for those services to the State for payment…

You want choice, Oklahoma? Let’s add something like this to the mix. I’d even open it up to students themselves to tutor other students for money, if that proves beneficial.

There are a few more financial details we’ll skip.

The program is part of a broader undertaking by the State to enhance the educational options of Cleveland’s schoolchildren in response to the 1995 takeover. That undertaking includes programs governing community and magnet schools. Community schools are funded under state law but are run by their own school boards, not by local school districts. These schools enjoy academic independence to hire their own teachers and to determine their own curriculum. They can have no religious affiliation and are required to accept students by lottery…

When Oklahoma wants to do something like this, they try to remove things like minimum salary schedules and criminal background checks during times of deep budget cuts so that “empowered schools” can have “flexibility.”

Somehow it doesn’t seem as freeing that way.

For each child enrolled in a community school, the school receives state funding of $4,518, twice the funding a participating program school may receive.

Community schools – a subset of public schools – received twice what vouchers were worth to private schools, in order to better innovate and serve high-needs populations. That’s much different than “we’re cutting your budget again because we’re hoping the top ten percent of your student body bails on you.”

Magnet schools are public schools operated by a local school board that emphasize a particular subject area, teaching method, or service to students… These schools provide specialized teaching methods, such as Montessori, or a particularized curriculum focus, such as foreign language, computers, or the arts…

Again with the variety and innovation and such, all within a public school context. Schools stepping up are supported, rather than expected to hunt down their own resources from the community or philanthropic businesses in the area.

The decision then addresses the “separation of church and state” issue at some length. Their focus is on the distinction between direct aid to sectarian institutions and aid to parents who then choose from a variety of options, public or private, secular or religious. The former would be unconstitutional, the latter is not.

I’ve done my best to wax pithy that issue before, and there’s nothing new here in that regard. But the Court keeps coming back to the issue of just how many choices parents were being offered in Cleveland.

We believe that the program challenged here is a program of true private choice… and thus constitutional. As was true in those cases, the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion. It is part of a general and multifaceted undertaking by the State of Ohio to provide educational opportunities to the children of a failed school district. It confers educational assistance directly to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion… The program permits the participation of all schools within the district, religious or nonreligious.
Adjacent public schools also may participate and have a financial incentive to do so. Program benefits are available to participating families on neutral terms, with no reference to religion. The only preference stated anywhere in the program is a preference for low-income families, who receive greater assistance and are given priority for admission at participating schools…

This is where I wonder if the lack of actual parent choice in previous Oklahoma proposals might play a role. I’m not sure that takes us all the way to the other side, but I suspect it could be a factor.

The program here in fact creates financial disincentives for religious schools, with private schools receiving only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third the assistance given to magnet schools.

I’m sorry, I zoned out for a moment – could you repeat that part?

The program here in fact creates financial disincentives for religious schools, with private schools receiving only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third the assistance given to magnet schools…

Huh. That seems significant to me. Or have I mentioned that before?

The Court notes that not every detail included is a deal-breaker in terms of constitutionality, but that collectively these specifics help distinguish between what Ohio was doing and alternatives potentially violating the Establishment Clause by pushing parents or students towards sectarian options.

And then there’s this:

There also is no evidence that the program fails to provide genuine opportunities for Cleveland parents to select secular educational options for their school-age children. Cleveland schoolchildren enjoy a range of educational choices: They may remain in public school as before, remain in public school with publicly funded tutoring aid, obtain a scholarship and choose a religious school, obtain a scholarship and choose a nonreligious private school, enroll in a community school, or enroll in a magnet school.

There it is again. Genuine, varied, financially supported public options – all over the place. The state was apparently awash in them.

That 46 of the 56 private schools now participating in the program are religious schools does not condemn it as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause question is whether Ohio is coercing parents into sending their children to religious schools, and that question must be answered by evaluating all options Ohio provides Cleveland schoolchildren, only one of which is to obtain a program scholarship and then choose a religious school.

I know it gets tedious, but the number of times Rehnquist returns to this theme strikes me as significant.

Ohio’s program is constitutional because of all of the non-religious alternatives promoted by the state. If parental choice means a majority of kids end up in religious schools, that’s fine – as long as it’s the result of true choice. That means a variety of accessible options, both religious and non, public and private.

