I need to start out this post by reminding folks about what has been happening in the first few months of this current administration. Like Tony and I have said, there is nothing wrong with making cuts to the Federal government to improve efficiency & effectiveness. What you may not realize is why or how it is being done. Though our current president swore prior to the election, that he had nothing to do with Project 2025, he is certainly making decisions based on what its authors wrote, and once again lying to appease those who he needed to at the time. Transactional Fraud.
By eliminating or transferring services of federal government departments, (some that worked independently of the executive branch), under other departments within the federal government that have oversight by the executive branch, he is consolidating power under the executive branch of government, giving the President more control. We are losing the checks & balances our forefathers built into the 3 branches of our democracy. Just remember he is theoretically a lame duck president for 4 years. What he is doing now can be undone by any future administration. Unless, as I have mentioned before, the rules of presidential term limits change. Congress is failing at doing their job.
I have wanted to write about public education for a long time. I’ve worked at the State (Delaware) Department of Education (DOEd) for 8 years and worked for a local school district for 13 years. I retired in 2019 because of poor leadership. I held off writing this post because I always desired to work again in public education. I considered it a calling and felt I had some unfinished business to complete. I had things I wanted to do for the students & staff, and in turn the taxpayers. I held off on writing the post because if I pissed anyone off, then maybe my chance of working in public ed again would be lost. Delaware is a really small state. Then I thought about it and about being true to myself. What I’m going to say here is no different than what I would have said or would say to anyone in public education. I have also chosen to include excerpts from a paper written by Ansley Fennell a law student at NY University and future daughter in-law.
Though this post may be lengthy, there is a lot of ground to cover when talking about the federal & state versions of public education. I think we can all agree that there are success stories for both public & private school students. Some of the greatest inventors, architects, engineers, doctors, artists, leaders and scientists have come from both public & private education. I believe it depends on the student & the system. There is no one size that fits all, and it is up to the parent to determine if their child should attend public or private school. That choice is both culturally & constitutionally protected in the United States. But with that decision comes some responsibility.
I am a product of a private school education from K-12. Jen is a product of public education K-12. We chose to send our kids to private school, because that is what we thought was right for our kids. I was working for the state’s public education system at the time. I think Jen is really intelligent, I think she got lost in a system that did not support her. My standing family joke, is the boys got Jen’s brains, we don’t have milk delivered and the post person is a women, so I guess they are my kids also.
THE FEDS
It is true that the constitution itself does not require the federal government to provide free public education to its citizens. Most arguments about what the responsibility of the federal government is, when it comes to education, come from the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It was this clause that the entire Brown vs. Board of Education case was built upon. That being said, it is the government’s responsibility that all its citizens have access to a quality education. I mean isn’t our responsibility to develop well informed & knowledgeable citizens that can prolong our society.
I agree the Federal Department of Education is not perfect. They have their issues when it comes to providing support for the neediest of students. When working for the State DOEd we would always complain that the Feds would push down these mandated requirements to States and only fund them for several years. Then it was up to the State & Local school districts to find the funding to continue a federally required program. Unfunded Mandate we would call it. Maybe instead of dismantling the DOEd, we should fix the issues they have by making them more effective & efficient. Keep in mind if the government did not get involved in education, there would be an even larger disparity between those that have, and those that don’t. States like Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, Virginia & North Carolina would struggle. They could potentially lose some of the $126 billion dollars in taxes that flow from California through federal funding to benefit other states. Look at countries like Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark & Singapore. All educational systems that outpace the US.
