Archive Hosted by the AFL-CIO

False Choices: The Economic Argument Against Market-Driven Education Reform

January 17, 2012 By Michael J. Diedrich, Policy Associate

Download full report (pdf)
View online at Scribd

After experimenting with market-based, competitive education initiatives for 20 years with little statewide education improvement, it’s time Minnesota returns to what works best: proper education investment and supporting our students and teachers.

Minnesota is home to the nation’s oldest charter school law and has also implemented school choice initiatives, such as open enrollment. This simulated market experience has not supported the idea that increased competition drives improvement.

Minnesota's national test scores in math have increased by less than seven percent since the introduction of a competitive system 20 years ago, and reading scores increased by less than one percent during the same time frame.

 

 

The main problem, among many, is that school systems cannot function as free markets if we want to achieve universal post-secondary readiness. Free markets produce efficiency, not equity for all. Efficiency helps maximize profit, but what about students that aren’t profitable to educate?

Using the rules of economics, and assuming we must achieve universal post-secondary readiness, MN2020’s latest report, False Choices: Market-Driven Education Reform Doesn’t Work, demonstrates why free market thinking in education comes at a high price for students, parents and teachers.

As a result of competition-based thinking, many schools have focused on teaching-to-tests and advertising instead of broad based cognitive development that will provide students with the necessary skills to be successful in a 21st century workforce.

In moving Minnesota back toward a proven educational path, our latest report makes the following recommendations:

  • There is a place in education for efficiency, incentives, and innovation; however, policymakers must stop trying to achieve these competitive goals with a false, market-based approach.
  • Schools must adapt to achieve universal post-secondary readiness by focusing on initiatives that enhance teachers’ professional development and provide comprehensive teacher assessment and feedback.
  • Instead of using a false market-mentality as political cover to systematically defund schools, we must invest in education for the 21st century, using some of that investment to develop a comprehensive and fair teacher evaluation metric.
  • Charter schools have a place in the public education system as partners, not competitors, with traditional schools.

Thanks for participating! Commenting on this conversation is now closed.

25 Comments:

  • Susanna Patterson says:

    January 17, 2012 at 8:55 am

    I can’t go along with the idea that “Charter schools have a place…as partners rather than competitors…” Charter schools are the prime moving force promoting segregation in the “public” school system. Here in Stillwater we have seen attempts by evangelicals to take over one of the district’s charter schools; another has been established as a school for blonde, blue-eyed children from reasonably well-to-do families; certain charter schools in the heart of the city cater to specific minority demographics. If we are to remain true to our vision of a pluralistic society; a “melting pot” of cultures and nationalities, what better place to begin than in a truly PUBLIC school system?

    • Giovanni says:

      April 23, 2014 at 3:07 am

      That implies that a public school system cannot be tarnished by the same factors that could tarnish a private school. This is obviously not true, as anyone that works for the state can obviously have their own agenda as well. Do not trust any institution.

      However in a private competition system, schools can fail or succeed based on merit, and if bad school succeed anyway, the student can always leave for a different school. Americans also donate $300 billion annually to charity, I don’t see why some of this could go to kids that are too poor to receive a good education.

      • Dan Conner says:

        April 24, 2014 at 9:21 pm

        Giovanni, of course a public school can be tarnished by the same factors (except profit motive) as private schools.  In fact, they are often tarnished with more factors, like focusing teaching on too many groups, from special education to advanced placement classes.  Normally, a private school doesn’t have to contend with the numbers of special education children.  Teachers can have their own agenda in public and private schools, but public schools never have a PROFIT motive, like private schools.  In addition, using NY as an example, the NY charter schools (private) pay their school principals as much as $500,000/ year.  That pays for many teachers.

        You say the private schools succeed or fail based on merit? Is that so?  Can you name a few?  Then, you qualify that remark by saying, “...if a bad school succeed anyway,, the student can always leave for a different school.”  Oh?  The same exists in Minnesota with open enrollment.  Parents can take their children to any school they wish, successful or not.  Your argument about factors of success and ability to change enrollment are specious.  There is no difference between public and private.