So just how many choices beyond one’s typical public school need be available, and to what actual percentage of parents, for this to hold true? If the Court is suggesting this program steers clear of Establishment violations because of this plethora of possibilities, what’s the “cut-off” for that to remain constitutional?

In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause.

There are a few related cases we should look at, as well as some concurring and dissenting opinions in this one. At some point, too, I’m curious how things are going in Cleveland these days.

Looks like I’ll be coming back to this topic a few more times before we’re done. Thank god there are bunnies.

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part Two (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002)

December 3, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) – The Syllabus

The first section of most Supreme Court decisions is the “syllabus” of the case. It lays out the basic facts and the Court’s decision before presenting the more detailed and sometimes disparate written opinions.

Ohio’s Pilot Project Scholarship Program gives educational choices to families in any Ohio school district that is under state control pursuant to a federal-court order.

Circumstances in Cleveland were dire by any measure. The Court’s opinion recognized the decades of prior efforts to improve or reform Cleveland Public Schools. Vouchers here were not a long-sought goal looking for justification; they were a last-ditch effort when all else had failed.

Ohio had been spending more and more on these schools in an effort to address dramatic disparities and fatal flaws – not cutting their resources and options repeatedly over the years in order to better blame them for poor performance.

The program provides tuition aid for certain students in the Cleveland City School District, the only covered district, to attend participating public or private schools of their parent’s choosing and tutorial aid for students who choose to remain enrolled in public school.
Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate, as may public schools in adjacent school districts.

The Cleveland program allowed parents to take a percentage of what would otherwise be spent on their behalf in their local public school and use that money to offset tuition at a private school – religious or otherwise. But they also developed numerous “magnet” and “community” schools with intensive state funding and alternative approaches of their own. Or, if parents wished, the money could be applied to intensive tutoring while the child remained in their community school.

In other words, Cleveland’s constitutional voucher program expanded options both public and private for parents and students, and made those options genuinely viable. Oklahoma has made a few token efforts along these lines, but no one could accuse the state of pouring resources and creativity into bettering education for all.

Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents choose to enroll their children.

That parental choice element is what keeps the program constitutional.

The number of tutorial assistance grants provided to students remaining in public school must equal the number of tuition aid scholarships.

This is an interesting provision. I’d like to learn more about how this part worked.

At first glance, it seems to ensure a general sort of equity between funds sent to private institutions and additional funds poured into students remaining in public schools. I’ll have to do more reading to clarify.

Cleveland schoolchildren also have the option of enrolling in community schools, which are funded under state law but run by their own school boards and receive twice the per-student funding as participating private schools, or magnet schools, which are public schools emphasizing a particular subject area, teaching method, or service, and for which the school district receives the same amount per student as it does for a student enrolled at a traditional public school.

As mentioned above, this is one of the most important distinctions between what Cleveland did and most popular plans in Oklahoma. Ohio provided massive additional support to impoverished and underperforming districts, and incentivized public schools to try a variety of ways to better serve their populations.

Oklahoma, by contrast, wants to use part of the shrinking budget of an over-regulated public education system and divert it to private options. I don’t know if that makes it unconstitutional, but it makes it very, very different from what was tried in Cleveland.

Respondents, Ohio taxpayers, sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause. The Federal District Court granted them summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The program does not offend the Establishment Clause.

So the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 split decision, agreed with the lower courts that this voucher plan was constitutionally sound.

(a) Because the program was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system, the question is whether the program nonetheless has the forbidden effect of advancing or inhibiting religion…

Citing Agostini v. Felton (1997) and Mueller v. Allen (1983), the Court decided it did not. It’s the parents who choose the school, not the state. There is no bonus or penalty for choosing a religious school over a non-religious school, or vice versa.

Although the Court doesn’t reference it by name here, this corresponds to the first prong of the “Lemon Test.”

(b) {This voucher program} is neutral in all respects towards religion, and is part of Ohio’s general and multifaceted undertaking to provide educational opportunities to children in a failed school district. It confers educational assistance directly to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion and permits participation of all district schools–religious or nonreligious–and adjacent public schools. The only preference in the program is for low-income families, who receive greater assistance and have priority for admission.

