Ben DeGrow of the Independence Institute argues the Douglas County teachers union has been working against vouchers all along.
Education affairs in Douglas County have attracted a great deal of attention in recent times, often generating more heat than light. A little more clarity is needed, however, to help understand the nature of the opposition to the bold reform agenda in Colorado’s third largest school district.
An audience member fills out a question card on the Douglas County voucher proposal at a 2011 community meeting. EdNews file photo.
As the school board moved ahead with the groundbreaking Choice Scholarship Program in 2011, the Douglas County Federation of Teachers (DCFT) – the local teachers union – carefully crafted a quiet public position. A Jan. 13, 2011, letter to members from President Brenda Smith cautioned a wait-and-see approach as the details of the Choice Scholarship Program were being developed. Two months later, when the board approved the program, EdNews Colorado reported a friendly, neutral tone from the DCFT leader:
“We applaud the district and teachers for working collaboratively … to ensure money will not leave a budget with scarce resources, holds all participating schools accountable and provides an equal opportunity for all our students,” teachers union President Brenda Smith said in a written statement. “We will continue to monitor its implementation.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a local group called Taxpayers for Public Education led the charge to file lawsuits against the Douglas County Board of Education and the State of Colorado, while the local Democratic Party also assumed a role speaking out in opposition. From the union? Silence.
Earlier this month, the AFT co-sponsored an amicus brief in the voucher appeal that stated the union’s clear hostility to rescuing the program and the 500 students it had begun to serve from the district court’s injunction. This filing of course took place in the wake of a public dispute over negotiations that deeply touched the roots of union power and privilege (read this Ed Is Watching blog post).
Emails show union did have an opinion on reforms
Until this week, the apparent satisfying conclusion was that monitoring implementation of the Choice Scholarship Program had meant DCFT was detached and neutral concerning the program’s success or failure. One even might have speculated that union leaders’ seemingly newfound opposition to the pilot choice program stemmed from a reaction to their deteriorating relationship with the board rather than from an earlier calculated effort.
Two newly discovered email messages, one of them publicized Monday in a Townhall column by John Ransom, cast serious doubt on that theory. Even while DCFT leaders served unaccountably on the tax-funded district payroll and the district continued to collect AFT political dollars and other dues funds, the union was scheming with the ACLU to kill the board’s reform agenda.
The first email message was sent from senior political consultant George Merritt to three DCFT leaders, including Smith, on June 21, 2011, the date lawsuits first were filed against the Choice Scholarship Program:
I think it is very likely that we will be asked for a comment. I think this is another scenario where we need to keep our cards close to the vest and let the ACLU do what it does. So far, this is playing out exactly as you all planned, so congrats. While this is welcomed news, I think we want to stay the heck out of the way on this lawsuit. IF we are asked for comment by a reporter, we should keep it short and rather dull.
Merritt’s specific suggestion of something “short and rather dull” reflects the comment Smith provided to EdNews three months earlier. Townhall columnist Ransom makes a compelling observation when he writes:
It appears from the email that the union was coached by Merritt to execute a strategy that kept the union out of the limelight, while union officials on the public dole stage-managed efforts at destroying reform measures….
In other words, when it comes to the Choice Scholarship Program, DCFT was actually against it before they were against it. The second email shows a series of reactions to news that a local university was performing a privately-funded survey of parents who had received a Choice Scholarship (reported a few days later in the Denver Post).
Messages were exchanged on the evening of Dec. 7, 2011, nearly four months after Judge Michael A. Martinez issued the injunction. Responding to DCFT Vice President Courtney Smith, who exclaimed in language your teenager will understand (“OMG!!!!!”), Merritt concisely advised:
Let’s work on it first thing tomorrow. We’ll get it to the ACLU and let them raise hell.
Coordinated efforts? You make the call.
Like two important pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, these email messages provide a clearer picture of the timing and nature of the union’s opposition to school choice reforms. Given this new information, it’s fair to ask whether Gov. Hickenlooper finds the case more compelling to make a risky intervention on a major campaign contributor’s behalf. (Read about a $10,000 contribution to Hickenlooper from the DCFT at Colorado Peak Politics.)
About the author
Ben DeGrow is a public policy analyst with a focus on education labor issues. Since joining the Independence Institute in 2003, Ben has advanced its research in the areas of collective bargaining, teacher employment and school finance. He oversees the Education Policy Center’s informational website for teachers and coordinates the Institute’s outreach to teachers.
Why wouldn’t the union be against this, it is horrid policy. It is taking tax money from working people to subsidize the education of the rich. Also who should care what a anti- public education group like the independence institute says anyway. Vouchers are probably one of the cruelest things to do to people of poverty. We should be very wary of these groups that push this agenda.
How would a voucher be a cruel act to students living in poverty?
Jesse, I guess the better question then to ask is why the union acted publicly like they thought the program — a program that is not means-tested like you suggest. I’d be interested to know what evidence you have for asserting that means-tested school choice programs like those in Wisconsin, Ohio, D.C., Florida, and Arizona somehow “are probably one of the cruelest things to do to people in poverty.” Have you ever talked to any of the families who have benefited from such a program?