        You last statement is without logic at best, and bigoted at worst.  You talk of American donations to charity, but then say that money should benefit poor children?  That’s pretty ignorant and without reason.  Charity is usually given because of an unfulfilled need.  That would mean “poor” children would normally be targeted for that aid.  Why would non-poor children be the exclusive beneficiaries?  To award this charity to people who don’t need it would be called special interest money, invested in a self-interest sort of way, to only receive a tax advantage.  That’s incredibly selfish and disconnected.

        • Giovanni says:

          April 25, 2014 at 5:29 pm

          Open enrollment isn’t a free choice. You’re simply going to another school owned by the apparatus of the state which is run by the same principles, rules, etc. and ultimately the same government.

          Do not confuse profit with free market capitalism. Many people profit in government. Pension plans and lobbyists are great examples. Greed exists in man no matter what concepts we use to name it. Charity exist in the same way. 

          “but public schools never have a PROFIT motive, like private schools.  In addition, using NY as an example, the NY charter schools (private) pay their school principals as much as $500,000/ year.  That pays for many teachers.”

          This is not true also, many public schools allow students to ‘pass’ their tests in order to get more funding for their school. In this example, children are being failed in order to bring more money into the school.

          “I said ‘can’ succeed based on merit. There’s plenty of institutions that will do what appears to be a good job but actually isn’t and still succeed. However, if education is important, schools that deliver a good education will succeed more often than schools that do not produce a valuable education.”

          That’s like saying that anyone who provides a service that doesn’t work for government is 100% only concerned with making money and has absolutely no care about anything else, which is ridiculous. This is a caricature borne of hyper partisanship not reality. Michael Jordan didn’t start playing basketball for profits, he loved basketball and then made the money.

          I don’t understand where you got the impression that I somehow favor sending charity to people who don’t need it. Please appreciate the time I put in the discussion and not skim through what I write.

          You’re also not using the term ‘merit’ correctly. There is no merit in extracting everyone’s wealth with threats of jail time in order to force children to follow a curriculum that is controlled centrally by powerful people. If we wish to help those that need it, we should organize a system that is voluntary, not based on violence to solve complex social problems. To me supporting a system of violence to solve complex social problems, even as it fails horrifically can be considered selfish.

          • Dan Conner says:

            April 28, 2014 at 10:12 am

            Giovanni, what are you thinking.  Open enrollment is an opportunity to change to any school in the public system, right.  However, public school parents also have the opportunity to send their children to ANY private school they wish.  They can even send their kids to out-of-state private schools.  Now that is about as flexible as possible.  I can’t think of anymore flexibility.  Can you?  Where is that alternative any different from your private school that you hope to subsidize?

            Why are you so insistent in this “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” era to subsidize private schools.  Are they not able to survive on their own.  Doe this capitalist entity not have the viability to survive on their own?  I sure don’t wish to subsidize a profit making entity or the obscene salaries of its executives.  Many people profit in Government?  Come on, don’t be foolish here.  You seem to be mixing up the context of free market capitalism with some altruistic one.  We’re talking about money profit here.  There is no economic definition of profit in Government.

            Lobbyists?  That’s your free enterprise at work.  Your conservative friends have progressively polluted our political system with lobbyists.Your explanation of overpaid CEO’s in NY charter schools doesn’t relate to testing in public schools.  If you are talking about the tendency to cheat, you should admire public schools.  There is a requirement for a degree of transparency.  That’s great because you know it.  Private schools don’t have that same requirement of transparency.  So, if you are saying ignorance is bliss, you aren’t credible.

            So much of the rest of your post is common sense, not brought together in any meaningful way, to make a point.  My only reply would be, “So.”  Other parts of it is incoherent.  You seem determined to put words in my mouth, but again you don’t tie it together in a coherent thought.

            • Giovanni says:

              April 30, 2014 at 10:03 pm

              “Where is that alternative any different from your private school that you hope to subsidize?”

              No one argued for subsidies to private schools, that’s a feature of the state, not free market capitalism. If you don’t want to listen to me, then I’m not going to waste my time against someone who is so clearly consumed with partisan dogma.

              Lobbying is not ‘free enterprise at work’ that’s a side effect of an activist state in the market. When there exist an apparatus in the state to rig the market, it’s going to be exploited. Lobbying is asking for government money, it is not a feature of free market capitalism.

              “Many people profit in Government?  Come on, don’t be foolish here.  You seem to be mixing up the context of free market capitalism with some altruistic one.  We’re talking about money profit here.  There is no economic definition of profit in Government.”

