The Goldwater Institute has an op-ed pushing Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) — aka Educational Savings Accounts, aka (according to me) Vouchers on Steroids — in Friday’s Arizona Republic and another in Saturday’s Sierra Vista Herald. It’s no wonder G.I. loves the vouchers-on-steroids program. The Institute created it and babied it through the Arizona legislature. And it’s no wonder G.I. is making a big ESA push right now. Republicans, under G.I.’s watchful eye, are pushing a bill to expand the program.
Whenever you read something from the Goldwater Institute — an op ed, one of its emails if you’re on the mailing list, a quote from one of its six-figure-salary spokespeople — remember: G.I. is a conservative lobbying organization, lawsuit mill and propaganda factory, not a think tank as it likes to bill itself. No think tank worthy of the name begins with the conclusion it wants to reach, then thinks back to figure out how to “prove” it. That’s G.I.’s M.O. That’s how G.I. works.
Both op-eds are penned by Jonathan Butcher, the Institute’s education point man. Do you know ALEC, the corporate funded conservative organization that brings business leaders and Republican legislators together in fancy hotels, creates conservative model bills on all kinds of issues, then sends the legislators home to pass them in their home states? Butcher is co-chair of ALEC’s Education Task Force. That’s pretty much tells you what you need to know about him.
Before Butcher sings the praises of ESAs in his op ed in the Sierra Vista Herald, he trashes Arizona’s public schools for spending too much money on administrative expenses. With your ESA, he says, you’ll pay for education, not overhead. The problem with that assertion is, Arizona is among the states spending the lowest percentage of its education funding on administration. Depending on who’s doing the counting, it’s somewhere between 4.5% and 9% of the ed budget, a few percentage points lower than the national average. And of course, private schools have administrative overhead too. Ask some private school what it spends on administration and see if you come up with a number that low.
Butcher says Arizona’s public schools spend 54% of their funding in the classroom, about 7% lower than the national average. He’s right about that, and there’s a good reason. The Republican legislature keeps cutting school funding, so every year schools have to make do with less. You can’t cut buses carrying kids to school. You can’t save much on building electricity, heat, cleaning and maintenance. But you sure can cut back on teachers and cram more kids in every classroom, as Arizona has done, and that cuts a whole lot from classroom funding. Not surprisingly, other states near the bottom of the nation in what they spend per student also spend a lower percentage in the classroom than most states that are more generous with their education dollars.
Anyone who followed my “Fool’s Gold” posts on Blog for Arizona knows I love to go after the Goldwater Institute, and I expect I’ll be posting about the Institute here as well. G.I. doesn’t get nearly the negative attention it deserves. And expect more about ESAs soon. There’s lots to learn about the costly and destructive vouchers-on-steroids program.
This article appears in Jan 23-29, 2014.
David,
You come across as an out-of-work union organizer with your tirade.
I have two kids who are educators, one in the Arizona public school system and the other at a prestigious private school back east. While they differ on charter schools, they agree on vouchers as a way to put the “consumer” (student/parents) into the equation. Clearly, my daughter at the private school has a vested interest in vouchers. If the EIAs are vouchers on steroids, then I suspect that they may well agree with the implementation.
As for the much maligned Goldwater Institute, good folks with the right idea and message. You condemnation has assured my high opinion of the group is correct, for I agree with little of what have you have written on this site over the last several weeks.
Bisbee boy, keep reading what I post about the ESA. The law is a new take on vouchers with all kinds of options that make it, to my eyes, unbalanced and dangerous. Of course, what I write may just make you like it even more.
By the way, I’m not out of work, I’m a retired teacher (and a proud teachers union member). And I work here on The Range and as a semi-regular columnist on the Weekly.
I knew it. Where’s the education degree?
Jonathan Butcher holds a B.A. in English from Furman University and an MA in economics from the University of Arkansas.
To extend the author’s logic, he apparently believes that only rich people should be able to educate their kids in the manner in which they choose. He prefers to keep the poor down.
