As Texas Goes... (9 page)

“
I can afford to
send my children to a private school if I think that’s what’s best—any place they need to go. And I think that every child in America ought to have that same opportunity,” voucher champion James Leininger told PBS in 1998. A wealthy San Antonio physician, Leininger was one of many extremely rich Texans who used the wide-open campaign finance rules to make his needs felt in the capital. Leininger had made his original fortune with a hospital bed that was supposed to prevent bedsores. By the 1990s he had moved into everything from real estate to mail-order turkeys to the San Antonio Spurs basketball team. He was also financing any number of conservative causes, from supporting Christian ministries to demolishing the Endangered Species Act. Above all else, however, he had two major political passions: restricting civil lawsuits through tort reform, and school vouchers. He was very generous to Texas politicians who shared his sentiments.

In 1998 Leininger provided
Rick Perry, who was running for lieutenant governor, with a last-minute $1.1 million loan for a final media buy that may have made the difference in Perry’s narrow victory over Democrat John Sharp. (Perry, who continued to be a
beneficiary of Leininger’s generosity
, once traveled with his wife to the Bahamas on the magnate’s dime. There Perry and Leininger joined with anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist for what Perry called a “real, progressive conversation” about school finance.) The ever-popular Wendy Gramm once served on the board of Leininger’s corporation, Kinetic Concepts, and went on to chair the think tank he founded and endowed, the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Arlene Wohlgemuth, a former right-wing state legislator who had championed that dreadful plan to privatize social service eligibility screening, became director of the foundation’s Center for Health Care Policy. George W. Bush, another recipient of Leininger’s donations, once sat on the foundation’s board of advisors.

As soon as Bush was inaugurated governor in 1995, Leininger got his reward. You will remember that one of his obsessions was tort reform. Bush jumped into that battle, declaring the state’s judicial system to be in a crisis from which it could only recover if the legislature immediately made it difficult for consumers to sue companies that sold them defective products or services. It worked.

Vouchers turned out to be a much tougher sell. In Texas, as in most places, there are quite a lot of people who
like
their local public schools and are resistant to any plan that might take money away from them. The voucher proposals came up regularly in Austin and failed just as consistently, although usually by narrow margins. (
In 1999, Perry blamed
the loss to a random senator who had “flaked” at the last minute.) “It was a war every two years,” said Carolyn Boyle, who assembled a cadre of anti-voucher groups called the Coalition for Public Schools. “We worked our asses off.”

To inspire lawmakers to rethink their opposition, Leininger unveiled a $50 million pilot program in San Antonio that made available more than 2,000 vouchers a year for low-income students who wanted to leave their local public schools. “
If you got to meet
the kids and talk to them you would do anything you could for ’em, just like I would,” he told the Associated Press.

But the bill never passed and in 2008, Leininger pulled the plug on his San Antonio voucher program.

“He said, ‘Let’s get the charters’ ”

George W. Bush gave up his own personal voucher crusade much sooner. In 1999, when the newly reelected, suddenly-looking-at-the-presidency governor was trying to put together a big Texas education bill, Bill Ratliff, the Republican chair of the senate Education Committee, told him that he would have to choose between vouchers and charter schools because he definitely could not get both.

“He said, ‘Let’s get the charters,’ ” Ratliff recalled.

This is an important moment. One of George W. Bush’s contributions to American education was to take the struggling voucher movement and turn it into a burgeoning national charter school crusade. He wanted to bring the accountability and efficiency of the business world into the public education mix, and if vouchers didn’t work, charter schools would be fine.

Charter schools are another way to get choice, or new ideas—or, if you’re somewhat paranoid, the clutches of moneymakers—into public education. They’re part of a public school system, but sometimes only in a very tenuous way. They generally get most of the standard per-pupil aid, but they’re exempted from the regular rules and oversight in favor of a special charter written by the sponsors.

Encouraging charter schools became an important part of Bush’s proposals for the No Child Left Behind law. Democrats, who desperately wanted to avoid vouchers, were receptive. “Charters were sort of a middle ground. They’re part of the public school system,” said George Miller. “And we were trying to make room for some entrepreneurs.” They’re still a bipartisan favorite in many parts of the country today. When the Obama administration tried to tweak the federal education initiative with its Race to the Top contests, room to expand charter schools was a critical way to make points and win big federal grants.

