Setting the Record Straight on Three Education Issues Overwrought allegations about “massive teacher layoffs,” the elimination of the DOE, and school choice abound. by Larry Sand
https://www.ruthfullyyours.com/wp-admin/post-new.php
As someone who has been writing about education issues for years, I have noticed that disinformation, misinformation, and all-around twaddle are now more ubiquitous than ever. I will cover three areas here.
Massive teacher layoffs
Various online articles report that “massive teacher layoffs” —notably in California— are “devastating, chaotic, and detrimental” to student learning conditions.” While some layoffs include other employees, including librarians and nurses, most cuts are to teachers.
Most of the hysterics don’t acknowledge that many districts are over-staffed due in part to the expiring $190 billion federal Covid relief funds. Also, a major contributor to the need for fewer teachers in California is that while there were 6.3 million students in 2006-2007, now just 5.8 million are enrolled, and the state projects that number to fall to 5.3 million by 2031.
Looking at the bigger picture, researcher Chad Aldeman reports that in the 2023-24 school year, public schools nationwide added 121,000 employees, hitting a record high, even though enrollment dropped by 110,000. He discloses that about one-third of these districts added teachers while serving fewer students. For instance, Philadelphia lost nearly 16,000 students but employed 200 more teachers, dropping its student-to-teacher ratio from about 17:1 to under 15:1.
Aldeman writes that about a quarter of all districts followed the path of California’s Capistrano Unified School District, which lowered its teaching force over time but not as fast as it lost students. Capistrano suffered a “22% decline in student enrollment but reduced its teaching staff by just 7%.”
It’s worth noting that in most of the country, where teacher union contracts are in play, layoffs are made based on seniority, not teacher quality. Hence, students suffer not because of fewer teachers but rather fewer good ones.
The threat of a Department of Education shutdown
The shrieks from the education establishment, notably teacher union leaders, about President Trump’s efforts to shut down the U.S. Department of Education are deafening. American Federation of Teachers boss Randi Weingarten claims that DOE funding is vital for local schools while ludicrously insinuating that DOGE chief Elon Musk is out to “steal that money, which Congress appropriated for children, to pay for tax breaks for the rich.”
National Education Association president Becky Pringle claims that cuts to the DOE would “increase class sizes, cut job training programs, eliminate special education for those with disabilities, axe civil rights protections and increase college tuition prices, putting it out of reach for middle-class families. We won’t be silent as anti-public education politicians try to steal opportunities from our students, our families, and our communities to pay for tax cuts for billionaires.”
Then, there is the truth.
While President Trump is indeed trying to get rid of the DOE, he does not want to eliminate all its functions. In fact, he wants to disperse the department’s core functions—such as Pell Grants, Title I funding, and providing funding and resources for students with disabilities—to other parts of the federal government.
As Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, explains, most of the programs that the DOE administers were created before the creation of the Department. “So, essentially, all we’re talking about is who will manage the legislatively required programs that already exist, that existed before and will exist after the Department is abolished. And so, this is just a bureaucratic restructuring. It doesn’t get rid of programs, it doesn’t cut funding, it doesn’t close any schools. It’s just a change in the administration, not a change in the programs and services and funding delivered to America’s schools.”
Additionally, Trump would need 60 U.S. Senators to vote to abolish the DOE, which he will not get.
Strange anti-school choice bedfellows
Keri D. Ingraham, Director of the American Center for Transforming Education, reports that on March 4, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon signed the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act into law, bringing the total to 15 states with universal (or near-universal) school choice. So, at this time, over one million students now participate in a K–12 private school choice program across the U.S.
If every eligible student in the U.S. participated in a private school choice program—which uses taxpayer funds for private school tuition—it would affect 22 million students or 40% of the K-12 school-aged population. However, according to EdChoice, only 2% of eligible students currently participate in these programs.
While it is best to get the government out of education entirely, parental choice is undoubtedly a terrific “second best.” So, who could oppose a choice measure?
The teachers’ unions, of course.
Randi Weingarten regularly disparages parental freedom. Referring to choice advocates, she absurdly insists, “They have not one thing that they offer as a solution other than privatizing or voucherizing schools. Which is about undermining democracy and undermining civil discourse and undermining pluralism.”
Interestingly, many homeschoolers agree with the unions’ position on choice, albeit for a different reason. Public School Exit, a homeschooling advocacy group, asserts that most of the informed homeschool leadership, as represented by the Home School Legal Defense Association, does not support vouchers, believing that they would “threaten the autonomy of private and home education.”
Also, many leaders in private Christian school organizations oppose vouchers, which they claim “not only threaten the autonomy of private education but could be an existential threat to our K-12 Christian education movement as well.”
Some ESA programs require homeschooling families to reapply for funding yearly, take annual standardized tests, and only buy approved items from specific vendors. Homeschooling families who don’t participate want to ensure such restrictions don’t eventually extend to them.
What goes unsaid, however, is that state governments with no private school choice already impose a slew of regulations on homeschoolers.
To homeschool in Georgia, a state with no private option, parents must have a high school diploma or equivalent and submit an annual Declaration of Intent to Utilize a Home Study Program by September 1 or within 30 days of establishing their homeschool. They also must provide a basic academic educational program of five subjects (math, science, English language arts, social studies, and reading), teach no less than 180 days per year (at least 4.5 hours a day), and have their child participate in standardized testing every three years after completing third grade.
In North Dakota, another choice-free state, parents must meet “teacher qualifications,” file a notice of intent to homeschool 14 days before they start every year, and teach for the required amount of time. They must also teach required subjects, choose their preferred homeschool curriculum, maintain records, and participate in standardized tests in grades 4, 6, 8, and 10.
So, accepting money for an ESA does not really threaten the autonomy of private and home education: government overreach is already there! And if you don’t want to partake in a choice program in a state that offers one, no one will force you to do so.
I have just touched on three examples of the rampant sophism that pervades the education realm. I will delve into other issues in a future post.
Larry Sand, a retired 28-year classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.
Comments are closed.
