Just say no to privatizing public education - editorial by Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) - commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------

(It wasn't too long ago when the state MEA reps wrote their own editorial opposing school choice. So here we have another.)

This session we’ve heard a lot of bills that bear a striking similarity to model bills from the legislative agenda of the corporate bill-mill American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. Whether a particular bill is an ALEC model bill, whether a bill’s subject is just high on the ALEC agenda, or whether a bill was written by a former ALEC member like the National Association of Charter Schools, a bad idea driven mainly by out-of-state interests is still a bad idea driven mainly by out-of-state interests. (How interesting that Ms. Wilmer opposes out-of-state interests writing bills. You can almost guarantee that anything the Left accuses the Right of doing is something they do themselves.)

What’s particularly sinister about pouring so much money into state legislatures to get these pro-corporate bills passed is the payoff and punishment underbelly of ALEC and other corporate-sponsored groups.

Legislators who cooperate will be rewarded with huge campaign donations that enable them to prevail over any opponent funded by regular (living breathing, real) people; (Notice the false characterization. Only the Right does this, and their opponents are supported only by real people.) 

and non-cooperative legislators will find themselves faced with an extremely well-funded primary or general-election opponent. From this springs another half dozen bills to dramatically raise or altogether eliminate restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. A perfect storm: corporate funded campaigns to legislators who will carry out a corporate agenda. (Apparently this is worse than being beholden to "immigration reform" shadow organizations,  Or the case of Ms. Wilmer herself, who spent $276,000 in her reelection to the Montana House.  Here's where she got her money:

(So she got $15,000 from PACs. Is she therefore beholden to big moneyed interests herself?)

What all of these bills have in common is that none addresses a problem we have in Montana. They are aimed at carrying out a national agenda. Nowhere does this seem more apparent than in the 6-pack of so-called “schoolchoice” bills. One even gives tax credits to corporations. Now if you ask some Montanans whether they think it would be good to have more “school choices” they might say “yes,” hence the slick designer language. But if you ask most Montanans whether they think we should cut public education funding and give taxpayer dollars to private, mostly religious schools, most would adamantly say “no!” And that’s what each of these bills does in sometimes cleverly designed funding mechanisms that sound like we run public education as a “fees for services” program. If you “choose” take your kid out, you can take your taxes out too. But what about childless couples, single Montana taxpayers, and people whose kids have grown? Why shouldn’t they get a rebate too? (Indeed, why should people without kids in school pay for schools? By reverse logic, why do only those who live in a particular neighborhood have to pay for their road improvements? Shouldn't that be borne by everyone?) 

Because public education is a public good that benefits all of us. (She doesn't say how it benefits all of us. I suppose she's trying to make the case that educated people contribute to society. But don't private schools also educate people?)

Decrying that “one size doesn’t fit all” advocates want to give parents whose kids don’t “fit” a tax rebate they can use at a private school that “fits.” This argument is flawed on many levels. First of all, our teachers and administrators are already innovative and rightly insulted by the false notion that our schools are boot camps grinding out cookie-cutter educated students. (That remains to be seen. Individual schools and/or teachers may indeed be innovative, but we don't know what constitutes innovation, nor do we know that every school or teacher [or even a majority of them] deserve this accolade. Ms. Wilmer is making a sweeping generalization. But worse, she is presuming to know what parents should want, and concludes without justification that public schools meet all those preferences. Clearly they don't or there would be no private schools.) 

Second, Montana already has public charter schools and other innovative programs — 57 of them serving over 1,500 students. (In other words, Ms. Wilmer deems what the state offers to be sufficient and that other choices are not necessary or not legitimate.) 

Third, these public charter schools have certified teachers, are overseen by elected school boards, and guided by statewide standards through the Board of Public Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Washington DC schools have the same characteristics, and they are some of the worst schools in the nation.) 

None of this is true for the proposed private charter schools, which is one reason they are likely still unconstitutional. Third, (Um, fourth, but who is counting?) 

the Montana constitution specifically prohibits taxpayer revenue going to sectarian schools. 

(The Montana Constitution say this in Article 10, Section 6:

The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.

Do you notice that it says "public funds." Prior to being taxed from people, those funds are "private funds." The potential to tax is not the same as having a pre-existent claim on private funds. That money belongs to the individual taxpayer before it is taken and converted to public use. Therefore, a tax credit, a voucher, or the creation of a class of people to which a certain tax does not apply is not in violation of the Montana Constitution because it isn't "public funds" until government extracts it from the taxpayer.)

Who were the proponents of these bills? Catholic schools, schools offering a “classical Christian education,” and the Christian Montana Family Foundation. Budgetary flimflam aside, tax money that would go to public education retained by taxpayers to pay for private education is tax money going to private education. (She just countered what I wrote above, but leaves it as a bare assertion. Notice the flawed language based on a flawed premise. She starts with the phrase "...tax money that would go to public education..." She's trying to claim that money that belongs to individual taxpayers is subject to a higher claim of ownership by the state. Because the state will take it at some point, it doesn't belong to the taxpayer right now. This means it is public money before it is taken! She continues, "...retained by taxpayers..." You will note that money that hasn't been taxed is simply money retained by the taxpayer. It isn't the taxpayer's money, it is simply retained by the taxpayer. 

She concludes that it is therefore "...tax money going to private education..." Astonishing! Can you imagine, this woman is charged with overseeing the affairs of the state of Montana, but can't even logically approach an issue!)

Montana is not Chicago or D.C. (But those are public schools as well, with all the checks and balances and innovation and certified teachers that we in Montana have. Does this mean she supports private school funding in Chicago or DC?) 

Our dropout rate is 4.1 percent — down from 5.2 percent since Superintendent Juneau initiated her “Graduation Matters” program. Montana students consistently earn top scores in nationally standardized tests of proficiency in math and science. Yes, where there is poverty there is underperformance, and that is true all over the U.S. “Graduation Matters” targets those students too, with great success. And if we pass SB 14 we can join 49 (all) other states that support students staying in school until at least the age of 19, which will certainly further lower our dropout rate. (Yes, Montana schools are generally preform very well. But that still avoids the point. Despite all the benefits of public schools, despite their innovation and high performance results, parents are still choosing to send their children to private schools. They are still exercising choice. They are still rejecting public schools, and Ms. Wilmer doesn't appear to understand why. Or maybe she doesn't care, being beholden herself to special interest funding to the tune of $15,000.) 

You want private schools? Fine. Just don’t ask for taxpayer money to support them.

Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) has served four terms on the House Education committee and is a full professor at Montana State University.