“I had never heard such bullshit in my life. I opened my mouth and said, "I have never heard such bullshit in my life.”
― Percival Everett, Telephone
I'm still basking in the glow of my work being acknowledged by one of my favorite writers.
Peter Greene is an accomplished educator and is now one of the prominent education writers in the country.
Early in the week, he wrote a piece focusing on some of the issues I've raised over Tennessee's proposed voucher legislation.
My view is that expanded school choice is coming, what it looks like is what we should be fighting over not whether or not it should exist.
That horse was let out of the barn and is now, standing in our garden eating our favorite vegetables. He ain't going back in the barn, so we have to figure out how to contain him in a manner that we both can live with.
Greene's piece - written as a bit of a counter-argument to my points as raised on Twitter - aligns with much of my own. However, I'd be remiss if I failed to push back on a couple of things.
To me, the idea that a child be required to sacrifice one year of their 12 by enrolling in a traditional public school before being eligible for a voucher, or assistance, is ludicrous.
I suspect it's rooted in the idea, of forcing people to opt out before they can opt in. The hope is, acknowledged or not, that a family will try the public option and then decide it's not so bad, and changing is a hassle, and...well, Johnny made friends...in essence, opting out becomes more difficult and so the kid stays in the public system.
This strategy is lifted straight from the pages of Behavioral Economics 101. We see it in practice with all kinds of workplace benefits and even parent permission slips. It is an effective way to influence behavior.
Greene writes:
The universal vouchers for students already in school creates a taxpayer problem, because it increases the number of students that the taxpayers pay for. Taxpayers are paying for 100 students at the public school. 10 leave for a private school. 25 already at the private school get a voucher (and why wouldn't they? what sense does it make to turn down free money?) But now taxpayers are paying for 125 students. If that money comes from the school of origin, that school can either cut programs or raise taxes. Universal voucher programs get really expensive, really fast.
I get this. But, something being left unsaid, or not being focused on, is the idea that public schools need a certain amount of parents to opt into private schools to control costs. Otherwise, we can't afford the bill. I think that premise alone waters down the definition of public education and who it's for.
It also works from the premise that if a family has the opportunity, they are going to break from the local option immediately. If you believe that public schools are equal to private options, why would you make that assumption?
Here's another argument that often gets put forth and goes unchallenged - the fixed costs of running a school don't decline because there are fewer students, so losing students makes the school unable to meet those fixed costs. Agreed, but, shouldn't the inverse hold true as well?
It's like this, if a pizza that produces 10 slices costs 20 dollars, and 10 kids are paying, the cost of the pizza is 2 dollars a kid and each kid gets a slice. If you only have 5 kids, the pie becomes 4 dollars a kid, but each kid gets 2 slices. Well, each kid may not be able to afford 4 dollars, so maybe you end up getting a smaller pie. or maybe you get fewer toppings, to reduce cost. Either way, there is an impact and a required adjustment.
On the flip side, if you have 20 kids, the cost of the pizza is still 20 dollars, but now each kid only pays a dollar and gets half a slice.
There should be an adjustment here as well, maybe we order two pies, or we add topping to the existing pie to make it more filling. Either way, an adjustment needs to be made.
Unfortunately what often happens is that the per-student cost doesn't change, but the excess is siphoned off to hire someone to watch the cooking of the pizza to ensure it's up to snuff. So if some of those kids leave, you might still be able to afford the pizza but you no longer have the excess money to pay the pizza watcher, and since the pizza watcher has more time to interact with the public, who gets to make the strongest case for their necessity.
Students are busy ordering the pizza and eating it, while teachers are busy preparing the pizza for consumption and delivering it to students. The pizza watcher though is producing data and writing papers on why they are so necessary to ensure that patrons get a quality pizza for their 20 dollars.
Granted, that is an oversimplification. and not without holes, but the point remains - you always hear about the negative impact of losing students on fixed costs, never the positive impact of gaining students.
It's partially why, I'm a strong proponent that any "voucher" be paid directly to schools and not be filtered through parents. The value of the voucher should also equal the per student financial calculations made by the state's student funding formula (TISA).
I've been thinking about this paragraph of Greene's a lot:
That points to what I find most problematic about the voucher movement, which is the implicit attempt to change the whole premise of education in this country. Instead of a shared responsibility and a shared benefit, we get the idea that education is a private, personal commodity. Getting some schooling for your kid is your problem. From there it's a short step to the idea that paying for it is also your own problem and not anyone else's.
I do believe that education is a shared responsibility, but have yet to arrive at what degree I am comfortable with the idea, as it pertains to my kids.
I firmly believe that as a parent, I am responsible for providing them as many opportunities as possible so that they can get as close to realizing their full potential as possible. The two biggest issues that I've wrestled with as a parent are that I can't protect them at the level I would desire and that there are opportunities I will never be able to provide them.