              Sure there is, have you ever heard of asset forfeiture? It’s called profiting through government power. There are many other examples. Congressman being able to vote on their own pay raises, it’s ridiculous.

              I’m not wasting anymore time with you. I respectfully encourage you to clear your head and look up terms. But you’re probably just going to try and validate your partisan bias instead. So long.

              • Dan Conner says:

                May 1, 2014 at 8:48 am

                Me subsidize private schools?  I think that’s laughable.  You accuse me of “skimming,” but you totally misinterpret what I say.  I don’t wish to subsidize ANY private school.  In fact, I wish that any Government funding going to private schools stop NOW.  In the end, I would like to see private school abolished.  They are not good for society.  It is not appropriate to sequester the priveleged in our society from everyone else.  The rich need to get their hands dirty and become connected to the rest of society.

                Well, at least you knew we weree talking about governemnt subsidies to private schools.  However, it’s not a feature of the State.  It’s a feature of us.  We are the State.  You decide, along with me.  I could care less where you spend your time, but I suggest a good place to start might be reading.

                I totally agree with your third paragraph, but I don’t see where you can generalize what is or isn’t a feature of “free market capitalism.”  That’s a concept, not reality.
                Profit in governemtn?  I think you better define ytour terms.  You don’t use the proper definition of terms, but later you do.  I think you need to organize your thoughts and meaning to decide what you mean.  Again, you mix up the economic definition of “profit” with an altruistic one.  There’s not “profit” in asset forfeiture.  Voting on ytour own pay raise is not considered “profit” in economic terms.

                Giovanni, I suggest you consult the Godfather about financial and economic terms v. figures of speech.  Then, try researching your viewpoints.

                • Giovanni says:

                  May 2, 2014 at 10:56 am

                  I could have sworn I unchecked the comment notifications, but I guess not.

                  “Me subsidize private schools?  I think that’s laughable.  You accuse me of “skimming,” but you totally misinterpret what I say.  I don’t wish to subsidize ANY private school. “

                  Again, either you’re not listening at all, or you’re putting words in my mouth.

                  No one ever argued for subsidizing private schools and no one ever implied or said that YOU wanted to subsidize private schools, no one ever said that. You know exactly what I said.

                  “Where is that alternative any different from your private school that you hope to subsidize?”

                  This is you not understanding the free market position. To you, if government gives money to the rich or a business, that is ‘free market’ which is ridiculous. I then clarified that and now you are saying that I accused you of wanting to subsidize private schools? You see, you’re just not listening to me or confusing the issue by playing dumb. So I’m done with this nonconversation.

                  “Profit in governemtn?  I think you better define ytour terms.  You don’t use the proper definition of terms, but later you do.”

                  You’re playing hokey pokey with me here, cops routinely profit off of civil forfeiture. Whatever you want to call it, it’s the same action as stealing, or making money off the misery of other people. Call it whatever you want, it’s the same action as Enron profiting from defrauding thousands of people. It happens in the market as well as in government. No matter what concepts or fictitious names you want to call it, it’s always people doing things, right or wrong. And it exists everywhere.

                  • Dan Conner says:

                    July 25, 2014 at 11:19 pm

                    Mr. Giovanni, you make statements without a point.  So, if corruption exists everywhere and is destiny, then what’s your point?

  • Michael Diedrich says:

    January 17, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Susanna,

    Thank you for writing! I’d like to clarify that recommendation to make sure it doesn’t come across as supporting all charter schools. I agree with you that charters in the metro area have contributed to increased segregation by race and income and that this runs counter to the values our public school system should have. Similar segregation has been observed in other systems that have experimented with charters or outright privatization of education.

    The recommendation is more about increasing dialogue between charters and the traditional public schools, something that isn’t very likely when schools are competing with one another. Very few charter schools are getting noteworthy results, and of those that are, only a few are doing so because of practices or programs that could be scaled up across our school system.

    I’d like to see us do more to identify what, if anything, some charter schools have done well so that we can look into ways to better incorporate it into the traditional publics. Over the long run, I’d like to see the charter program shrink (and eventually vanish) as public districts continue to build more diversity into their school offerings. We’ve already seen examples of this diversification in the metro area, and I think it’s far healthier than the segregation and lackluster results of the charter sector.