When the federal government started prodding the states to do charters, the states got considerable leeway in how closely they wanted to monitor what the charters were doing. The Bush vision was to have as little bureaucratic oversight as possible. We can see that from what W. did during his last days as governor, when the Texas charter plan was being approved. “
I tried to get
a lot of protections from the beginning,” said Representative Hochberg, who had been an early charter school advocate. “The governor’s position was basically that we should have no rules. They wanted to eliminate the requirement that kids have immunizations.”

Within a few years, Texas had about 200 charters, and many disasters, some due to ineptitude and some due to corruption.
A reporter visiting
a school in Arlington found “no desks, no chairs”—only a single aged sofa and an expansive cement floor on which to sit. The building also lacked a lunchroom, computers, textbooks, chalkboards, and a well-functioning bathroom.
A school in Dallas
called P.O.W.E.R. had done its budgeting based on an enrollment of 300 but recruited only what the state counted as thirty-five students. (P.O.W.E.R. officials said there were 129 but that they couldn’t back up their numbers because a burglar had stolen the attendance records.)
In 2001, a Houston
TV station ran film of students at Prepared Table, a large charter run out of a church, where students slept, talked, or sat on the floor while they used the pews as worktables and teachers attempted to run several different grades in the same space. The founder of Prepared Table died before he could be tried, but three of his relatives eventually pled guilty to swindling the state and federal government out of at least $5 million.

Texas was hardly the only place where minimal oversight produced maximum headaches.
Over in Florida
where the president’s brother, Jeb Bush, was overseeing his own education initiatives well before No Child Left Behind became law, nearly a quarter of the charters that were opened wound up shutting down. That meant chaos for the schools that had to accept the suddenly homeless students, and often heartache for the students themselves, who sometimes wound up having to repeat one or more grades.

Starting a successful charter school turned out to be way more difficult than some people had imagined. The president, however, didn’t look back. And he kept walking on the sunny side of the street.
By 2010 there were 5,000
charter schools operating around the country, educating about 1.5 million public school students

“You can take this to the bank”

We can argue for hours—days!—months!—about whether charters are a good thing. Overall, the evidence seems to suggest that charters are, on average, having about the same success as the public schools they’re supposed to be replacing. The best charters do an absolutely terrific job. But the jury is still out on whether they do so well because they’re not under the thumb of the regular school bureaucracy and the teachers’ unions, or because they receive extra financial support from enthusiastic donors and have charismatic principals and dedicated staff—something that also makes for stupendous traditional schools.

One thing that definitely wasn’t part of the original Bush sales pitch to the public was that charters would allow public schools to become private profit centers. Even some of the people who put the law together seemed to have no idea. “There was a lot of discussion on how to make states more receptive to charters, but for-profits were not part of the conversation,” said a Democratic staffer who was involved in the negotiations.

Yet there they are. It turned out that under the law, a for-profit company could get a non-profit group to serve as sponsor for a charter that was almost, or entirely, the creature of the for-profit operator. While some of the sponsors were deeply involved in their schools’ operation, others were perfectly happy to sit back and collect a sliver of the taxpayer funding for lending their names.

By the No Child Left Behind
law’s tenth anniversary, nearly 400,000 children around the country were being educated in public elementary, middle, and high schools run by for-profit companies. Studies suggested that the results weren’t all that terrific. But hedge funds and other investors were wriggling with excitement about the long-term financial prospects. “You get a steady stream of funding—you can take this to the bank,” said Diane Ravitch, the No Child Left Behind critic.

One of the big names in the business is K
12
Inc., a company co-founded by William Bennett, who was Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, with an infusion of cash from the former disgraced junk-bond king Mike Milken. (
Bennett resigned
as chairman in 2005 after he remarked, on his radio show, that “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”) With or without Bennett, K
12
found that it could use the charter school system championed by No Child Left Behind to establish statewide cyber-schools. It quickly became a leader in one of the fastest-growing segments of the charter world.
By 2011, there were an estimated
116,000 students going to school full-time in online programs run by for-profits. And the number kept going up. The profit margins could be huge—just think, no physical plant, no gym teachers or cafeteria workers. Many of the online teachers had far more students and made less money than their peers who worked in actual classrooms. However, K
12
would want you to know that they are no longer outsourcing student essays to India for correction. Really, that was just a trial run. It was discontinued. Isn’t happening any more. Honest.