David, it is easy for any of us to lose our objectivity when we are dealing with things so personal. You have given your life to education and are passionate about the public school system. I know that many fear what will happen if the doors are opened wider to school choice. But, what if it meant the kids get a better education and teachers become more proficient? I am in a competitive business and I don’t like it sometimes when we lose. But, inevitably we get better because of it. I think the same thing will happen in education. Though the real issue isn’t the teachers or the schools it is the parents. We have a culture that spawns diametrically opposed results; parents who hover over their kids where the world revolves around them and parents who shouldn’t have kids and abuse them or neglect them.
I am not sure I would boast as a “retired” teacher … given the achievement scores – drop out rate and the general malaise of todays education victims … nor proudly declare as an union-eda …while sneering at the GI as a conservative think tank of six figured specialistas while six figured union heads and their lobbyists are dining one table over in the same upscale restaurant. So lets start simple – something IS wrong!! My one thought is – the legislature allocates – the districts spend!!! And who manipulates the district – the union!!
Interesting. So far, none of the negative comments have mentioned my main claims in the article, so let me list them here to make it easier. (1) The Goldwater Institute is closely aligned with ALEC, as Bucher’s affiliation makes clear. (2) Butcher misrepresents Arizona public schools as being administratively top heavy, then implies people who use vouchers to pay for private school tuition won’t be paying for administrative and other non-classroom activities at those schools. (3) Butcher fails to mention that the more the state cuts its education budget, the lower the percentage of money flowing into the classroom, since fixed costs have to be paid for regardless, so cuts tend to mean fewer teachers and limited teaching materials.
I’d be happy to hear some rebuttals to those arguments, which are the substance of my post.
David the problem is you open your article with a pot/kettle sallie ergo most everything else is ignored … your bias against ALEC is the entire focus of your post.
2. Wading through BS thats bounces off the walls about education is next to impossible ..
it’s always the legislature and NEVER the district admins nor school admins nor tenured teachers !!
3.States “cuts” are antithetical to district cuts and like most bureaucracies districts operate under the golden rule – show no surplus lest we lose what we have ie: district salaries, bloated retirement and entrenched mediocrity !!
4. It’s a well known fact teachers are out of pocket for teaching materials – what the heck is that about …well usually both the district and the union immediately point “downtown”. Not me – they cry it’s “them” – those ALEC people !! And what teacher dare deny it !!
5.Costs are costs – (I can buy school supplies at Costco Walmart or Sams Club and order books on Amazon – where do districts order their supplies and books)- until they become something else – no administrator nor union “boss” wants to give up cushy – ever!! So what the heck are the costs and ROI of the present sclerotic union practices !! Especially the cost of “tenure” …
Sir – you have some explaining to do … attacking GI – nonsense, lets see your performance charts then we the reader can get some bearings !!
So your main arguments are:
1) GI is associated with ALEC and are therefore guilty by association. Read this and think about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_f…
2) Schools spend 7% more on administration than the national average, which means to me that when the legislature cut funding school boards and school administrators choose to cut classroom education rather than administration. You obviously agree with this prioritization. I would prefer to see administrator cut rather than teachers and classroom support cut. Buy whether it’s your way or my way, either way it’s a matter of the policy maker’s choice.
I find your arguments spurious on their face. No rebuttal is required.
Michael, forgive me, but old English teacher habits die hard, and I have to criticize your reading comprehension skills. According to you, I stated that “Schools spend 7% more on administration than the national average.” Nope. Here’s what I wrote: “Arizona is among the states spending the lowest percentage of its education funding on administration. Depending on who’s doing the counting, it’s somewhere between 4.5% and 9% of the ed budget, a few percentage points lower than the national average.”
Here’s where you saw that 7% figure: “Butcher says Arizona’s public schools spend 54% of their funding in the classroom, about 7% lower than the national average. He’s right about that, and there’s a good reason.” Before you call my arguments spurious, you need to read them more carefully.
David,
My apologies for misreading your argument in my haste. I don’t have time to go back and forth about the impact or the merits of the 54% spending level in Arizona.
However, I still believe the power of school choice overrides the self interest of Teacher’s Unions. And I still believe your guilt by association argument about ALEC somehow taints the Goldwater Institute is spurious.
Summary of Michael Foudy’s argument: Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.