This addresses the second prong of the “Lemon Test” – legislation must not have the primary effect of either advancing or hindering religion.

Rather than creating financial incentives that skew it towards religious schools, the program creates financial disincentives: Private schools receive only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third that given to magnet schools, and adjacent public schools would receive two to three times that given to private schools.
Families too have a financial disincentive, for they have to copay a portion of private school tuition, but pay nothing at a community, magnet, or traditional public school. No reasonable observer would think that such a neutral private choice program carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement.

This is a tricky area. The Cleveland program would pay up to 90% of private school tuition, depending on family income, but the Court seems to suggest that not quite paying all of it is part of what keeps this from wandering into government promotion of religion. At the same time, a voucher program that doesn’t pay enough towards a high quality alternative to public ed isn’t really offering choice to parents. They can want whatever they like, but if it’s not financially possible, they’re just as stuck as they were before.

Here’s an excerpt from the Majority Opinion which goes into greater fiscal detail:

Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need. Families with incomes below 200% of the poverty line are given priority and are eligible to receive 90% of private school tuition up to $2,250… For these lowest-income families, participating private schools may not charge a parental co-payment greater than $250… For all other families, the program pays 75% of tuition costs, up to $1,875, with no co-payment cap…

That, combined with the wide variety of well-financed public school options supported by the program, is much, MUCH closer to offering “parent choice” than ANYTHING I’ve seen proposed locally so far.

The other barrier to true choice is allowing private schools to pick and choose from applicants as they wish. Here’s a passage from the Majority Opinion which addresses that element:

Participating private schools must agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background, or to “advocate or foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.”

That’s already problematic in Oklahoma, since those attitudes seem to largely motivate our voucher efforts in the first place.

Any public school located in a school district adjacent to the covered district may also participate in the program… Adjacent public schools are eligible to receive a $2,250 tuition grant for each program student accepted in addition to the full amount of per-pupil state funding attributable to each additional student…
All participating schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in accordance with rules and procedures established by the state superintendent.

In other words, none of the participating schools can pick and choose who they do and don’t want. The practice of skimming the cream, cashing the checks, then booting out any undesirables who slipped through just before evaluation time (to be absorbed back into their local public schools who can then be blamed for their low achievement) would prove much more difficult under this system.

As it turns out, a substantial number of Cleveland’s many Catholic schools were perfectly ready and willing to admit students from diverse racial, economic, and academic backgrounds. The same “missionary zeal” some claimed might make vouchers unconstitutional proved to be a benefit in practice, as these parochial schools considered it their “calling” to serve the population most in need of “better options.”

I confess to a certain skepticism as to whether Oklahoma’s many private academies are anxious to fill their rooms with similar diversity.

Nor is there evidence that the program fails to provide genuine opportunities for Cleveland parents to select secular educational options: Their children may remain in public school as before, remain in public school with funded tutoring aid, obtain a scholarship and choose to attend a religious school, obtain a scholarship and choose to attend a nonreligious private school, enroll in a community school, or enroll in a magnet school…

I’m curious to what extent this scenario is essential to the constitutionality of similar voucher programs. There’s nothing remotely comparable in the various Oklahoma proposals of which I’m aware.

Next time we’ll look at excerpts from the actual opinions written in both support and dissent of the Court’s decision. Should be good times!

Oh, and I haven’t forgotten to keep things festive:

RELATED POST: Better Basketball Through Vouchers

Let’s Talk About Vouchers, Part One (What Happened In Cleveland?)

December 2, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

The Oklahoma GOP has for some time now held unchecked control of both the State Legislature and the Governor’s chair. Voters have handed them the keys, a 12-pack of Keystone, and encouraged them to have their way with the state. You’ve no doubt noticed the resulting prosperity trickling down all around you.

Each legislative season in recent years has seen a variety of proposals for some form of school vouchers, most recently called “Educational Savings Accounts” – a strange term for something which isn’t in an account and was never intended to be saved. Then again, neither clarity nor accuracy are real priorities of our current leadership. These are the same folks who believe “freedom of religion” means giving them the power to crush the infidel under their giant statue of Old Testament law, and who threatened to defund advanced history courses if we didn’t stop teaching about stuff that happened in the past.