I believe the spirit of the law requires the federal government (under the 14th Amendment) to provide an equal public education for all its citizens. It does not mean paying for one (through a voucher system). Private K-12 schools in the United States have steadily increased in cost and size, often at the expense of the public school system. Nearly 70 years since Brown v. Board of Education commanded the abolition of dual school systems, public schools in the United States still have progress to make in providing an equal education opportunity for all school-aged children. Today, the industry of expensive, prestigious private K-12 schools maintains a different type of dual school system, one in which affluent families opt-out of the public school system by purchasing well-funded, high-quality private education, while non-wealthy families and students are relegated to poorly funded and resourced public schools, left with even fewer resources at the departure of their wealthy peers. Students attending these private schools are overwhelmingly white, or from high income earning families. Prestigious private schools maintain a racial and socioeconomic divide and stifle social mobility, offering those who can afford to attend a fast track to the nation’s most prestigious colleges, and subsequently high-paying jobs.
In addition to working to maintain segregated schools, private K-12 schools also work to defund and disadvantage the public schools’ wealthy families chose not to attend, by draining them of both funding as well as their time, influence and resources. Because local school funding is often allocated on a per-pupil basis, schools directly lose funding when they choose to exit the public school system, but their choice can also influence local government choices to the detriment of public schools. When wealthy families wish to maintain an educational advantage by paying a premium for their child’s education, they are incentivized to keep that premium at a minimum and use their political power to impede reforms of local government structure and budget that would benefit public schools, such as resisting increases in property taxes that fund local schools. When communities have a dual system of public and private schools, and private school enrollment is high, support for public schools tends to be lower. The result is a system that provides wealthy students, and a few less advantaged lottery winners, with a high-quality education at the expense of a majority of America’s schoolchildren that attend public schools.
The option to exit the public school system for private K-12 education presents a massive barrier to the goal of achieving equal educational opportunities for all students in the United States by diverting funds, resources, and attention from public schools. As long as those with the most wealth and influence have this option, achieving equal opportunity may not be possible, and many scholars argue that the existence of private and parochial schools in the U.S. is the single largest impediment of an equal, unitary school system. Alternatively, if wealthy parents had no choice but to send their children to public schools, they would ensure that schools are adequately funded and resourced. While abolishing private schools wouldn’t eliminate all inequities, for example, the funding of schools with property taxes would maintain a socioeconomic divide in the availability of resources at local schools, it would go a long way in reducing both inequities and segregation.
In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Court established parental rights to pursue private education, holding that private schools were an acceptable exception to Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act, and that compulsory public education unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians. Despite ample evidence that funding makes an important and enduring difference on student outcomes, particularly for low-income students and students with disabilities or learning needs, legislators are increasingly finding ways to funnel taxpayer dollars into private schools. Born out of a desire to preserve
school segregation and racial inequality, the current shift toward privatization via “school choice” movements which utilize the tax code to subsidize private education are enjoying a resurgence, threatening to undermine equality goals and exacerbate existing problems for most disadvantaged students.
Many of the current programs that subsidize private education in the name of choice, autonomy or freedom developed as an attempt for white families to resist school desegregation requirements following Brown v. Board of Education.23 After Brown, some counties in the South chose to shut down public schools rather than integrate, and instead provided white students with vouchers to attend private schools, and private citizens raised funds to build and operate schools for the private education of white schoolchildren in “segregation academies.” Segregation academies had devastating and long-lasting effects on local school districts’ ability to raise funds. Today, overt racial discrimination is prohibited, but the ramifications remain – private schools in the South still tend to have the largest overrepresentation of white students, and research supports a strong correlation between white enrollment in private schools, and the proportion of black students enrolled in the local public schools. While private schools today may not discriminate on the basis of race, they are not subject to the same accommodation requirements of public schools. Private schools may refuse to accommodate students with Individualized Education Programs (“IEP”), students with disabilities, they may place limits on the expression of LGBTQ students and students of color, they may enforce parental commitment requirements that disadvantage low-income families, or bar pregnant/parenting students from enrollment.