BTW, it’s really clever (but highly unoriginal) to call the Independence Institute “anti-public education.” The term commonly is used as shorthand to convey something else. So I will credit the use of epithet as uninformed, unless you’re using it to mean something unconventional.
(clarification) *Why the union acted publicly like they thought the program wasn’t such a bad idea.
Jesse,
i think this biggest problem with today’s discussions about public policy are groups on the right and the left pushing their views by trying to silence or belittle others. We need to have better and richer conversations about what works and not on all topics including vouchers.
It would be nice if you could back up your statement about ‘vouchers being one of the cruelest things to people of poverty.’ I can think of lots of outrageous and cruel things our public education system has done to low-income communities. There aren’t many poor people in DougCo so don’t know what you are talking about if your point is about DougCO.
I also appreciate all sides on these policy and political debates being transparent. I realize it’s not likely to happen on all sides of these struggles whether it be financial support for candidates or various kinds of organizational support for different issues but I think we can all work harder to make things more transparent.
By the way, I don’t always agree with II nor do I with CEA but I do appreciate having thoughtful discussions with folks like Ben DeGrow. And thanks to EdNews for making it happen.
Jesse….you might want to check out commentary guidelines here…this is not the Denver Post. Most of us regardless of where we sit on a issue are respectful and cite evidence to support our viewpoint when making commenting here on EdNews. All views are welcome as long as within those guidelines. Hey it’s no different than the rules for discussion in most public school classrooms or the one in which I used to teach. I’m sure you would appreciate the same for you.
Vouchers are cruel to poor students because poor families can’t afford private schools even with the vouchers. What the do is subsidize education for some wealthy and some middle class families and the expense of the local public schools. These monies should be dedicated to public use and private schools are by their very name not public. I say the independence institute is anti public Ed because they support using public education funds for private purposes either through vouchers or for profit charters. I think that goes against the public good. I don’t know why the union wasn’t more upfront about their position, they should be as advocates for public schools. I am not a member of that local or the aft. I have always been NEA. I would want my local to take a vocal position. A good union is responsive to its members unfortunately too many of our unions have become to polically entrenched to do what is best.
Thanks for clarifying your position, Jesse. I think we all want civil dialogue so thanks to you all for adhering to the policy, as I am one of the people approving comments. Is this as simple as being pro-voucher, or against? Are there cases where vouchers would be a good idea, and other situations where they would not?
Van, I too agree that we should engage in dialogue that help to further the discussion. I am not sure that Ben’s post accomplishes that endeavor. Gee, what a surprise money is corrupting the process–on all fronts. Sorry that Ben was bamboozled by the press release. It is quite clear that the AFT and NEA oppose vouchers.
Mark, I’m sorry that you don’t believe reporting new relevant information doesn’t add to the “discussion”. Perhaps we all should have assumed that Douglas County union officials were misleading the public about the Choice Scholarship Program from the get-go. Not everyone interested in the issue is appropriately cynical yet, I suppose.
I too prefer to look ahead. The issues surrounding the Choice Scholarship Program are going to be tossed around in the courts for awhile to come, it would appear. We don’t need to hash out our obvious disagreements about that now. Meanwhile, Douglas County has been (and continues) taking on other key reform issues, which I look forward to discussing more in the future.
Jesse – In Colorado there was a law passed SB 12-067 which says that all charter schools must be incorporated as non-profit.
It’s pretty clear now where people stand, and the lines have been drawn, so to speak. So, where is the common ground here? Is there one piece people can agree upon to move this conversation in a productive direction? Otherwise, it seems we’re just expanding the divide between people.
Julie,
I would say that the common ground is that we all care about the common good and the education of our young people that schools are supposed to serve. That said – the divide is defined based on whether we are talking about PUBLIC or PRIVATE schooling as serving those ends. I would love to hear the Independence Institute say once and for all and without obscurities that they support PUBLIC schooling and all that that has done for our society.
Thanks for attempting to be the civil, middle-of-the-road, voice of reason – however I think we already have plenty of that in our profession including all too often by many who contribute or respond here – including many with whom I agree. Everybody in the education world it seems “sees both sides” and looks for “truth” somewhere in the “middle.” Unfortunately that has only gotten us incrementally closer to considering the privatization of public schools as only slightly off center or even “middle ground” versus the radically ridiculous idea that it is. “The middle ground” of any discourse is defined by whoever is in the position to dominate that discourse at any given time – (I’m looking at the corporate/foundation funders listed at the bottom of this page right now…). If I was in charge – the very notion of using public funds for private schooling and/or any move in the direction of dismantling a public institution – one that has done played a significant role in building an American middle class – based on political arguments greatly lacking in real empirical evidence would get laughed out of the room as it would have been a generation ago when neither major political party would dare utter such nonsense.