Now that voters have made it clear how they feel about public education and the so-called “teacher caucus” which received so much attention this past election cycle, one has to assume the day of the voucher has arrived. We probably can’t stop it, but we can at least try to educate ourselves about it.

This is tedious stuff, folks. I’m sorry – I try to keep things festive here (at least when I’m not working myself towards a stroke during my almost daily fits of outrage and bewilderment), but I’m not sure that’s happening with this one.

Still, I’ll do my best. I guess I could throw in some bunnies or something.

There are two major issues with voucher programs. The first is whether or not they’re constitutional. That discussion has so far focused on a single question: Do vouchers violate the Establishment Clause by funneling public funds towards religious institutions? The short answer is no, they don’t – at least not in the cases addressed by the courts to date.

I’m not certain that should be the only question about their constitutionality, but I’m also just a humble classroom teacher with a blog, so what do I know?

The second issue is whether they’re a good idea. Unfortunately, there’s some disagreement about what this would even mean. I’m going to go with “are they good for kids?”

Actually, this being Oklahoma, I should clarify further. “Are vouchers an effective way to provide a better education for a greater variety of students in a fiscally realistic way?” That’s how they’re promoted ‘round these parts, but I’m not at all convinced that’s the actual goal. (See earlier disclaimer about the humble guy with a blog.)

The definitive Supreme Court case regarding “parent choice” and voucher programs is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). There have been others, but this seems to be the biggie. We’ll start by laying out the basics of this case, explain what the Supremes decided, and examine some highlights of the Court’s written opinions. Once that’s eliminated my last few readers, we’ll try to figure out if extant voucher programs in other states have actually made anything better, and if so, how. I hope to have this series concluded by Easter of 2019 or thereabouts.

If you haven’t read up on the origins of our proverbial “Wall of Separation,” how it came to apply to the states, or the major cases laying the foundation for school vouchers, you might want to start with those.

The devil, as they say, is in the details when it comes to constitutionality. On the other hand, details are boring. Let’s see if we can strike a workable balance – keep things readable while not making it too obvious that I’m not exactly a legal scholar.

Did I just say that out loud?

Cleveland schools were a mess. To be fair, Cleveland in general was a mess.

Area residents were still fighting desegregation as late as the 1980s. There were lawsuits and legislation and emotions were high all ‘round. In many cases, school segregation reflected community segregation – the poor Black folks lived in their parts of town, and middle and upper class whites lived in theirs. There were special committees, government-appointed directors and superintendents, and all sorts of bureaucratic efforts to equalize – at least in form.

Kids were bussed from their neighborhoods to schools across town, teachers were re-assigned with or without their druthers, reading and other remedial programs were mandated – and during it all, resentments remained well-stirred.

On paper there were positive signs. Schools became more integrated than they were before. There were more services theoretically available to high needs students. Districts offered targeted trainings for staff and teachers about dealing with students different than themselves. Many right things were said.

Heck, there were even a few structural and academic improvements documented.

But you can’t legislate community buy-in, and you can’t mandate teacher satisfaction or require people to stay in the profession. The public wouldn’t pass bonds to pay for stuff, and district school boards wouldn’t make hard choices about cuts. Add school-board drama, conflicts over school closings and program cuts, and the ever-looming issue of racial equity, and despite many good people mostly pursuing what they thought was right, it just… they couldn’t…

*sigh*

Per-pupil costs soared while effectiveness again fell (there’s one for you “can’t just throw money at a problem” folks). By the early 1980s, the schools were still largely segregated, teacher strikes were becoming far too common, and academic achievement was simply… not happening.

In 1985, the Superintendent of Cleveland Public Schools committed suicide in his office, leaving behind a note indicating his despair about ever fixing the problems around him or resolving the bitterness complicating it all. He was found by a student before school the following Monday, yet another poignant reminder of who exactly was suffering most from the personal and political fallout.

The drama and conflict continued.

By the 1990s there was talk of state take-over and redistribution of state funding so that wealthier school districts could be tapped to help prop up poorer ones. It was as part of this discussion that vouchers seriously came into play. Right around that same time, state courts found that Cleveland Schools couldn’t account for all of their state funding. They ordered 14 schools closed to help slow swelling deficits.

