Give me an overall picture. What's the whole purpose of life skills?
Brennan is Ohio's largest operator of a publicly funded, for-profit school
business, the White Hat Management Company, and an Akron, Ohio entrepreneur,
developer, attorney, and major Republican Party donor. Brennan helped initiate
the Cleveland voucher program in the mid-1990s and his White Hat company is now
a major operator of Ohio charter schools, including Hope academies and Life
Life skills is based on the premise that a large number of students are unable
to accomplish their high school education in the traditional high school,
either public or private, for whatever reason. Some alternative method of
dealing with these persons is necessary. We have discovered that there is no
other alternative for these youngsters. If they drop out or are forced out of
high school, at any age, there is no place for them to go. . . .
This program, as I understand it, is basically organized around computer
instruction? What's the thinking behind that?
The organization is really around individual instruction plans, which are
tailor-made for computer delivery. You can do the same without computers, but
that is tutoring one-on-one, which is economically prohibitive. So you end up
with a technology tutor. Much of the learning process that a student goes
through is learning, not teaching to. The student knows certain
basic things, and then has the motivation and the ability to advance at his or
her own pace. . . .
A traditional school requires so much seat time to earn a credit hour. In our
program, the student can test out of a credit hour. If, in two weeks, a
student has absorbed all the material necessary to evidence the mastery of that
subject, they get the credit hour and move on. So the very bright students
here are moving very, very fast through the system. All the students tend to be
good in one thing and not good in others. They really rush through the
programs they're good in, and then they spend more time in the ones where they
need to spend time. The individualized nature of the instruction is what we
start with here. The computer just happens to be the best way to deliver
To the extent that you can measure these things, is this working so
Yes, and your qualification is important--"to the extent you can measure
these things." Data collection is what we're about now, trying to understand
what is happening with the students that we have. We have a fairly large
number that don't last very long, that don't stay here. I don't want to quote
numbers because I'm not that close to it. But it's more than I would like it
to be. We have a larger number that are staying here and are tackling their
problems and are proceeding, who taking the state proficiency examination and
passing, attaining their credit hours and who are going to graduate. . . .
You were not trained as an educator. In fact, you came at this from a very
different career. Give me a little background history.
I began my companies 25 years ago. We discovered early on that our company
employees were terribly undereducated and could not advance at the pace of
factory automation on the factory floors, due to their own limitations and
basic skills. So we went into the learning center business at our factories.
We discovered early on in the process that, again, computer-aided instruction
was a wonderful tool to bring the employees along, because they saw a direct
connection between being able to work the computer system successfully and what
was happening to their jobs on the factory floor. We had great success with
that. . . . We have substantial improvement. On average, our factory testing
was, on average, fifth-grade achievement in literacy and numeracy. After about
five years, that got to about tenth grade.
You became a big believer in and supporter of vouchers?
Yes. . . .
What about the Cleveland voucher program? It's been around several years.
There has been a court case. It's still something that is being debated, and
it may go all the way to the Supreme Court. How do you assess that
Cleveland and Milwaukee are the only two voucher programs operating in the
country. Others are now coming along in Florida, and that is using a religious
school supply base. Opponents are concentrating on the First Amendment
separation of church and state as an argument to defeat the voucher programs.
I fully expect that the Supreme Court will decide that the First Amendment is
not a prohibition against voucher programs, as they had been constituted in
Milwaukee and in Cleveland. I wish that were an assurance the opponents would
then stop, but I'm reasonably sure they'll find some other reason to object.
The opposition essentially is that there should be no choice for parents, that
parents should be forced to send their children to the place where government
dictates it should go-- should be taught the way the government dictates they
should be taught. If they don't like it, that's too bad.
The Cleveland voucher program is successful by every measure I can imagine.
There are 4,000 students in the program now. I admire those families so much.
The program has been under constant attack for four years, hanging on by its
fingernails, never knowing whether it's going to be there or not be there.
The children are being very well educated. They are involved in 60 private
schools that they never would have had a chance to go to otherwise. All this
is going on and the Cleveland school population has gone up by 5,000 students
in the last five years, on top of the 4,000 kids going to this program, on top
of the 2,500 kids in charter schools. So charter schools and voucher schools
are educating children for one-fourth to one-half of public school cost. If
neither program had been in place, Cleveland would now have another 6,500 kids
that they're educating, 89,000 per year. It is such a bargain. But the
opposition doesn't pay attention to that.
