Posted on 08/07/2005 7:14:41 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Connecting the Dots Secretary-Treasurer Lily Eskelsen leads a campaign to expose the perils of privatization.
The presidential election has been decided, but educators don't need a crystal ball to predict the future. When it comes to public education, says NEA Secretary-Treasurer Lily Eskelsen, the Bush Administration has made it clear: the more "private" the better. That would be more vouchers, more private school tuition tax credits, more contracting out of public schools services. In short, more serious efforts to privatize public schools.
It's time to sound the alarm, says Eskelsen. Privatization—and the people behind it—deserve more public scrutiny, she says. And over the last year she's been on a personal crusade to give it just that. She's been speaking to groups both inside the Association and out about its perils. But her message isn't just about run-of-the-mill outsourcing, such as using private bus companies or corporate cafeteria workers. It's about privatization with a capital P, where the ultimate goal, she claims, is dismantling public education, Social Security, Medicare, public employee pension plans, and virtually every other government program—then turning them over to for-profit enterprise.
"We need our members, Republicans and Democrats alike, to understand this radical agenda and the people in high places who are behind it," she says.
The agenda is certainly not new. Economist Milton ("private is good, public is bad") Friedman and others have been peddling their ideas for 30 years or more. What's new, says Eskelsen, is that people like Friedman are no longer considered on the fringes of political thought. Today's privateers are politically well-connected, well-financed corporate venture capitalists who also happen to have President Bush's ear.
As part of her road show last fall, Eskelsen spoke to members and leaders in Maine. Rob Walker, president of the Maine Education Association, says her presentation was an eye opener for many members. "Lily really helped people connect the dots and see the bigger patterns," he says. Her breezy wit and lively style is entertaining, he says, but at the end of her well-documented slide show you get it: "the privateers really do intend to suck the lifeblood out of public institutions."
How can the average educator tell if this bigger privatization agenda is moving forward? Eskelsen offers these warning signs:
You see tax cuts for the wealthy while public institutions get bashed.
The strategy of the privateers is to make sure there are never enough funds to properly run quality public programs, Eskelsen says. They promote tax cuts (hefty ones for the wealthy) and recommend cutting programs (which the wealthy don't need). And all the while, they bad-mouth public programs and whip up hatred of all taxes, so people will resent paying taxes for underfunded and eventually underperforming public programs, she says.
You hear buzz words like "choice."
You will never hear the privateers say that they want to destroy popular programs that parents and seniors and consumers like, Eskelsen says. Instead, you'll hear words like choice and ownership, as in "We want to give you a choice in your Social Security." Or your school. Or your public utility.
Be aware of the meaning behind the words, Eskelsen implores audiences. "They're just market-speak for, 'We're looking to erode a community service, so that we can give a for-profit opportunity to our cronies.' That's the bottom line."
You never hear about strict accountability measures for the private sector.
One of the hallmarks of this privatization strategy, says Eskelsen, is that new private entities don't get saddled with the same onerous regulations that get put on the public sector. A classic example: Public schools in Washington, D.C., get rated according to a single test, but private schools that receive voucher money don't have similar accountability measures. "There's no consistency between the regulations and the accountability of public institutions and the private firms that would like to replace those public institutions," Eskelsen says. "That's by design."
What can Association members do? Says Eskelsen: Share your concerns with Association leaders at the local, state, and national level, but don't stop there. Bring up privatization issues with administrators, school board members, parents, local business owners, Kiwanis club members. Talk with friends at church or over the backyard fence—anyone who cares about public schools. Give your community leaders a heads-up so that they are inoculated against the sales pitches of privateers.
"This is not just an issue for the Association," she says. "This is an issue for everyone who believes in the mission of public schools."
More like,
"This is an issue for everyone who believes in the mission of public schools NEA teacher union dues."
The main peril to privatization is that it makes the NEA look bad and shows they are not doing the job they are suppose too.
How about the NEA and its supporters and leaders deserve total scrutny in ALL their activities to undermine parents and the will of communities and their actions with taxpayer monies for the support of all things liberal. they are failures of the highest order.
Lily Eskelsen is an old school hard core Socialist, if not Communist (with a capital "C"). She has publicly pronounced capitalism as evil, and has described herself as a "union thug". She has no interest in educating children, just smashing the capitalist system. She is evil.
