I have been waiting to write this blog for over a month – waiting until I could find some research that didn’t cost me an arm and leg and abracadabra there it appears (thank you universe!)
If you look at the education task force page on ALEC you will see these examples of “model legislation”. They look harmless at first glance, even positive in their approach and the way that they are worded. Who wouldn’t think that these were a good thing? (Because they are free-market, private-sector focused, maybe?)
If you go to the 16th edition of the ALEC “Report Card on Education”(which BTW has been noted as “neither valid nor useful research”) (p 132 on my computer, the index says page 121) you will find the “model legislation” summaries (you have to contact an ALEC staffer to get the full legislation, of course) Some of the legislation has names like
Autism Scholarship Act
Open Enrollment Act
Parent Choice Scholarship Act
Special Needs Scholarship Act
Student Centered Funding Act
Virtual Public Schools Act
They sound inviting – they sound appealing, they have an alluring quality to the general public – “What a choice I would have!” Yes, a choice to go to private-sector schools – which is the main focus of the ALEC “free-market philosophy”. Privatization is the be all and end all of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) world.
Here’s the real world side of all this “free market” “private–sector” hyperbole that they are spewing so beautifully.
The National Council for Responsible Philanthropy released a report in 2007 named “Strategic Grantmaking: Foundations and the School Privatization Movement.” “This report builds on a series of NCRP studies examining the grantmaking practices of conservative foundations.” (p. iii) The report specifically states, “ While not taking a position pro or con regarding school privatization, this report describes an array of funders keeping the prospect of school vouchers alive.” (p. 31)
In the study they look at a variety of conservative funders whose focus in on educational funding, with the understated suggestion that their report could be used as “case study”. Some of the findings include:
The funders in this study also tend to pay out in grants significantly more than the federally mandated 5 percent of assets, recognizing that advancing an agenda requires getting money “into the streets” and into the hands of organizations moving the agenda. (p. v)
…leaders of foundations that fund the privatization movement also support their cause by funding candidates, political parties, political action committees (PACs) and 501(c)(4) organizations with personal contributions. These foundation leaders gave overwhelmingly to Republican candidates and causes. (p. v)
This report shows how philanthropic capital from small and large foundations has helped build political support for the school privatization agenda. (p. v)
So let’s take a look at some of these different types of funding and how they lead to the “free-market” economy that is so beloved by ALEC.
conservatives see K–12 education as one area in which privatization can make headway. (p. 4)
The Voucher System
We’re all pretty familiar with the voucher system. This allows for a family to use public school funds to have their child attend a “private-sector” secular or religious school. But, let’s stop and think about the impact of school vouchers.
an underlying motivation among some advocates is a belief that the private sector simply is better at delivering most “public goods” than inherently inefficient, rules-bound, red-tape-strangled public bureaucracies. Vouchers are as much tools for realizing a vision of a sharply reduced public sector as they are tools for improving the school achievement of elementary and secondary school children. (p. 2)
School Tax Credits
This one was a new one to me – and I had to do a little reading on it and basically what it does is give the parent a tax deduction for the amount (or a partial amount) of what they pay to send their kid to private school - but, they have to itemize to get it. The other side of this for the corporations and foundations (yes, the private sector) would be more tax deductions for them. As a matter of fact – ALEC really like this idea, they wrote "Model Legislation" for it.
“Great Schools Tax Credit Program Act,” defines the concept as “tax credits for individual and corporate contributions to organizations that provide educational scholarships to eligible students so that they can attend qualified public and non-public schools of their parents’ choice.”
Sound great – right? Well, not so fast!
tax credits also represent government revenues foregone, revenues that could have been used for public education or other public purposes. (p.3)
Ooops!
The hyperbole that the right-wing puts out is something to the affect “Oh, those poor kids in poor neighborhoods – if they could get a scholarship and use their tax credits – they could get out of those dingy, dank, unproductive public schools and go to a private-sector school.” (My words, of course – and not meant to be condescending.) But the findings don’t’ support that. Poor people, the types of poor people they are referring to, probably don't have money for private-sector schools, even with foundation supported partial scholarships or probably don't itemize their deductions – most probably don’t, they take the standard deduction..
