I’m always on the lookout for the progress of the “school choice” movement. A friend sent me this article, which has to do with the US state of Texas.
As usual, the author's arguments for “school choice” appear aimed at dismantling the public education system rather than improving it. The proposal to provide vouchers for private schools would divert funding away from public schools. This risks leaving underprivileged students as well as those with IEPs, behind in underfunded schools, whilst subsidizing private institutions. Rather than strengthening public education as a common good, the author seems intent on privatizing it. However, as we know, public schools provide equal opportunity for all students regardless of income. Dismantling this system in favour of private corporate schools could exacerbate inequities and undermine the ideals of universal education that serve as a foundation of democracy. The author ignores these concerns in their ideological arguments against public schools and “socialism.”
The author, Glenn Beck, makes several problematic arguments in this piece equating socialism with total government control. What he is describing is better seen as corporate capture of public institutions, which is classic fascism. Beck seems like an intelligent guy, so I think his ignorant stance on this comes down to helping out his benefactors and advertisers. Remember, fascism is corporations and the government against the people. Socialism is government by the people. Marxism is just a critique of capitalism and a framework for understanding events.
With that in mind, here are a few key issues I found with the article:
Beck claims socialism is based on "government monopolies and government control." This is a flawed understanding of socialism. Socialist policies aim to provide public services and a social safety net, not total government control. The author confuses socialism with totalitarianism.
Beck argues that socialism "hates competition." This is an oversimplification. Socialist policies often regulate capitalism to curb its excesses and help manage its contradictions, not eliminate private enterprise altogether. Beck falsely portrays socialism as completely anti-market. I think China rather disproves Beck on this front.
Beck claims giving poor families school vouchers is the "civil rights issue of our time." This distorts the meaning of civil rights, which aim to provide equal opportunities and end discrimination. Providing vouchers to attend private schools, transferring public funds to private corporations, does not inherently promote equality or civil rights.
Beck attacks Democrats as portraying school choice as "racist" and an "affront to decency." However, there are valid concerns that school choice programs can worsen inequities. Critiquing vouchers is not the same as calling school choice inherently racist.
Overall, Beck exhibits a Cold War mentality of equating socialism with totalitarian communist regimes. This fails to engage with socialist policies and theories as they exist today. Beck relies heavily on red-baiting and slippery slope arguments rather than nuanced analysis.
In summary, Beck makes sweeping claims and Strawman arguments about socialism being anti-freedom and anti-competition. This confuses totalitarian communism with modern democratic socialism. The arguments lack nuance, mischaracterize leftist positions, and ignore important issues.
Beck's push for school choice vouchers also ignores the impact on students with special needs. Public schools are required by law to provide accommodations and services for students with disabilities or special needs, as laid out in their individualized education programs (IEPs). However, private schools that accept vouchers are not obligated to provide the same level of services. This means voucher programs could leave behind many students with disabilities or other learning needs. Their families may find private schools unwilling to accommodate their child's IEP. Public funding would be diverted away from the public schools designed to serve all students, including those with special needs. Thus school choice vouchers do not guarantee increased access or opportunities for the most vulnerable student populations. Beck's focus on privatization disregards how shifting funding to corporate schools could reduce resources and services for families who rely most on the protections and services provided by public education.
Beck's arguments for school choice reflect a broader global trend of neoliberal austerity policies. Neoliberalism calls for deregulation, privatization, and cuts to public services in the name of free market competition. This school choice movement exemplifies that by promoting the privatization of education through vouchers. Similar voucher programs and education budget cuts have been pushed by right-wing governments and think tanks worldwide. Often justified by rhetoric about "choice" and "efficiency," these policies have the effect of defunding and dismantling public education. Critics see this as an attack on the working class, as struggling families are left with under-resourced public schools or must shoulder the burden of private school tuition. Beck's polemic against public schools and socialism parallels this larger global pattern of neoliberal policies negatively impacting social programs and the public good.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
When "school choice" masks fascism
When "school choice" masks fascism
When "school choice" masks fascism
I’m always on the lookout for the progress of the “school choice” movement. A friend sent me this article, which has to do with the US state of Texas.