Sounds good to me. It's not as if the NEA is exactly doing a bang-up job.
None of what the NEA says truly concerns a child's education. The NEA is only worried about loosing membership.
Unions do not and can not guarantee the best teachers. Unions only protect the FAILED teachers.
If the NEA's bent out of shape for some reason, I totally support it. Don't even need to read further.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
It's a UNION!!
Exactly!
Here I was trying to come up with some 10-point answer as to why this person was wrong, and you nailed it with two short sentences. That's it exactly. Now I can move on to the next thread!!
And this is why NEA absolutely HATES WalMart..........WM supports school vouchers :)
Regardless of your like or dislike of WalMart - the fact the NEA hates them makes them the good guys.
"We need our members, Republicans and Democrats alike, to understand this radical agenda and the people in high places who are behind it," she says.
Well, it sounds good to me, too. And we could start with eliminating the federal Department of Education.
But starting small, such as first creating private accounts for Socialist Security and moving to private education in stages, works for me also.
LOL--unlike the socialists, who have been pushing the idea that "private is bad, public is good" since the days of the evil Tom Dewey.
The left are SUCH flying hypocrites!!!
"This is an issue for everyone who believes in the mission of public schools."
What is the mission of public schools? To be ideological concentration camps?
Freedom is a dangerous concept to these people.
Now they're funneling medicaid money into public education.
***INVENTIVE USES FOR MEDICAID MONEY
Medicaid costs are rising far more rapidly than inflation, demographics or poverty can justify, analysts say. One clue to the growth in the $100 billion-a-year program came in a curious letter sent by the Illinois State Board of Education to school district superintendents.
The letter reportedly describes in detail how public schools can exploit Medicaid to funnel a fresh flow of taxpayers' money into public schools.
Stating that "the potential for dollars is limitless," the letter claims that "Medicaid dollars have been used for purchases ranging from audiometers to minibuses, from a closed-caption television for a classroom to an entire computer system, from contracting with substitutes to employment of new special education staff, from expanding existing special education programs to implementing totally new programs."
The letter "encourages" local public schools to use the experienced State School Board staff in order to "maximize federal reimbursement" of Medicaid dollars and use the "opportunity" to bill Medicaid for money already spent in 1994, 1995 and 1996. The letter was signed by the board's "Medicaid consultant."
In fiscal 1996, $72.5 million in federal funds were paid to Illinois schools for Medicaid programs.
When health care is provided by and in public schools, say critics, there is no way to separate welfare children from others -- all are eligible.
In 1986, Congress allowed states to expand Medicaid to cover children in families with incomes below the poverty line. In 1990, Congress required the states to provide Medicaid coverage to all poor children by the year 2002, and allowed states to extend Medicaid even further to the nonpoor
Source: Phyllis Schlafly, "Smoking Gun in the Medicaid Mystery," Washington Times, January 18, 1997.
My family lives in Cumberland Co., NC. There is a program the public schools have here called "Governed Choice." It is supposed to promote school choice- so many slots per school that are up for grabs, any parent that would like their kid to attend a school in a different attendance area applies and if a slot is available, the kid gets to go to that school. How nice! Except- this year, only 4 or 5 schools are accepting the choice applications, and those schools are the schools cited for failing to meet the No Child Left Behind standards and are considered failing schools. These schools HAVE to allow students who live in their district to enroll in another school district and provide transportation. Last year, one of these failing schools spent $140,000.00 on transportation for the kids who opted out of the failing school.
Isn't that a great program? Parents can "choose" to send their kids to failing schools.
If the NEA faced a quarter of the scrutiny that doctors and engineers do, they'd be going down in flames. The educations system is a shambles right now. It's a sad state for the country in the world that has the least excuses for such lapses.
"If the NEA faced a quarter of the scrutiny that doctors and engineers do,"
Actually I was thinking that if schools had to utilize the same formula hospitals utilize for Medicaid reimbursement they would have second thoughts. Most hospitals receive a reimbursement rate of 60-75% of actual costs.
I take whatever a teacher's union rep says with a big grain of salt. I suspect there's a lot of distortion in this statement. But perhaps this advocate might consider that voucher schools really don't need accountability standards the same way government monopolies do. After all, voucher schools are accountable to the parents because, if they do a lousy job of teaching, the parents take their kids--and the money--elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.