    We’ve had charter schools for 20 years, and they won’t go away overnight. Encouraging engagement with traditional publics so that the good (what little there is) gets used and the bad gets tossed aside seems to me a better way to move past this experiment than trying to force it to end in a political fight. I think a public discussion of the reality of charters, framed as a search for quality, will do more to dampen enthusiasm for them than just about anything else we can do.

    Thank you for engaging with this,
    Michael

  • fkaJames says:

    January 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    If the last 20 years of education policy in MN represent a failure (or limited success) of market-style reform, I hope the next 20 years will be a revolution in pedagogical methods.  Contrary to what many entrenched interests posit, I believe that students can and will be taught to reach age-appropriate competency in math, reading, science, history and technology via interactive technologies.  For example, a third-grade math curriculum can be provided via computer, with interesting and functional lessons developed to keep students engaged and progressing.  Testing can both evaluate progress and illuminate areas for immediate remediation, which can be provided via interactive technology.  Learning can be both more comprehensive and more uniform, as well as blind to racial, gender, socioeconomic and other factors.

    Just as the job of “secretary” is essentially non-existent today and has morphed into an administrative role, I hope that in my lifetime the job of primary school teacher is replaced by a more supervisory elementary administrator role.

    (I realize that my opinion will be unpopular with those who earn their living teaching right now.  To them I can only say: learn from the experience of secretaries, travel agents, record stores, book stores, postal workers, journalists, etc.)

  • fkaJames says:

    January 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Further to my comment, I just found out that a famed Stanford professor, Sebastian Thrun, has resigned from his tenured position at Stanford to start Udacity, an online educational venture.  Here is what Prof. Thrun says on his web page:

    “One of the most amazing things I’ve ever done in my life is to teach a class to 160,000 students. In the Fall of 2011, Peter Norvig and I decided to offer our class ‘Introduction to Artificial Intelligence’ to the world online, free of charge.

    “We spent endless nights recording ourselves on video, and interacting with tens of thousands of students. Volunteer students translated some of our classes into over 40 languages; and in the end we graduated over 23,000 students from 190 countries. In fact, Peter and I taught more students AI, than all AI professors in the world combined.

    This one class had more educational impact than my entire career.”

    There are obvious differences in teaching Artificial Intelligence to adults and teaching elementary mathematics to children, but I am encouraged that this free, voluntary learning was both embraced by thousands and a proof of concept.  Elementary online learning won’t be available soon enough to affect my kids, but it probably will be the mode by which my grandkids will learn (I hope!).

  • Leslie Hittner says:

    February 19, 2012 at 7:33 am

    “Charter schools have a place in the public education system as partners, not competitors, with traditional schools.”

    Amen. We charter school operators have been saying that from the start.

  • Leslie Hittner says:

    February 19, 2012 at 7:43 am

    So, you think that after a few years the conventional districts will be “fixed” and anything they might learn from charters will have been learned. Then you hope the charters will go away? Not likely, Not in the changing social, economic, and technical environment that we all find ourselves in. If the conventional districts believe for a second that they can correct their problems and then continue on in a static manner…they will not have learned their lessons at all well.


    Charters will continue to be a part of the systems of public education that educate our children for the 21st century. And they are getting better.


    You can bet on it.

  • Michael Diedrich says:

    February 21, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Leslie,

    I don’t think conventional districts will be “fixed” through one round of conversation with charters. Any single status quo is guaranteed to be insufficient over the long run.

    Instead, I’d like to see more focus on increasing the diversity of programming available within traditional public school networks. Innovation must be internalized as a core part of our thinking on school development. We’ve seen some indication of what traditional public schools can do when given the freedom to develop specialized programs, and I’d like to see us focus on supporting that kind of work instead of writing off traditional publics as an unfixable monolith.

  • Leslie Hittner says:

    February 21, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Michael,

    I have no argument with that. the problem with many large conventional districts is that they have a very lot of institutional inertia to overcome when changing directions - even a little bit.

  • Anja Hartleb says:

    March 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    I read your paper with interest.