This has been a fierce battle. Who is your opposition?
Our opposition is anybody who is somehow associated with the current public
education structure. The leading funder of the opposition appears to be the
national teacher unions. But right behind them are the school administrator
associations, the association of school boards, the law firms that do work for
the school systems, the accounting firms that work for school systems, the
colleges of education who have terribly inbred relationship with both
unions and public schools. They all are saying that the current system may be
a bit difficult, but we understand it; we like it; we're in it. We don't like
something that may cost us our jobs. I fully understand their desire to defend
their turf. I am always mystified by people giving any weight whatsoever to
their objections, since it's100 percent self interest that they're saying.
There's no logic to their opposition. Parents are the first line of direction
for the education of their children. The United States Supreme Court said that
in 1925, in Little Sisters of the Poor versus Oregon, in defending the right to
have private education at all in this country. They just didn't get quite to
the issue of how can we pay for that. People don't realize that part of that the
government is trying to do is to stop all private education. That's what the current
battle is all about.
. . .
Have you sort of withdrawn from the voucher battle, and are now engaged more
in charter schools?
I have not withdrawn from the battle at all. We
changed direction because we felt we had to. About a year ago, our parents in
our two schools in Cleveland were very concerned, because at that time it
looked like the supreme court of Ohio--which had not yet ruled--may well rule
against the program. . . .
The charter school legislation had just become effective in the previous fall
of 1998. That was not an option before. The funding of the voucher schools is
only $2,250 per child. The funding of the charter schools is $4,500 per child.
We were unable to pay sufficiently high salaries to keep our teachers at $2,250
per student. We didn't have the attraction of being a religious school. A lot
of teachers want to teach at a religious school, and they'll take less pay for
that. But we didn't have that. We were just like any other school--we had to
pay competitive salaries.
Combining all those reasons together, we decided to close our voucher schools
as of June, and coincidentally, charter legislation permitted us to open
schools in those same locations and that's what we did. But I probably feel
more forcefully than I ever have that vouchers are the answer for the problem.
Charters are a way station on the way to getting full choice through
What do you say to the opposition argument that vouchers drain away
resources from the public schools--the public schools, in particular, who least
can afford it?
It is such a spurious argument. It would be the same thing as saying that
WalMart should have legal protection to prevent you from going to a Target store
because you're taking money away from WalMart to go to the Target store.
After all, the costs go with the money. It isn't just that money is leaving
the public system. The student is leaving the public system. And there is no
question that, if the student leaves the city of Cleveland and moves to Akron,
the money goes with the child. Cleveland doesn't complain about that, nor
should they. But if instead of going to Akron, you go to some other school,
they say that's wrong. There's no logic to that. It is a very spurious
argument. The cost of delivery of education to the students there has been
reduced, because this is a reduced number of students.
I'm quick to acknowledge if only one or two students leave a classroom, there's
no savings to the school that lost the students. But that's the problem. No
choice program has yet been widespread enough to have the volume transfers that
are I think clearly waiting to happen, which will effect a substantial savings
in the cost of administering government schools. Since the alternatives are
about half as expensive, we will end up way ahead of the game financially. . .
What's your principal motivation in this? Why bother, after having a
successful career as a businessman?
I saw what was happening in our companies with undereducation. I worked for
three years here in Akron in the public school system, and threw my hands up;
it was going to go nowhere. I began to pick up the things we had already
learned. I have been far more successful in my life--professionally,
economically, personally--more satisfaction than anything I ever dreamed would
be the case. And I'm of a school that believes very, very strongly that I'm
obligated to contribute back to the society, whatever I can, in exchange for
what is given to me.
I'm not alone in that feeling. I'm very comfortable. Most people I know who
have had the degree of success that I have feel exactly the same way. Most are
striving to find a way to do that. And for a variety of reasons, I stumbled
across the way to do that, because if we don't solve this problem, our society
will disintegrate in 10 or 20 years. The vast number of undereducated people
in this society will be such a drain on society. I'm not talking economics.
I'm talking about social problems, criminal problems--the other problems that
go with undereducated people who cannot support themselves. If I can make a
contribution before I die, that may leave something better behind me than I
found when I came, and help pay back for all the good that has happened to me.
So this is the project.
Usually, in American society, there is a strong financial incentive for
people to do whatever activity they undertake. But is it possible to actually
make money in education from the private side?