I share all of this because the second half of the 1990s saw the introduction of vouchers in a big way into Cleveland. This produced resistance from teachers and other organizations, and the issue ended up in the Supreme Court. Cleveland’s vouchers plan was declared constitutional, and nearly fifteen years later remains the law of the land in regards to such programs.

Why Does The Background Matter? Good question. It might not.

But this was a pretty specific set of circumstances, and details can make all the difference when it comes to constitutionality. It’s also worth remembering that just because something is technically constitutional, that doesn’t mean it’s a great idea. What might have made sense for Cleveland twenty years ago isn’t automatically ideal for Oklahoma (or anywhere else) today.

I confess a certain amount of paranoia when it comes to Oklahoma’s entrenched elite. It’s not inconceivable that a legislature hoping – for reasons of their own – to push through a voucher plan able to pass constitutional muster might do their best to establish similar circumstances to those in the marquee case legitimizing their use. One might even argue that years of slashing funding and shaming educators is part of an overall push towards privatization – that state leaders have been creating a crisis to justify their solution, not seeking a solution to their crisis.

You know, if you were cynical or something.

In any case, it’s worth taking a close look at how the Supreme Court framed the issues in Cleveland, and not only what they decided, but why.

RELATED POST: Better Basketball Through Vouchers

The People Have Spoken, #OklaEd

November 9, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Well, that didn’t go well.

I’m not even going to talk about the national elections, other than to note we sent back to the U.S. Congress – by wide margins – the exact sorts of people I’m regularly criticized for assuming the majority of Oklahomans support. So… I’ll let you work that out.

But the state elections. I just…

I really thought they’d go better.

Not well. I didn’t expect them to go well. I was no longer hoping for a dozen seats flipped from “entrenched radical ed-hater” to “teacher running for the first time.” I’d resigned myself to the idea that there might not be much to celebrate.

But I thought we’d get something.

I don’t wish to disparage the accomplishments of the handful of winning edu-slators yesterday. Several incumbents historically supportive of public education kept their seats – David Perryman (D) of HD56, John Montgomery (R) in HD62, Jadine Nollan (R) for HD66, Katie Henke (R) in HD71, and Cyndi Munson (D) of Lake Hefner.

New candidate Mickey Dollens (D) took HD93, no doubt through his genuine commitment to the district and his unmatched work ethic. (His opponent’s ability to personally alienate and horrify almost everyone in the district over the past decade probably didn’t hurt, either.) Forrest Bennett (D) won HD92 and Chris Kidd (R) SD31. So… that’s something.

But dozens of others went down in flames. Not even close in most cases. Even candidates like John Waldron and Lloyd Snow were defeated, while far too many other voices passionate for positive change were simply crushed.

SQ779, after polling well for months, was soundly defeated as well. There were good reasons to vote against it, but added to the rest of the night, it rubbed enough rock salt into the wounds of public education to keep our highways clear for another decade, were it ever to snow again – which of course it won’t, but-don’t-say-climate-change-because-Inhofe-once-had-a-snowball.

It sends a pretty strong message. One I think it’s time we embrace. This is a democracy, after all, and when the people issue this sort of mandate, it’s our civic and professional duty to respect it.

So… I quit.

Not the profession, necessarily. I mean, maybe – it depends on what else I can do at 50 years old. I’m reasonably intelligent and gregarious, though, and despite my shifting politics I’m still an angry old straight white guy – that gives me some leverage in Trump’s America, yes?

But it’s time for #OklaEd to get the message. You are not wanted here. The vast majority does not think you’re worth even what you make now, and they certainly don’t think most of your kids deserve any better. Strong percentages say “we could fix education if only these teachers weren’t in the way” or “those damned districts have been given too much without accountability.” And they believe it. To paraphrase their patron saint, “Public education is not the solution to the problem; public education is the problem.”

I know what many of you will say:

“We’ll just regroup and do even better for our kids!”

“It’s not just a job; it’s a calling!”

“It’s a marathon, not a sprint!”

Like Boxer, you are sure if you only work harder, eventually Animal Farm will prosper. Your convictions about how things should work and what most people must believe become your Napoleon, and no matter how desperately reality tries to get your attention, you remain darned and determined to build that windmill – the better to tilt at, my dear.