    I’d like to make one note:

    A central premise of your argument is the idea of pure competition. Unfortunately, this is longstanding misconception in mainstream economics. As Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek pointed out:

    “It appears to be generally held that the so-called theory of ‘perfect competition’ provides the appropriate model for judging the effectiveness of competition in real life and that, to the extent that real competition differs from that model, it is undesirable and even harmful. For this attitude there seems to me to exist very little justification. I shall attempt to show that what the theory of perfect competition discusses has little claim to be called ‘competition’ at all, and that its conclusions are of little use as guides to policy.” (Individualism and Economic Order, 1948) http://mises.org/daily/4181

    Now, the success (or lack thereof) of MN school “choice” options (charters, vouchers etc) may be unsatisfactory, but if the rationale of any of those options is to achieve “pure competition”, this is not surprising at all.

    If we are going to advocate or criticize the idea of competition in education—or any other sphere for that matter—let’s make sure we are talking about something that’s actually based and possible in reality.

    I appreciate your comments.

  • Dan Conner says:

    April 1, 2012 at 10:11 am

    I think is is foolish and destructive to “privatize” our schools.  As imperfect as it is, the prime focus of our current systems is to educate children and prepare them for life.  Privatizing the system will change that focus from education to profits and whatever yields the most profit.

    Profits at some time or the other will run counter to the purpose of educating our children.

    Besides, if parents are eminently concerned about their children’s education, what are they doing to reinforce the teacher at home?

    • Giovanni says:

      April 23, 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Is there no profit to be made just b/c people are called a different name? Government? Corporation? Don’t mistake profits for ‘privatization’, people profit in government all the time, the only difference is what you call it, and the nature of the transaction.

      That said, if a school’s ONLY motive was profit, you honestly think parents are going to enlist their children there? I think you have a VERY caricature view on privatization. No matter what system you use, you are trusting other human beings with lots of money and lots of power, calling it the ‘state’ or ‘private’ doesn’t change anything. You are still trusting human beings, the only difference is do we allow choice? Or do we monopolize schools to be under the control of politicians who most likely have their own agendas just like any other human being?

      The system is not merely ‘imperfect’ - it is a nightmare. It’s almost as if it is terrible at educating on purpose - that’s how bad it is. When I graduate from school - from 12 years of school - I should be proficient at mathematics, english and grammar, finding a job, driving a car, cooking, doing research on politicians, knowing how to philosophize, etc. The list can be endless. And why not? I was in school for over a decade, and when I got out, I had to learn how to find a job through the internet, which is privatized by the way.

      I think you should spend more time thinking about this, I respectfully encourage you to do so, and not attach any labels to the ideas, just look at human actions, no labels, no parties, just the real action.

      • Dan Conner says:

        April 24, 2014 at 9:41 pm

        Profit, as it was used above, refers to the pecuniary measure, not whatever subjective measure you are implying.  Frankly, I have a hard time deciphering what you mean.

        You ask if a parent will enroll their child in a school where the only motive is profit?  I don’t know.  You better ask parents.  I doubt any of those school representatives will say they only stand for profit.  Did Bernie Maddoff say he was about fraud?  Even though he was a big fraud, thousands of people invested over $50 billion.  Your same question might be asked of them.  Then, you engage in projection by accusing me of saying what you are saying.  You are trusting other “human beings” with lots of money and power in a private setting as well.  However, I can trust that a major corrupting element of “profit” is not an element in public schools.  You say you want choice, but you appear too uninformed to know there is lots of choice in public schools.  Far more than among private schools.

        There is no monopoly in any school.  People can move their children among many schools.  You talk of the school system being a “nightmare,” but you offer nothing substantiating that.  You offer no proof.  Also, you mention nothing of parental involvement.  I suggest that failure of students is mostly the responsibility of the parent.  Are the parents supportive of the teacher and try to reinforce the teacher.  Do parents show an academic interest.  Do parents help with discipline?  You know, children spend more time at home than in school.  In too many cases, parents act like schools are their babysitting service with no desire to be involved with their child’s learning.  I think parents (people like you) need to do a better job preparing your child to learn and then the teachers can worry about doing a better job teaching.  However, treating teachers as adversaries is destructive and foolish

        I don’t think I have used labels in describing the education.  However, I think you do.  I seem to think you devote little intellectual effort to improve the educational system, probably because it’s easier to criticize.  Guess what?  Criticism doesn’t improve anything.

        • Giovanni says:

          April 25, 2014 at 5:47 pm

          “I seem to think you devote little intellectual effort to improve the educational system, probably because it’s easier to criticize.  Guess what?  Criticism doesn’t improve anything.”