I would say it to you differently. If the private alternative offering of
education cannot be done profitably, then it is not the answer. Any economic
activity as substantial as education is, as part of our gross domestic product,
as a building block of the rest of our society, must be delivered in an
economically sensible, profitable way. If it can't be done that way, then it
shouldn't be delivered. We have to find out what that way is. One of the
first tests that I have been embarked upon is to find out if that is possible,
and the answer is "Absolutely."
We need absolutely good management. Education is first, last, and always, a
business. If it's run like a business, it can be done profitably. I hire
engineers and technicians and specialists to do things in my company that I
can't do. Education is the same way. We hire people who are very good at what
they do. But to expect them to be businesspersons at the same time is
ludicrous. No other enterprise in our society requires that. Education does
it the other way around. They put the educators in charge of the business
functions and the organization, and look what has happened.
One of the major issues in what is an effective reform is, what makes economic
sense? There are never enough resources to go around in any society. An
economy allocates those resources in the most efficient way possible. When we
force feed money into one system that isn't working, we're misusing resources.
We're hurting some other part of our society. We are force-feeding money into
education that isn't working. Let's go to the alternatives of choice. Do it
economically. There will be plenty of dollars left to allocate to other things
we have to deal with. . . .
One criticism of charter schools is that, at least in these early stages,
there's not much supervision. For instance, a military academy here has since
closed. Does that create some problems for you?
Yes. I've been talking about this for a long time and I always make the
point that some schools will fail. Whether voucher schools or charter schools,
they will fail. The market works in supplying a quality product in the
delivery of services because failure is not tolerated by the market. If you
fail, you go out of business. I'm amused at the complaints about that, because
in my lifetime, I have never heard of any public school being closed, no matter
how incompetent they are in what they do. The market is far more efficient at
getting rid of the incompetent supplier. The complaint is made that the
students suffer in that regard. That's true. That's short-time suffering for
those students. But that's a whole lot better than 12 years in a school that's
not teaching them anything. So we will have failures. We hope to learn from
those. . . .
This whole movement for choice has shaken up the educational establishment.
If you look at public school systems around the country now, you hear a lot
about alternative schools, magnet schools.
. . . My opponents don't believe me, but I want to improve public
education. I want to improve all education. And I am quite satisfied that, if
we're good at what we do, we'll make public education better. They don't want
to make these changes, because they don't have to. After I was involved here
for three years, I left the day that I happened to look back at my file, and
the agenda was identical to the first agenda I'd done three years ago. It was
a similar meeting with a different date. And that's when I walked out and
never went back.
Public education, like all bureaucracies, particularly in monopolies, does not
want to change from inside, and will not. So we are the force of change. In
the Netherlands, 30 percent of the students are still in government schools.
Fine. If they're competing with the 70 percent that are not, I guarantee you
those are good schools, by whatever standards exist in that country. That's
what we seek. We'll be better with more competition. We know that, too.
. . . Do you need to do this for the money?
Absolutely not. I've been very blessed, as I said to you earlier. Money
is a way to keep score in business. If you don't make money, you lose money,
and if you lose money, you're out. Those are principles I believe in deeply.
. . . Our management company is not yet two years old. It was organized in
July of 1998. And we have incredible people, many of whom took a pay cut to
come with us. But they believe in it, and I want to reward that. The way to
reward that is you make them shareholders. And if indeed it becomes profitable
because of their efforts, they can make some money. That's the American way.
Are we hurting children because of them? I don't think so. If we only made
profits out of an enterprise where everybody else is losing money, is that bad?
Someone has to tell me why. I can't figure that one out.
The argument is that somehow you're going to be shortchanging the students
to make a profit.
Yes. That's the wonderful thing about the American system. People who make
the kind of statement you make don't realize, because they've never been in the
American system. They've been on the government dole all their lives. . . .
The power of choice in the hands of the consumer is the most awesome power to
guarantee quality, effective cost, effective delivery, and consumer
responsiveness. It's incredible because--and every one of our people in our
organization knows--if these participants aren't getting what they need, we
won't be here. . . . The demands to satisfy the needs of the users drive
quality. If they have captive users, where's the drive? We don't have any
users unless we do the job. It isn't my experience or my conviction that is
compelling here. It's the example of our society as a whole, that the quality
products don't come from government-dictated regulation. They come from
what do the candidates say? ·
how bad are public schools? ·
is "choice" the answer? ·
video excerpt ·
tapes & transcripts ·
pbs online ·
web site copyright 1995-2014
WGBH educational foundation