That is a bitter bill to swallow, and maybe you are more altruistic than I am, but I'm not comfortable sacrificing them at some philosophical alter. Especially when that alter is being served primarily by those that can least afford it.
I believe in equality and equity, and strive to get as close to that goal as possible, but how big a sacrifice do I demand for an ideal that will never fully exist?
The world will never be fully equitable, There will always be haves and have-nots.
It sucks but my job is to raise kind, honest, empathetic individuals, capable of living in the real world, not the halcyon one of my imagination.
As we say in AA, living life on life's terms, and finding that balance is often a difficult task.
- - -
Let me tell you a story about Farmer Bill.
Bill liked being the king of his farm but aspired to do much bigger things. If he could be a Burgermeister, wouldn't that be grand?
One day, Farmer Bill was talking to some tourists, and they told him how Farmer Jeb almost became a Burgermeister by winning a beauty contest. Seems folks like pretty things, and if Farmer Bill could win a beauty contest, he'd surely become Burgermeister, if not more.
Farmer Bill asked his new friends if they could help him win a beauty contest - he'd be most grateful if they would.
They said, "That sounds great!", and followed him home to his farm.
Alas when they got there, they discovered that Framer Bill had no daughters or sons who could enter the contest. Nor did he have a dog or a cat, or any other comely animal that could be substituted.
After careful evaluation, Farmer Bill realized that the only acceptable candidate he had was a pig. The pig was quite horrific looking, and for years visitors cringed when shown the swine. But, it was all he had to offer.
Farmer Jeb's friends remained undeterred. They told Bill, don't you worry, when we are done dressing this pig, everyone will think it's the most beautiful creature in the valley.
Bill was skeptical, but Jeb's people seemed to know what they were talking about, and he really wanted to be the Burgermeister, so he conceded to them.
At Farmer Jeb's urging he directed his farm foreman to start adding things to the pig to make it pretty.
The foremen were skeptical, and so they pleaded with him about the futility of this endeavor. in the end, though, he was their boss, so they set about trying to bring the plan to fruition.
They first bathed the pig and squirted some perfume on it. Then they added ribbons because everybody likes bows. The pig was fitted with high heels because Jeb's friends pointed out that high heels are attractive footwear for models. All the Foremen pitched in adding their favorite things in the hopes that they could make the pig attractive enough to win the contest and help their boss out. (Ironically, none of them really liked Farmer Bill. but that's another story, for another day.)
On the day of the contest, all the foremen rode to the arena together. Farmer Jeb's people had long since returned home.
As they led the pig to the judging stand, they told everyone how beautiful the offering was, and that surely this was the most beautiful thing anyone had ever seen. Moments before presenting their pig to the judges, one foreman leaned over and applied a touch of lip gloss to the pig's mouth.
When the judges laid eyes on the pig they were struck momentarily speechless. Finally one was able to form words, "Why are you presenting us with this pig?" He said, "Surely you don't think we'll be fooled by all the accruements that you've added, or that we'll forget, this a pig?"
The foremen were stupefied. Could the judges not see how attractive this pig was? Could they not see how hard they worked to beautify this animal? The pig had to win, Farmer Bill's dreams and ambitions rested on it.
The judges' silence turned to anger, "Do think so little of us that you thought a little perfume, some ribbon, and high heels would prevent us from recognizing a pig when we saw one?"
One nudge shouted, "Is that how little respect you have for us?"
The foremen tried to retreat with their pig as quickly as possible, but the damage had been done. The judges and the crowd quickly turned on the Representatives of Farmer Bill, and his foremen.
In the wake of the ill-conceived deception, townsfolks grew leery of Farmer Bill and his associates. The once-thriving farm began to lose money and Bill's foremen soon discovered that doing business in town was a lot more difficult than before the beauty contest.
As the farm fell deeper into debt, Farmer Bill was forced to sell his farm to a new farmer. One that went on to run the farm for many years.
As for Bill and his former foremen...they were left to try and rebuild their fortunes while looking for new farms to work at.
Why tell you this story?
Suffice it to say, this week, House Republicans are meeting to try and make the Governor's voucher bill more palpable. The question being asked is, what do you need in this bill to secure your vote? Is it perfume, ribbons, or maybe high heels?
Hopefully, some will heed the story of Farmer Bill and remember that despite your best efforts, at the end of the day...a pig is still a pig.
Good policy is good policy. it doesn't require any additional polishing to make it attractive.
- - -
Reblucican lawmakers have another problem on their hands - State Education Commissioner Lizzette Reynolds doesn't hold the required qualifications to hold her position.
Governor Lee and his crew argue that Reynolds's nearly three decades of policy and legislative experience in education on the state and federal levels make her qualified. However, she does not hold a teacher’s license or have experience leading a classroom.
Tennessee state law clearly requires the commissioner to be a person “of skill and experience in school administration” and “qualified to teach in the school of the highest standing over which the commissioner has authority.” That means a license.