In Tennessee, K
12
enrolled 2,000 students from around the state in the Tennessee Virtual Academy in 2011–12. The sponsor of the virtual charter was the Unity School District, located in a sparsely populated rural area whose county seat, Maynardsville, has a population about the same size as the Virtual Academy’s student body. K
12
recruited students from around the state, making particularly enthusiastic pitches in poor urban areas, where it stressed to parents how safe their children would be if they stayed home with their computers all day instead of venturing into the streets and the local public schools. For each child who was enrolled, K
12
got $5,387 in state aid, minus a modest fee to the school district for its cooperation.
All in all, K
12
took in nearly $10 million in 2010–11, and Tennessee public schools, of course, lost nearly $10 million.

In Pennsylvania
, K
12
earned more than $70 million running the Agora Cyber Charter School, where a
New York Times
study found nearly 60 percent of the students were behind grade level in math, and almost half in reading.
The prospects for
future growth looked so sweet that the second-largest cyber-school business, Connections Education, was purchased for $400 million by Pearson, the for-profit education company which hired as a lobbyist the guy who helped lead the White House negotiations on the No Child Left Behind law.

A study by the
National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado found that only about a quarter of for-profit virtual schools met federal standards for academic progress. But, you know, it’s all about choice.

7

The Textbook Wars

“What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas when it comes to textbooks”

T
he saga of textbooks and Texas is one of the most action-packed parts of this story. No matter where you live, if your children go to public schools, the textbooks they use were very possibly written under Texas influence. If they graduated with a reflexive suspicion of the concept of separation of church and state, and an unexpected interest in the contributions of the National Rifle Association to American history, you know who to blame.

When it comes to meddling with school textbooks, Texas is once again both similar to other states and totally different. It’s hardly the only one that likes to fiddle around with the material its kids study in class. The difference is due to size—4.8 million textbook-reading schoolchildren as of 2011—and the peculiarities of its system of government, in which the state board of education is selected in elections that are practically devoid of voters, where wealthy donors can chip in unlimited amounts of money to help their favorites win. Those favorites are not shrinking violets.
In 2009, the nation watched
in awe as the state board worked on approving a new science curriculum under the leadership of a chair who believed “evolution is hooey.”
In 2010, the subject was
social studies and the teachers tasked with drawing up course guidelines were supposed to work in consultation with “experts” added on by the board, one of whom believed that the income tax was contrary to the word of God in the Scriptures.

Ever since the 1960s, the selection of school books in Texas has been a target for the religious right, which worried that schoolchildren were being indoctrinated in godless secularism, and political conservatives who felt their kids were being given way too much propaganda about the positive aspects of the federal government. Mel Gabler, an oil company clerk, and his wife, Norma, who began their textbook crusade at their kitchen table, were the leaders of the first wave.
They brought their supporters
to public comment portions of the State Board of Education meetings, unrolling their “scroll of shame,” which listed objections they had to the content of the current reading material. At times, the scroll was 54 feet long.
Products of the Texas
school system have the Gablers to thank for the fact that at one point the New Deal was axed from the timeline of significant events in American history.

The Texas State Board of Education, which approves textbooks, curriculum standards, and supplemental materials for the public schools, has fifteen members from fifteen districts whose boundaries don’t conform to congressional districts, or really anything whatsoever. They run in staggered elections that are frequently held in off years, when always-low Texas turnout is particularly abysmal. The advantage tends to go to candidates with passionate, if narrow, bands of supporters, particularly if those bands have rich backers. All of which—plus a natural supply of political eccentrics—helps explain how Texas once had a board member who believed that public schools are the tool of the devil.