Though “school choice” reforms are not new, and scholars for decades have warned of their potential harmful effects on the public school system, the privatization of the public school system through “choice” reforms has risen in popularity in the most recent decade. Proponents of reforms that subsidize private education in the name of “choice” often argue that choice creates competition that increases the quality of overall education, that parent’s freedom in the education market gives rise to diverse schools that better meet student needs, and that programs provide low-income students with the opportunity and autonomy of choice already enjoyed by wealthy students. Many school choice reforms often have some aspect of “equality” in their structure, designed to prioritize affording poor and low-income families some latitude in selecting their school by providing a financial subsidy. For example, St. Andrews School, a private boarding school in Middletown, DE, chooses a student based on their academics, extracurricular activities, human nature & athletics. Then they determine what level of financial support the student needs to attend. The school has a significant endowment started by founder A. Felix DuPont. Fortunately, this endowment helps the school build diversity into their student base. However, free markets are poor vehicles for allocating public goods. In practice school choice reforms tend to benefit the most advantaged qualified students, while undermining the public school system, exacerbating existing problems for disadvantaged children, and allowing more discrimination with less public scrutiny by providing tax benefits that contribute to the privatization of public institutions. Nevertheless, these programs continue to gain political ground as republican-led legislatures push to create and expand voucher programs and tax credits, with almost 20 states initiating or expanding school-choice programs in 2023. School choice programs reallocate public funds to help parents cover the cost of private education, and in doing so divert resources from public schools. New legislation to reform the tax code to reduce the favorable tax treatment of private schools and individual tax incentives to fund and attend them, should be introduced.
Despite complaints from private school parents that their tax dollars support a public school system they do not benefit from, I touch on this issue later in this report. A quick look at tax law in the U.S. reveals the reverse argument can also be made. Private schools, along with their billion-dollar tax-free endowments, receive tax exemptions that reduce funds for public goods and services. Private K-12 schools receive favorable tax treatment by federal, state and local governments. Most private schools are considered “charitable” and are 501(c)(3) organizations, which qualifies them for an exemption from federal income tax and makes them eligible for tax-deductible donations from individuals and corporations. In some states and localities, private schools are exempt from property taxes and state corporate income tax. Section 26 U.S. Code § 17037 benefits private schools by allowing donors to deduct their contributions to private schools from their income, which incentivizes the support for private schools, while subsequently reducing the income taxes governments collect to fund public services. Additionally, jurisprudence concerning charitable deductions for donations to private schools blurs the distinction between “tuition” and a “gift.”
School voucher programs began as a method to resist school desegregation but today remains one of the most popular ways taxpayer dollars are funneled out of public schools and into less accountable private schools by the millions. School voucher programs are typically funded through state revenue and are state-issued payments that give families a specified dollar amount per eligible student to cover a portion or all of their private school tuition, allowing families to spend taxpayer dollars at their school of choice. Vouchers provide a mechanism for a limited number of students to transfer from underperforming schools to a presumably higher-performing private or parochial school. Voucher programs are attractive in theory as they provide a child with a “coupon worth the price of a ‘minimally adequate’ education, which appears to be an administratively simple way to provide equal access to all children. However, proponents who see voucher programs as a mechanism to provide low income and minority students an opportunity to attend high-performing schools rely on a “propagandized history of tuition vouchers that distorts the role of racial oppression in privatization.” Regardless, in practice,
these programs rarely live up to this ideal.
Though voucher programs vary in design and eligibility criteria, almost all prioritize access for low-income students in some way. When implemented, these programs increase the effect of exacerbating racial and socioeconomic segregation and tend to benefit only the most-advantaged eligible students. Low-income families are often prevented from realizing the benefits of these programs for several reasons. Voucher programs often fund only a portion of private education tuition costs, making them accessible only to those who can afford to make up the difference. Additionally, low-income students may be prevented from utilizing the programs as private schools do not provide transportation to and from school and may provide fewer meals than the child would receive at a public school. While some voucher programs prioritize students with the most needs, private schools also are not obligated to provide needed services to students with IEPs, students with disabilities, or English Language Learners. In Indiana, a voucher program that prioritized low-income students resulted in primarily benefitting white, suburban, middle-class students, many of whom were already enrolled in private schools, far more than low-income students. Even if well intentioned, the practical limitations on voucher systems, which have limited capacity, to provide equal education opportunities is akin to attempting to eradicate poverty with a lottery program, “for every winner, there are millions of losers.”