As usual, the author's arguments for “school choice” appear aimed at dismantling the public education system rather than improving it. The proposal to provide vouchers for private schools would divert funding away from public schools. This risks leaving underprivileged students as well as those with IEPs, behind in underfunded schools, whilst subsidizing private institutions. Rather than strengthening public education as a common good, the author seems intent on privatizing it. However, as we know, public schools provide equal opportunity for all students regardless of income. Dismantling this system in favour of private corporate schools could exacerbate inequities and undermine the ideals of universal education that serve as a foundation of democracy. The author ignores these concerns in their ideological arguments against public schools and “socialism.”
The author, Glenn Beck, makes several problematic arguments in this piece equating socialism with total government control. What he is describing is better seen as corporate capture of public institutions, which is classic fascism. Beck seems like an intelligent guy, so I think his ignorant stance on this comes down to helping out his benefactors and advertisers. Remember, fascism is corporations and the government against the people. Socialism is government by the people. Marxism is just a critique of capitalism and a framework for understanding events.
With that in mind, here are a few key issues I found with the article:
Beck claims socialism is based on "government monopolies and government control." This is a flawed understanding of socialism. Socialist policies aim to provide public services and a social safety net, not total government control. The author confuses socialism with totalitarianism.
Beck argues that socialism "hates competition." This is an oversimplification. Socialist policies often regulate capitalism to curb its excesses and help manage its contradictions, not eliminate private enterprise altogether. Beck falsely portrays socialism as completely anti-market. I think China rather disproves Beck on this front.
Beck claims giving poor families school vouchers is the "civil rights issue of our time." This distorts the meaning of civil rights, which aim to provide equal opportunities and end discrimination. Providing vouchers to attend private schools, transferring public funds to private corporations, does not inherently promote equality or civil rights.
Beck attacks Democrats as portraying school choice as "racist" and an "affront to decency." However, there are valid concerns that school choice programs can worsen inequities. Critiquing vouchers is not the same as calling school choice inherently racist.
Overall, Beck exhibits a Cold War mentality of equating socialism with totalitarian communist regimes. This fails to engage with socialist policies and theories as they exist today. Beck relies heavily on red-baiting and slippery slope arguments rather than nuanced analysis.
In summary, Beck makes sweeping claims and Strawman arguments about socialism being anti-freedom and anti-competition. This confuses totalitarian communism with modern democratic socialism. The arguments lack nuance, mischaracterize leftist positions, and ignore important issues.
Beck's push for school choice vouchers also ignores the impact on students with special needs. Public schools are required by law to provide accommodations and services for students with disabilities or special needs, as laid out in their individualized education programs (IEPs). However, private schools that accept vouchers are not obligated to provide the same level of services. This means voucher programs could leave behind many students with disabilities or other learning needs. Their families may find private schools unwilling to accommodate their child's IEP. Public funding would be diverted away from the public schools designed to serve all students, including those with special needs. Thus school choice vouchers do not guarantee increased access or opportunities for the most vulnerable student populations. Beck's focus on privatization disregards how shifting funding to corporate schools could reduce resources and services for families who rely most on the protections and services provided by public education.
Beck's arguments for school choice reflect a broader global trend of neoliberal austerity policies. Neoliberalism calls for deregulation, privatization, and cuts to public services in the name of free market competition. This school choice movement exemplifies that by promoting the privatization of education through vouchers. Similar voucher programs and education budget cuts have been pushed by right-wing governments and think tanks worldwide. Often justified by rhetoric about "choice" and "efficiency," these policies have the effect of defunding and dismantling public education. Critics see this as an attack on the working class, as struggling families are left with under-resourced public schools or must shoulder the burden of private school tuition. Beck's polemic against public schools and socialism parallels this larger global pattern of neoliberal policies negatively impacting social programs and the public good.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.