I agree with Jesse – though would posit that the purpose of Independence Institute support of vouchers is more about the systematic dismantling of a public institution (public schools) and the organized interest that supports it (teachers unions) rather than the blatant exploitation or oppression of the poor – although I would guess that the Independence Institute – if pressed – would show it’s disregard of the interests of the poor and working class/”middle class.” The one thing that I respect about Ben’s contributions are his unabashed Independence Institute/Libertarian bias and his lack of feigning the “middle ground.”
Well-said, Andres. And if I may add, what “truth” has ever found in the middle of any two arguments? What was the middle ground truth of the Holocaust? I suspect that what people mean, but fail to recognize, is that we often make compromises in everyday life and in politics in order to get something done and it is somehow assumed that whatever action that was, had to be the truth or the best way forward because ‘some’thing was done. Whatever was accomplished may, upon reflection and time, have been truly horrendous but at the time may have seemed reasonable, especially if group-think dominated the process as is happening now in educational reform.
In the end what vouchers and charters are actually showing is that districts are either not confident in their ability to run schools or that they believe in the breaking up of the traditional structures of public education. This breaking up could be for ideological reasons, religion or even political gain. There really is no intrinsic quality in private, public, charters, etc. that makes one a superior model, albeit private and charter schools can be more nimble and less bureaucratic – but government was intentionally made that way to allow the public a say in how its dollars are used.
It does lead us to several questions which are seen in the voucher debate. I know these are big topics, and I don’t pretend that they will all be discussed on this forum, but at the very least they are questions I ponder often. Thanks for the discussion.
1. Why is this an issue in Douglas County, one of the highest performing and wealthiest counties in the country? This does not seem to be a program to narrow the achievement gap.
2. What happens to taxpayer accountability with schools with fewer checks, balances and oversight?
3. When will the education reform conversation really focus on institutional racism?
4. Is the public education structure and system that was designed before our country educated all children designed to educate all children? The private sector never was either.
5. Why is our country and state focusing so hard on political gain and not on what has been proven to work in our country and around the world?
6. When is REAL empirical data going to matter in education? (I know some of the data is the best we have, but statistically it is often garbage and holds too much sway.
One last comment on the article, why does the DCF’s stance (or lack thereof) on vouchers really merit a news article? Is it to distract and polarize based on what has been nationally lauded and critiqued as one of the most collaborative teachers unions in the country? Did the DCF’s board ever vote on a stance?
There are two ironies to this discussion. The first is that the conversation around vouchers usually takes place where neighborhood schools aren’t serving disadvantaged populations. That’s not the case in Douglas County, one of the highest achieving and most homogeneous (mostly white) school districts in the state. This was never about achievement. It is about funneling taxpayer dollars to private and primarily religious schools away from neighborhood schools.
Secondly, the Independence Institute is a vocal advocate of transparency when it comes to the use of taxpayer dollars. With vouchers, taxpayers will never be completely certain how those dollars are being spent or whether students are doing well. Unlike public schools, private schools can choose which students to accept and can turn away struggling and special needs students. Private schools won’t have to be accountable to the taxpayers whose money they accept. And, once the private schools have absorbed all “the cream of the crop,” neighborhood schools will be left with most challenging students and less money with which to serve them. Let’s hope that none of them is your child.
Billy,
Thank you as a union official for helping to explain why a diversity of choices are needed in education, just as people come to expect in almost every other area of their lives. To respond to your questions:
1. I’ve heard Dougco leaders explain many times that they are confident in their ability to serve the vast majority of students, but that Choice Scholarships (as one part of their overall Blueprint for Choice) were designed with community input to offer an option for those families who believe their students can best be served elsewhere. I’m glad to see they are not afraid of competition but glad to partner with parents to help make sure the educational needs of all students are met.
2. Are you familiar with the accountability that was included (but never implemented because of the injunction) in the Pilot Choice Scholarship Program, not to mention the accountability to parents who select to place their child in that school?
3. I’m unsure how you are trying to make this point fit into the conversation.
4. A good theoretical question that underlies the case for major transformation. If yes, it’s failing the design. If no, then let’s change it. Your point raises another profound question: Who designed the private sector?
5. I assume this is a rhetorical question. But let me add that paying teachers for masters degrees in education is something that’s proven NOT to work in the American context, while gold standard research of school choice program unanimously finds modest benefits and no harm.
6. Good question. See #5. However, I agree there is a dearth of high-quality research on a lot of K-12 education issues.
Finally, you ask why does this topic merit a “news article”? It is commentary in the “Voices” section, written to place a piece of relevant evidence into the public sphere for conversation. I don’t know if DCF’s board ever voted on a stance, but they did pull down April 2011 meeting minutes from their website that discussed the topic: http://colorado.mediatrackers.org/2012/08/03/douglas-county-teachers-union-censored-meeting-minutes-then-removed-document-from-website/
Silly unions. Maybe this sort of shenanigans is what the “union” and parents of good conscience want to avoid:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/07/photos-evangelical-curricula-louisiana-tax-dollars
Because “(t)he majority of slave holders treated their slaves well” and all…
Love these free-market follies!