Walton Foundation, it is noted
distinguishes support for “public charter schools” from “school choice,” making it clear that the emphasis of school choice is “empower to low-income students to choose and attend quality private schools.” (p. 15)
Walton’s theory is straightforward and compelling: to simply channel funding—scholarships, vouchers, tax credits—to help the families of poor children vote with their feet, moving to private school alternatives outside of the confines of the public school system’s constraints. (p. 17)
And although the Walton Foundation does provide funding for public schools (per the study) - you really need to stop and think about the their concept of “private schools for poor children” and go back to my previous paragraph. Those "families of poor children" that they are talking about – probably can’t afford to pay their share of the scholarships that would be needed and probably take the standard deduction because they probably don’t have enough deductions to claim the tax credit - which is an itemized deduction. It could happen, but in the "real world" how often does it really happen?
So then the question becomes – who are these conservative funders really supporting?
In 2005, 70 percent of the tax credit funding went to the private school scholarship programs as opposed to assisting public schools. (p. 6)
in some states, … the bulk of corporate scholarship moneys went to pupils already enrolled in private schools, at least in the program’s early years. (p. 7)
In my opinion, based on this – it doesn’t look like the “poor children” are getting the bulk of the benefit of these grants, scholarships, and tax credits.
The study also shows the corporate foundations are very serious about funding private-sector alternatives to public education. Between 2002 and 2005 the total dollar amount of 104 “school choice” foundations ranged from $86 Million to $108 Million in per year. (p. 11) In 2005 alone, the 29 largest foundations donated over $65 Million in contributions were given to further the advancement of school choice. (p. 14)
Of corporate foundations that were listed as making donations to the open school “private-sector” education movement, the top fifty included (p. 19):
Abbott Laboratories,
Alcoa,
American Express,
Amgen,
AT&T,
Bank of America,
Bristol-Meyers Squibb,
Caterpillar,
CIGNA,
Daimler Chrysler,
Eli Lilly,
Exxon Mobil
Fannie Mae,
Ford Motor Company (distinct and entirely separate from the Ford Foundation),
GE,
General Mills,
General Motors,
Merrill Lynch,
Pepsico,
Pfizer,
Proctor & Gamble,
U.S. Bancorp,
Verizon,
Wellpoint,
Wells Fargo,
For your fun and amusement I have bolded the corporations that are confirmed past or present ALEC private-sector “sponsors”.
(The report goes on to take a careful look at 501c4, 527’s and PACs that provide funding for “school choice” private-sector movement – but that is an article is for a different day.)
The movement for school vouchers and overall school privatization is alive and well. (p. 27)
Local, state and national political leaders continue to express sentiments that appear open to considering school vouchers. (p. 28)
For advocates of school vouchers and other privatization models, there is no contradiction between support for charter schools and support for school vouchers; they both are mechanisms for introducing choice in K–12 education. In a more straightforward way, education tax credits function as disguised school vouchers, providing public capital in the form of foregone tax revenues to support children leaving the public school system in favor of private school alternatives. (p. 30)
But these foundations deserve credit for serving as the capital bulwark for a movement that has had significant impact in shaping the public’s understanding of K–12 education, and for getting the public to assume that public education doesn’t work, may not be repairable, and is less effective than privatized education. (p. 31)
So, coming back to the beginning – we need to realize that there are far right organizations out there, conservative think tanks, and conservative foundations that are pushing “private-sector” “free-market” education. ALEC has the “model legislation” to make it happen in your state. And then the grantmakers and think tanks can push money at it.
Pete DuPont, previously on the board of the Lynde and Harry F. Bradley Foundation: “What is one good thing we could do for the people who are poor, who are not succeeding? We could give them an education. What does the government do worst in America? Run the school system. (p.4)
Oh, my………….God bless their private-sector focused, free-market egocentric, altruistic hearts.
ALEC’s legislation doesn’t look so appealing, inviting or alluring anymore – does it?
In the 16th edition of the ALEC “Report Card on Education” at the end of the narrative (p.111) they have this quote:
Thomas Paine wrote:
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.
We hope that you are up to the challenge. Do not wait for someone else to do it.
This task falls to you.
If you don’t know what ALEC is – please read this, or this, or this, or this.