RAVITCH: The Economist calls charter schools "Privatization"

[yurbud]

Diane Ravitch worked on education issues in both the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations and supported corporate education "reform" until she realized it didn't work except to funnel money meant for educating our kids into the pockets of for profit companies.

I can recall many times advocates of corporate education reform claimed here that charters are "public" schools, which is only true in the sense that they siphon money and the kids easy to teach from the public system.

The Economist magazine has two articles (here and here) about the “success” of charter schools in the U.S., which they admiringly refer to as privatization.

Charter advocates here might be embarrassed by the praise, as they prefer to call themselves “public schools.”

The Economist recognizes that charter schools are experiments in privatization, not simply another form of public school.

***

The Economist articles do not acknowledge that charter schools typically serve fewer children with disabilities, and fewer children who are English language learners. They also exercise the right to remove students who don’t comply with their strict disciplinary code and return them to public schools.

http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/07/the-economist-loves-privatization/

[MichiganVote]

1. The idea that charters even remotely function as public schools under

the current public school regulations is absolutely ludicrous. Both the public and our govt are in collusion to circumvent the laws, accountability and curriculum demands that have been imposed on schools in America. This is nothing more than PR based segregation.

[yurbud]

2. I think there was a bill here in California about making charters accountable to the same standards

as regular public schools.

That such a bill was even necessary tells you how uneven the playing field is.

[MichiganVote]

4. Yup

[Igel]

5. They're not equal in TX.

And that's a good thing.

It masks a lot of the failures and provides a safety valve for public schools to save face.

And, yes, I do think that's a good thing. For lots of different reasons, some political. If the public schools were held accountable for all the failures that bail and go to charter schools the politicians would feel the need to blindly micromanage for short-term political gain even more than they do now.

[yurbud]

6. politicians feel a need to micromanage CHARTERS? in TEXAS?

Do you have a link for that?

Public schools have a steeper mountain to climb, being required by law to educate all comers, whether they are discipline problems, have learning disabilities, or are simply apathetic.

By contrast, charters can be selective and kick back to regular public schools the kids that are difficult.

Also, since the charters are backed by the foundations of some of the wealthiest people in the nation and in their individual cities, it's hard to imagine politicians busting their balls, especially in a more or less open kleptocracy like Texas.

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[yurbud]

7. .