That’s noble, in a way, but like Boxer, you’re wrong. Not just “how sad for you” wrong, but “you’ve become part of the problem” wrong. You’re the wife buying her alcoholic husband beer then complaining about how he treats you. You’re the friend doing everyone else’s homework so they won’t get a bad grade, unwittingly condemning them in the long run by enabling their bad choices.

Denial is a powerful sedative – it allows us to tell ourselves all sorts of deluded stories. But it only perpetuates and strengthens the problems we’re trying to avoid.

Oklahoma doesn’t want you here. They don’t like you, and they openly despise many of your kids. If you stay, and keep doing what you’re doing, you’re supporting that – willingly or not. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Don’t get careless in your martyrdom – there are kids in other states who need good teachers. There are other meaningful ways to make a living.

It’s not just about a pay raise – I’d easily support a plan to fund public education and pay young teachers and provide for students that carried a provision denying veteran educators more than a little cost-of-living bump here or there. It’s about a decade of single-party rule with one theme: “You are the problem. If only we could get rid of greedy superintendents and lazy teachers and useless support positions, we could fix it all. But… you know those teachers’ unions and their entitlement mentality…”

We’re largely to blame. We’ve proven year after year that we don’t vote in meaningful numbers, or if we do, we vote our fears instead of our ideals. We jump and bark and pee on their legs every time they dangle “Pay raise! Pay raise! We’ve really got a plan for a Pay Raise! Come get it, boy! That’s a good constituency!”

It’s embarrassing.

The party in unmoderated power could have addressed this any damn time they wished over the past decade. And it’s already starting again. Sitting legislators who’ve just watched the state reject all things education by historic margins are setting up that football and asking us to take another run at it because this time they’re totally certain for REALSIES going to hook us up!

Dance, you pathetic monkeys – dance!

The 2017 Oklahoma State Legislature would be foolish to pass actual teacher raises. They’d be crazy not to ram through the voucher bills so long sought after by their out-of-state fiscal overlords, mandate consolidation across the board, and change all the state standards yet again just to prove they can. Elections have consequences. Legislators don’t do things to be nice; they do things because it gets them elected, and re-elected.

Supporting public ed is a losing issue in Oklahoma. Like, WAY losing. “And-your-little-dog-too” losing.

This past February, I wrote what many assumed was a hyperbolic call for all of #OklaEd to simply turn in their keys and go. I wasn’t being hyperbolic, and I’m feeling great internal pressure to stand by it today. If I had the power, I’d set Winter Break as the ideal time to get a real job – or a teaching gig elsewhere. Classroom teachers, para-professionals, administrators, bus drivers, lunch ladies, school secretaries – just sign the pink slip over to the victors and wish them well.

I don’t have that power, so do what you will. If you stay, however, spare us the noble platitudes. I’m all for sacrificing yourself when it serves a purpose, but the only thing you’re accomplishing here and now is to perpetuate the conviction of those in power that they’re on the right course and should keep it up. Anything that doesn’t work, you’ll cover for them whatever the cost to yourself, your family, and your kids.

And it’s wrong.

I realize I’ll be accused of being a “sore loser” – of taking my blog and going home. There’s probably some truth in that, but not enough to put the house up for sale (nice 3-bedroom, Union schools, glorious breakfast nook, if you’re interested). I think I’m being quite reasonable – Obama won’t be strapping himself to the desk in the Oval Office, desperately clutching his favorite pen, yelling that he’s staying “for the children!” He’ll politely pack up a few personal items, and call a cab.

I’ve been too vocal to back down at this point. It may take a few months, but I don’t see any way out of it without selling out everything for which I’ve fought – albeit unsuccessfully – over the past year. I’ll be reworking the website to focus more on general content and teacher issues, washing my hands of state politics once the moving van is loaded.

I appreciate those of you who worked so hard and did so much over the past few years trying to change things in Oklahoma. I’m sorry we accomplished so little to assist you. I wish you better.

<img decoding="async" src="https://files.bluecerealeducation.com/drupal/VoucherCartoon2.jpg" alt="Utah Voucher Cartoon" title="Utah Voucher Cartoon" width="350" height="230" style="vertical-align: baseline;" data-eio="l" />

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) – The Syllabus