State Representative John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville) makes a legitimate claim, “There is no vagueness in this statute,”
Clemmons added during a news conference last week at the state Capitol. “Commissioner Reynolds is legally unqualified, and she must resign.”
All of this falls under the category of partisan sniping, save one fact - last year, House Republicans expelled 2 members, and pushed another into resignation, over an inability to follow the rules.
The question becomes, are the rules for everybody or just for people that annoy us? If the latter is the case, I have some suggestions.
Complicating matters is the Commissioner's abysmal performance at Senate hearings last week. Some have defended Reynolds's lack of composure by referring to her as someone who avoids publicity, and her history as a policy wonk.
That's fine and good, but you don't get to be a starting QB in the NFL if you can't win the press conference. Public speaking is part of the gig and why it comes with a $255K paycheck.
Several rumors have popped up about the commissioner's status. If rumor is to be believed, the Governor is already dissatisfied with her performance and might be in favor of her departure.
Some have gone further, suggesting that her performance was a result of the Governor giving her an earful moments before her Senate presentation, to the extent that she was forced to change her remarks last minute and wing that presentation.
I take that story with a grain of salt.
Anyone who has watched her at State Board of Education meetings, or on Zoom calls about the A - F grading system, knows that who Senators saw at that Education Committee hearing is an accurate representation of her.
Likely a very nice lady, but not one who is qualified to lead Tennessee's Department of Education.
Now, do I think she'll resign? No.
The Governor's term ends in roughly 2 years. This is his last shot at introducing significant legislation. After this session, thoughts of the General assembly will turn to currying favor with whoever is next in line.
Reynolds, who still maintains a home in Texas, that she frequently visits, has shown little inclination to engage in the needed rebuilding of a department decimated by four years of Hurricane Schwinn. She doesn't want to live in Tennessee, any more than I want to live in Texas.
Sometime in the next year, she'll quietly head home and Deputy Commissioner Sam Piercy will be named interim. The commissioner position will remain open until after a new Governor is seated.
This was going to be a three-year appointment, at best, anyway.
- - -
Since we are talking Republican headaches today, we might as well add one more.
House Speaker Cameron Sexton continues to prove that he's about as qualified to be speaker as Reynolds is to be Education Commissioner.
His question of Federal Funding, and its impact was worthy of consideration until, once again he lost control of the conversation. Seems to happen a lot, and at the most inopportune times.
It's no secret that he earned no love with Senate Republicans by laying the blame for the lack of gun legislation at their feet, going as far as to imply that they were complicit in murder due to their inaction. Now he's reaping the the harvest from those remarks.
Last week the Senate released its report on refusing Federal Funding. In a nutshell, it said, that'd be nice if we could but at this juncture, not a great idea. No effort was made to spare the Speaker's feelings.
Sexton's response was to release a separate House report. One that focused on food waste in schools. It also came with a lengthy list of federal rules and directives that need to be regularly reviewed.
The latter prompted Sen. Jon Lundberg, co-chair of the legislative panel, to say that following the House recommendations could add bureaucratic layers to state government and slow down the work of the education department, “That’s why we have a (state) Department of Education, to deal with these kinds of issues,” said the Republican from Bristols who chairs the Senate Education Committee.
Here's the issue though, politics is a spectator sport. Right now spectators are watching Republicans argue over wasted food at school, while Democrats propose ending the grocery tax.
In an election year, optics matter, and Sexton continually puts his team in the most unflattering light.
- - -
Time to rattle the cup a little bit before I head out the door.
If you could help a brother out…and you think this blog has value, your support would be greatly appreciated. This time of year money gets real tight, while the blogging workload increases exponentially.
To those who’ve thrown some coins in the basket, I am eternally grateful for your generosity. It allows me to keep doing what I do and without you, I would have been forced to quit long ago. It is truly appreciated and keeps the bill collectors semi-happy. Now more than ever your continued support is vital.
If you are interested, I’m sharing posts via email through Substack. This has proven to be an effective way to increase coverage. Readers have the option of either free or paid subscriptions. Paid subscriptions will potentially receive additional materials as they become available. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
If you wish to join the rank of donors but are not interested in Substack, you can still head over to Patreon and help a brother out. Or you can hit up my Venmo account which is Thomas-Weber-10. I don’t need much – even $5 would help – but if you think what I do has value, a little help is always greatly appreciated. Not begging, just saying, Christmas is right around the corner.
If you’d like less opinion and more news, check out my writing for The Tennessee Star. It’s a bit drier but equally informative.
My 2 brothers and I attended public schools in 3 different parts of New York. We all finished college at respectable institutions. My 2 children attended public schools in Pennsylvania and Texas. One graduated in Texas, the other moved back to Pennsylvania and finished in the same school district as before moving to Texas. Both were able to attend and graduate from respectable institutions. The schools did not do all the teaching, their mother (mostly) and I (less so) did oversee their activities and their progress. If the responsibility for another child's education fell upon us, we would use the public school and ensure that they were learning sufficiently. Vouchers are a scam.