          I’m not interested in your ‘guess what?’ snark or ego match. Stop making this personal. Everyone is being critical, that is the whole point of disagreement. If I disagree with something, I am going to criticize it, and if it’s something that is failing millions of people miserably, being critical is warranted and helps if there is a proposed solution. You can’t disagree with something and not be critical.

          “There is no monopoly in any school.  People can move their children among many schools.  You talk of the school system being a “nightmare,” but you offer nothing substantiating that.”

          It doesn’t matter if I offer nothing in return, my argument is that the current system is wrong. If I think racism is wrong my argument isn’t invalid simply b/c I don’t propose a new system. But the fact is that I am proposing a new system to begin with. Please read all of my comment before responding.

          “I suggest that failure of students is mostly the responsibility of the parent.” 

          It is, but they have no choice but to enroll their children in school or get jail time, fines or have their children taken by the state through child protective services. Just b/c I didn’t mention parental responsibility doesn’t mean I don’t think that it isn’t important.

          “Are the parents supportive of the teacher and try to reinforce the teacher.  Do parents show an academic interest.  Do parents help with discipline?  You know, children spend more time at home than in school. In too many cases, parents act like schools are their babysitting service with no desire to be involved with their child’s learning. I think parents (people like you) need to do a better job preparing your child to learn and then the teachers can worry about doing a better job teaching.  However, treating teachers as adversaries is destructive and foolish” “

          This is a red herring. Why are you assigning assumptions about my position when I have not mentioned them? This also assumes that a teach is bad only b/c the parent is bad, which is false.

          “I think parents (people like you) need to do a better job preparing your child to learn and then the teachers can worry about doing a better job teaching.  However, treating teachers as adversaries is destructive and foolish” “

          I think making personal attacks means that no logical conclusions are going to be reached. I don’t even have a child and that is b/c I know I can’t support one at the moment (b/c I care).

          You’ve assumed that I (a) treat teachers as adversaries, (b) have to do a ‘better job’ at preparing my child (I don’t have one) and (c) implying that it is the fault of parents that our school system is a failure.

          “Criticism doesn’t improve anything.”

          It does help a lot, that is the very nature of disagreement. I can’t disagree with something without being critical of it.

          • Dan Conner says:

            April 28, 2014 at 11:55 am

            Well, if criticism is helpful, then you should appreciate my criticism.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    January 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    During Minnesotas hayday as a National and World leader in education, (through to 1960’s), we did institute a very successfull education competition program. All Curricula and all Teachers were tested in this system which drove quality curriculum and drove teachers to self improvement. Every school in a district competed with each other, districts competed statewide. Many ideas were tried and many ideas failed by over years many new ideas were put in place. This coupled with local control cut bueracratic red tape and allowed proven changes to be adapted quickly. The biggest problem with education is still the TOP DOWN strangle hold that State and Federal manipulation, (via funding), have on education quality and outcomes.

  • Jack Prong says:

    June 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Public education monitors the private schools for purposes of compliance.  Without the market to compete and innovate, public schools would have crashed and burned a long time ago.  Either that or the squeaky, yelling parent gets the attention and the quiet parents don’t.  Private, parochial and many other education settings comprise “the private market.”  The public school system and it’s bureacrats hide the data obtained through “monitoring for compliance” among the private education venues and simply grape off the innovations for themselves.  Otherwise the public school wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.  You taxpayers are paying for this public school system.  You taxpayers are paying for a gold-plated public education.  The public education system on it’s own would simply fall like old Soviet Union with the private education market.  If you’re a parent sending your child or children to a private school, you’re also paying taxes for some other parents’ kids.  Once you start looking at the cold hard facts instead of making up a bunch of progressive political mumble-jumble for your room temperature public education bureaucratic world, you’ll start to see how this little game is perpetrated on the unsuspecting American public.  I know first hand because I’ve seen the public school monitor compliance files maintained at the private schools.  Also, the False Choices in the article’s title is applied to government propaganda so watch out for all this snake oil.  If any idiots out there disagree with me, just go for the jugular by calling me a teabagger, homophobe, racist.

  • Wesmouch says:

    September 6, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    Given that the teachers Union owns the DFLforget about meaningful reform here. Investing more in education means more money for multimililionaire teachers and administrators. THE DFL could care less about the kids.