Texas originally acquired its power over the nation’s textbook supply because it paid 100 percent of the cost of all public school textbooks, as long as the books in question came from a very short list of board-approved options. The selection process “was grueling and tension-filled,” said Julie McGee, who worked at high levels in several publishing houses before her retirement. “If you didn’t get listed by the state, you got nothing.” On the other side of the coin, David Anderson, who once sold textbooks in the state, said if a book made the list, even a fairly mediocre salesperson could count on doing pretty well. The books on the Texas list were likely to be mass-produced by the publisher in anticipation of those sales, so other states liked to buy them and take advantage of the economies of scale.

“What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas when it comes to textbooks,” said Dan Quinn, who worked as an editor of social studies textbooks before joining the Texas Freedom Network, which was founded by Governor Ann Richards’s daughter, Cecile, to counter the religious right.

As a market, the state was so big and influential that national publishers tended to gear their books toward whatever it wanted. Given the high cost of developing a single book, the risk of messing with Texas was high. “One of the most expensive is science,” McGee said. “You have to hire medical illustrators to do all the art.” When she was in the business, the cost of producing a new biology book could run to $5 million. “The investments are really great and it’s all on risk.”

Imagine the feelings
of the textbook companies—not to mention the science teachers—when, in response to a big push from the Gablers, the state board adopted a rule in 1974 that textbooks mentioning the theory of evolution “should identify it as only one of several explanations of the origins of humankind” and that those treating the subject extensively “shall be edited, if necessary, to clarify that the treatment is theoretical rather than factually verifiable.” The state attorney general eventually issued an opinion that the board’s directive wouldn’t stand up in court, and the rule was repealed. But the beat went on.

“Evolution is hooey”

Texas is hardly the only state with small, fierce pressure groups trying to dictate the content of textbooks. California, which has the most public school students, tends to come at things from the opposite side, pressing for more reflection of a crunchy granola worldview. “The word in publishing was that for California you wanted no references to fast food, and in Texas you wanted no references to sex,” laughed Quinn. But California’s system of textbook approval focuses only on books for the lower grades. Professor Keith Erekson, director of the Center for History Teaching and Learning at the University of Texas at El Paso, says that California often demands that its texts have a California-centric central narrative that would not be suitable for anywhere else, while “the Texas narrative can be used in other states.” Publishers tend to keep information on who buys how much of what secret, but Erekson said he’s seen estimates that the proportion of social studies textbooks sold containing the basic Texas-approved narrative range from about half to 80 percent.

Some extremely rich Texans have gotten into the board of education election game, putting their money at the disposal of conservative populists. No one has had more impact than our friend James Leininger, the San Antonio physician who took such an intense interest in school vouchers. He backed a group called Texans for Governmental Integrity, which was particularly active in state school board elections.
Its most famous campaign
was in 1994, when it mailed flyers to voters’ homes in one district, showing a black man kissing a white man and claiming that the Democratic incumbent had voted for textbooks that promoted homosexuality.
Another organization Leininger has supported
, the Heidi Group, sent out a prayer calendar in 1998, which unnervingly urged the right-to-life faithful to devote one day to praying that a San Antonio doctor who performed abortions “will come to see Jesus face to face.”

The chorus of objections
to textbook material mounted. Approval of environmental science books was once held up over board concern that they were teaching children to be more loyal to their planet than their country. As the board became a national story, and a national embarrassment, the state legislature attempted to put a lid on the chaos in 1995 by restricting the board’s oversight to “factual errors.” This made surprisingly little impact when you had a group of deciders who believed that the theory of evolution, global warming, and separation of church and state are all basically errors of fact.

In 2009, when the science curriculum was once again up for review, conservatives wanted to require that it cover the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution. In the end, they settled for a face-saving requirement that students consider gaps in fossil records and whether natural selection is enough to explain the complexity of human cells.
Don McLeroy
, the board chairman who had opined that “evolution is hooey,” told
Washington Monthly
that he felt the changes put Texas “light years ahead of any other state when it comes to challenging evolution.”

