Mitt Romney's Blueprint for Privatizing American Education by Diane Ravitch

[proud2BlibKansan]

On 23 May, the Romney campaign released its education policy white paper titled A Chance for Every Child: Mitt Romney's Plan for Restoring the Promise of American Education. If you liked the George W Bush administration's education reforms, you will love the Romney plan. If you think that turning the schools over to the private sector will solve their problems, then his plan will thrill you.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visits a charter school in Philadelphia. (Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The central themes of the Romney plan are a rehash of Republican education ideas from the past 30 years, namely, subsidizing parents who want to send their child to a private or religious school, encouraging the private sector to operate schools, putting commercial banks in charge of the federal student loan program, holding teachers and schools accountable for students' test scores, and lowering entrance requirements for new teachers. These policies reflect the experience of his advisers, who include half a dozen senior officials from the Bush administration and several prominent conservative academics – among them, former Secretary of Education Rod Paige and former Deputy Secretary of Education Bill Hansen, and school choice advocates John Chubb and Paul Peterson.

Unlike George W Bush, who had to negotiate with a Democratic Congress to pass No Child Left Behind, Romney feels no need to compromise on anything. He needs to prove to the Republican party's base – especially evangelicals – that he really is conservative. And this plan is "mission accomplished".

Romney offers full-throated support for using taxpayer money to pay for private-school vouchers, privately-managed charters, for-profit online schools, and almost every other alternative to public schools. Like Bob Dole in 1996, Romney showers his contempt on the teachers' unions. He takes a strong stand against certification of teachers – the minimal state-level requirement that future teachers must pass either state or national tests to demonstrate their knowledge and/or skills – which he considers an unnecessary hurdle. He believes that class size does not matter (although he and his children went to elite private schools that have small classes). Romney claims that school choice is "the civil rights issue of our era," a familiar theme among the current crop of education reformers, who now use it to advance their efforts to privatize public education.

more . . . http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/12-0

[liberal N proud]

1. All the right can think about is how can they make a rich crony richer

And one of their favorite methods is taking something the taxpayers paid for and virtually giving it to a rich so called investor and letting them make money from it and no longer having accountability to the people who paid for it.

Another school, the Eternity Christian Academy, which currently has 14 students, has agreed to take in 135 voucher students. According to a recent Reuters article:

"[Students] sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains 'what God made' on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution."

The pastor-turned-principal explained:

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children."

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. I've seen those Christian workbooks

Talk about confusing children.

[snappyturtle]

2. Rmoney's education policy is nothing but the final act

in the play, "The Dumbing Down of America".

[joeglow3]

3. I am torn on vouchers

Look at our elected leaders. Where does Obama send his girls for school? Why does he (or anyone with enough money) get to pick the school they send their kid to, but someone not rich enough cannot?

[TheKentuckian]

5. I'm not though I would ban or otherwise undermine private primary education to destroy the value

I'd start by considering any child not in public school as truant. Not a cent of public money. No police or fire protection. No accepting the accreditation at public universities and trade programs. No consideration for hiring in the public sector going forward.

[joeglow3]

8. Why?

My wife and I are not rich and make lots of sacrifices to send our children to a private school.

I went to 9 years of public school and was a behavioral nightmare. My dad was a union construction worker and we did not have much money. He made the sacrifice to work side jobs for years, tearing up his body in the meantime, to send me (and my brother and sister) to a private, college prep, high school. For me personally, it was the best possible thing he could have done. I have ZERO doubt in my mind that I would not be in a good place had I finished out my years in public school.

Now, every situation is unique and I am not saying my experiences should apply to every one. However, I wonder why you would deny me that positive experience.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. I was also educated in private schools and have spent my career teaching in public schools

So I have an excellent hands on understanding of the difference between the two. They are both valuable and necessary.

That being said, it is critical that we save and support our public schools. They are the only option available for most of our children. Instead of taking money away from public schools to fund vouchers and charters, we need to strengthen them.

[joeglow3]

11. How much money do private schools save public schools?

I am just North of you in Omaha. We spend about $11,000 a year in our public schools. Our private schools costs $4,000 a year (we pay $2,000). If you send $4,000 and a student to a private school, are you not saving the public schools some money for the remaining kids.

Granted, the $11,000 number is an average and we know a chunk of that is for special needs student (which private schools cannot accomodate for the cost). However, even if the cost for an average student is $5,000 a year, does this not free up $1,000 per student to spend on the remaining students?

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Every student not enrolled in a public school costs that school.

There is no savings. School districts receive funding from states based on average daily attendance. So when kids are not in school, there is no money coming into the district to educate them.

There are many good reasons private schools claim to have lower per pupil costs:

(I say 'claim' because many private schools figure their per pupil expenditures differently, making it an invalid comparison.)

1. Teachers in private schools are paid less - many times lots less - than teachers in public schools.

2. The second largest budget item for a public school district is transportation. Private schools do not have this expense.

3. Private schools are not required by law to have special education or ELL programs. Those are very expensive and contrary to popular opinion, not fully funded by the feds or the states.

4. Kids in private schools are not mandated to participate in NCLB testing. In many states, the testing budget exceeds a billion dollars a year.

5. Private schools are not required to transport homeless children to their 'home' districts. This is a federal law. If a homeless child ends up with his family in a shelter or at a relative's home 20 or 30 miles away (not uncommon), the district he was enrolled in before his family became homeless must transport him back and forth to his home school every day. This is another expense not covered by the feds.

6. Private schools can be selective about who they admit. They can kick kids out whenever they want. The kids who are kicked out or refused admittance are often disabled or have a history of discipline problems. They cost more to educate due to their need for additional resources provided by the school.

[Raven]

4. Larger class sizes and no teacher

entrance requirements? Brilliant!

[coalition_unwilling]

6. Romney's 'plan' has nothing to do with education, but everything to

do with union-busting and profiteering.

[Starry Messenger]

7. Ed reform has always been the Republican playbook.

Hopefully Democrats who have been cozying up to this third rail will now back away quietly and help us fight privatization of public education now that Romney has declared an open crusade.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. If our Democrats were like the Republicans,

they would immediately announce an education platform that was exactly the opposite of Rmoney's. Reduced class sizes, more teachers hired, no charters or vouchers.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Ha! Wouldn't that be nice?

I only dared to dream that our side would stop abusing us in the press. At least until the election was over.