Half a billion here, half a billion there, and soon you're talking real money. That's what certain of America's mega-rich think anyway. And thank the stars for them.
The Associated Press did some ciphering the other day, and the paper ran the results: Since 2006, philanthropists and the private foundations and charities they support have given almost half a billion dollars to pro-charter school groups throughout the country. Names on the list include Bill Gates, the Dells, a guy named Zuckerberg--and the Waltons, of the Arkansas Waltons.
The Walton Family Foundation was the largest donor to state charter advocates, giving $144 million over that time to 27 pro-charter groups.
It's as if these people (of means) know the most effective way to use their money--and help their fellow Americans at the same time. These folks are certainly free to go in a different direction--like sending half a billion dollars to private schools for affluent students and families. Instead, they've targeted low-income and minority families and neighborhoods all over the land. They seem to think that kids from those ZIP codes deserve an education, too, and their money can help. And not just inside charter schools, either. Because charter schools tend to create competition, which should make traditional schools better, too.
That's the theory, anyway. And there is still a lot of theory when it comes to charter schools. After all, some charters fail and are shut down. What isn't theory: Too many traditional schools have failed generation after generation of kids, are hardly ever shut down, and families are desperate to try something different. Which is why the waiting lists for charter schools are so long. Parents know.
Also not theory: Charter schools have unwavering, even uncompromising, opposition.
State money tends to follow students from school to school. So when a child is accepted to a charter school, the local traditional district thinks it's "losing" money. (Even though it doesn't have to spend that money to educate the missing student.) Which is why so many teachers' unions and the school boards they control want nothing to do with charter schools.
Listen to an "education policy expert" at UCLA, professor John Rogers, who was quoted in this story about rich folk and their support for charters: "A handful of billionaires who are advancing their vision of education reform is very different than having 200,000-some-odd teachers across the state representing their understanding of public education through their union representation."
Yes, but is that a bug or a feature? Professor Rogers says that like it's a negative thing, these philanthropists putting their money where their ideas are. Besides, who else can take on the several behemoths that are national and local teachers' unions? It certainly won't be the local principal who knows he can't fire anybody on staff, won't get a break on paperwork from district offices, and has to tell a promising college grad he has no room for her until somebody with more seniority retires.
Combined, the teachers' unions are perhaps the most powerful force in public education in America today. And they don't always put kids first. Teachers come first--and even awful teachers pay union dues. So the "solution" from teachers' unions has always been to funnel more and more cash into schools (and teacher salaries), without regard to accountability or grades or even whether students learn anything. That's why the unions have consistently fought merit pay, bonuses to the best schools and teachers--and charter schools.
Who better to put a dent in that powerful status forever quo than the folks who have the resources?
The rest of us should be sending thank-you cards to the Bill Gates and Michael and Susan Dells of the world--and the Walton Family Foundation. How can so promising an approach to helping minority and poor kids in the most challenging neighborhoods be considered malicious?
Answer: Only in public education. And only when you ask the unions.
Editorial on 07/18/2018