The process by which the board came to its interesting decisions sometimes seemed confused to the point of incoherence. Things would begin tidily, with panels of teachers and expert consultants. Then the expert consultants multiplied, frequently becoming less and less expert, until the whole process ended in a rash of craziness. The science curriculum was “
this document that
had been worked on for months,” Nathan Bernier, a reporter for KUT in Austin, told National Public Radio. “Members of the [teachers’ association] had been involved. People with PhDs had been involved in developing these standards. And then at the last second, there was this mysterious document that was shoved underneath the hotel doors of some of the board members and this document, at the very last minute, wound up—large portions of it wound up making its way into the guidelines.”

In 2010, the board
launched itself into the equally contentious sea of the social studies curriculum, and the teacher-dominated team tasked with writing the standards was advised by a panel of “experts,” one of whom was a member of the Minutemen militia. Another had argued that only white people were responsible for advancing civil rights for minorities in America, since “
only majorities can expand
political rights in America’s constitutional society.”

“
The way I evaluate
history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told
Washington Monthly
. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from Communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”

In their first year of work on social studies, the board agreed that students should be required to study the abandonment of the gold standard as a factor in the decline in the value of the dollar.
If the students were going
to study the McCarthy anti-Communist witch hunt of the 1950s, they were also going to contemplate “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in the U.S. government.” The changes often seemed to be thrown out haphazardly, and to pass or fail on the basis of frequently opaque conclusions on the part of the swing members. “
As a State Board
of Education, I think we need to give more solid kinds of rationales why things should be included or deleted, as opposed to the subjective, personal—‘I like,’ ‘I don’t like,’ ‘My favorite’—those kinds of things,” said member Mavis Knight. (
In 2010, the board tossed
out books by the late Bill Martin, Jr., the author of
Baby Bear, Baby Bear, What Do You See?
, from a list of authors third graders might want to study because someone mixed him up with Bill Martin, the author of
Ethical Marxism
.)

The final product
the board came up with called for a curriculum that would make sure that students tasked to analyze economic issues of the late nineteenth century would not forget “the cattle industry boom” and that when they turned to social issues like labor, growth of the cities, and problems of immigrants they also took time to dwell on “the philanthropy of industrialists.” When it came to the Middle Ages, the board appeared to be down on any mention of the Crusades, an enterprise that tends to reflect badly on the Christian side of Christian–Islamic conflict. And when they got to the Cold War era, the board wanted to be sure students would be able to “explain how Arab rejection of the State of Israel has led to ongoing conflict.” Later, they were supposed to study “Islamic fundamentalism and the subsequent use of terrorism by some of its adherents.” And that appeared to be pretty much all young people in Texas were going to be required to know about Arab nations and the world’s second-largest religion.

For the most part, however, the board seemed determined just to sprinkle stuff its members liked hither and yon, and eliminate words they found objectionable in favor of more appealing ones. Reading through the deletions and additions, it becomes clear that a majority of board members hated the word “democratic,” for which they consistently substituted “constitutional republic.” They also really disliked “capitalism” (see rather: “free enterprise system”) and “natural law” (“laws of nature and nature’s God”).

Study of the first part of the twentieth century should include not only the Spanish–American War and Theodore Roosevelt but also Sanford B. Dole, a Hawaiian lawyer and son of missionaries. When teachers get to Clarence Darrow, Henry Ford, and Charles Lindbergh, they’d also better not forget Glenn Curtiss, who broke early motorcycle speed records. For the modern era, they needed to study “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” including Equal Rights Amendment opponent Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association. And when students learn how to describe the impact of cultural movements like “Tin Pan Alley, the Harlem Renaissance, the Beat Generation, rock and roll,” the board demanded that they also look into “country and western music.”

That last one actually seems totally fair.

The social studies curriculum was perhaps the last hurrah for the extreme agenda that Don McLeroy, the anti-evolution dentist, had championed.
When the discussions began
, he could frequently rally a majority on the fifteen-member panel, with the consistent support of people like Cynthia Dunbar, who once said that sending children to public schools was like “throwing them into the enemy’s flames, even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch.” (She also once called Barack Obama
a terrorist sympathizer
.) In 2011, Dunbar announced her retirement; she had been commuting between Texas and Virginia, where she taught at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University School of Law.
After McLeroy himself
lost a Republican primary to a candidate who believes in evolution, Barbara Cargill, his successor as board chair, expressed concern that she was left with only “six conservative Christians on the board.”