The minimal opportunities, if any, that voucher programs provide for low-income students are outweighed by the risks they pose in exacerbating segregation in schools and leaving vulnerable students and schools behind by draining limited resources from public school budgets. Voucher programs divert funding from public schools by re-routing education funding to private schools, requiring taxpayers to fund two systems, both public and private schools. Worse, by doing so, school vouchers funnel public funds to schools that lack the same accountability measures as public schools. Tax dollars, in the form of vouchers, are used at private and religious schools that are not required to meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), are not required to admit all eligible students or accommodate diverse learning needs, therefore increasing the likelihood that students experience harm or discrimination. Voucher programs do little to assist low-income students, while assuaging the guilt of wealthy white parents and
politicians by placing the responsibility of educational achievement back onto disadvantaged students and their families. Vouchers do nothing to address decades of underfunding in public schools and instead provide an escape route that isn’t accessible to the students who need additional education resources the most. Voucher programs should be repealed, and plans to expand existing programs or initiate them in additional states should be resisted to protect educational opportunities of schoolchildren in the U.S.
THE STATE
Remember Jen & I chose to send our kids to private school. Well, we paid for it. We paid for a private education from Pre-K through 12. We also paid our taxes to the local school district. We also voted for each referendum that the school district presented. That was our choice. I remember working at the state DOEd and speaking on the phone to a taxpayer about a local school district referendum. He was angry that the local district was asking to raise taxes again to renovate schools and increase operating expenditures. In Delaware you hold a referendum on both Operating & Capital expenses. He proceeded to tell me that he went to a one room schoolhouse and has done just fine. Why do we need all these new schools, he continued to say. I quietly smiled to myself and held back a chuckle. Then proceeded to say this, I believe it is our responsibility to give our children a better opportunity than we were given. Not that we weren’t given enough, we were given what our parents could provide. Some day these students will be making decisions that could affect your life. It is our job to give them the best tools and resources we can, so they make the right ones. He may not have agreed completely, but he understood.
I cannot say that Delaware doesn’t have its own issues when it comes to public education. Jen and I were sending our kids to private school in Middletown, DE. The state provided funding to school districts for transportation. In its infinite wisdom, the state thought it would be a good idea to provide transportation funding to families who were sending their kids to private schools. I worked for the DOEd and argued that we should not be doing that. We made a choice as a family to send our kids to private school and the state was giving us money for transportation. We in turn signed a letter by the school authorizing them to collect our transportation funds from the state, and we drove our kids to school. As Ansley said, further exacerbating the funding that should be going to public education. Not a smart decision by the state.
Delaware went through desegregation just like every state. At the time the state legislature took the schools within the City of Wilmington and assigned them to the Christina School District. Christina School District did not touch the city geographically. Christina is located in Newark, DE., approximately 26 miles away from the city. Instead of the state legislature assigning the city schools to school districts that physically touched the city, they were assigned to Chirstina. Students were on a 26 mile bus ride from Wilmington to schools located in and around Newark, DE every day. Did it meet the requirements of desegregation? Yes. Did it make it hard for families of the students who resided in the city to attend school meetings, shows or athletic events? Absolutely. Fast forward 60+ years later & Christina, I believe is still one of 3 school districts in the country that is geographically separated from an area where its schools are located. Delaware has had many years to fix this inequity to Christina, but it has done nothing. The “River Plan” as it has been called should have been implemented 20 years ago. It would have given the city schools back to the 3 school districts that touched the city. No one wanted to make it happen. I think the districts that bordered the city didn’t want the schools because they were in need of renovations. I believe it was in 2020 the state legislature decided to include funding it its Bond Bill (an annual funding bill for the state), money to renovate the schools within the City of Wilmington. Great idea, long overdue. 100% funding of school construction, a process never embarked on by the state. I’m sure the “River Plan” will be implemented shortly now that the schools have been renovated without a referendum. This really brings me to the point, that sometimes decisions within education take much longer to make than they should. Mostly because of politics.
My sister-in-law is an educator. She is also certified as a Forest Therapy Guide. A Forest Therapist helps offer students opportunities to experience “guided walks” to learn greater mindfulness and openness to nature’s healing powers. The program is part of the school’s curriculum. The program helps students make the connection between themselves and their environment. It also ties in physical education, science and other curriculum. Why isn’t this done at public schools? Why does gym (physical activity) always have to be in a gym or on a track & field. It is probably not implemented in public education, because it doesn’t meet some established curriculum, or it doesn’t help a student reach standardized testing levels. You know my thoughts on standardized testing. It is nothing more than a snapshot in time of someone’s ability to answer questions in one set format. It really doesn’t tell you about the whole student. Maybe this style program can have a greater impact on a student learning than what we currently provide or think.
The one thing that public education does, is try to provide everything to everyone. A noble cause, but not possible. One issue I had with the state is how it handled athletics. In my opinion (as we like to say in our family), it is the responsibility of the district to provide the opportunity for students to participate in athletics. It is the family’s responsibility to pick a student up from practice or game. Both of our boys played soccer or ran cross-country in school. If it was a home event, we had to pick up our son from school once the game was over. If it was an away game, then the school would bring the athletes back to school, where we would be responsible for picking them up. The school provided the opportunity to participate, it was our responsibility to pick them up. The public school system buses athletes all over the place at ungodly times after practice & games. Spending time, resources and money. It should be the family’s responsibility to pick up a student after an athletic event. Shared responsibility between the school & family. I know, I know, some families cannot afford to do that, or don’t have a vehicle. Then there should be process that provides transportation for those most in need.
My last comment is about leadership. In Delaware you need to be an educator to lead a school district. In most cases the local school board prefers the Superintendent to have a Doctorate in Education either prior to being hired or one is required to have obtained the degree within a set period of time after being hired. I may be jaded by previous training in my career, but just because you have your doctorate in education does not make you a leader. I admire educators. I think they do amazing things with few resources. I would challenge anyone to do what they do for a full school year, a month or let alone just a day. But I don’t believe you need to be an educator to lead a school district or portions of a school district. The leader of a school district should set the course for the district, make sure the staff has the tools & resources to do their job effectively, remove barriers to education that hinder staff from doing their job, and then get out of the way. The superintendent is there to set the vision, to sell the district to the public and to defend actions of the district at the state & federal level. I feel that some educational leaders in the state, don’t like when the folks around them know as much about the state system as they do. You don’t need to micro manage to be a great leader. Unfortunately, educators tend to hire more educators into positions they are not qualified to hold. Simply because they are educators. That is an injustice to the other staff within the district as well as the students & taxpayers. I’m a believer in the Steve Jobs school of leadership; surround yourself with people who are smarter than you.
Look, every system within the government has issues. It is our job to continuously improve the systems, so they serve the citizens to a greater degree. We need to look at efficiencies in operations and how they serve the customer as well as the staff. We need to stop issuing unfunded mandates that are then dumped onto states & local school districts. And we should definitely not eliminate the federal DOEd and allow the government to issue vouchers for public education. It will only exacerbate the difference between those that have and those that have not. We can do better across the board in public education. I believe we can learn from the programs and systems within private education to improve the operations of public education and vice-verse. It is a culture change. Any change is initially painful at first but then becomes routine over time. Private school education should be its own system, without any supplemental funding from the state or feds. Public education should be what it is. If you choose to send your kids to private school, then own it. It is your right and your decision.