Charter schools and the attack on public education

[Hannah Bell]

In a stock market prospectus uncovered by education author Jonathan Kozol, the Montgomery Securities group explains to Corporate America the lure of privatizing education:

....“the education industry represents the largest market opportunity” since health-care services were privatized during the 1970’s.... From the point of view of private profit, one of these analysts enthusiastically observes, “The K–12 market is the Big Enchilada.”1

...because the noble intentions of some of the pioneers of the charter school movement (to create laboratories that prove what all educators know: that creativity, individual attention, and curricular relevance are the roots of good education) took shape so recently, and because there are some good charter schools, many progressives are disoriented in the current climate...Liberals who support the idea of charter schools give cover to politicians who champion privatization schemes...

Charter schools are, according to Kozol, a bridge toward vouchers:

"In the long run, charter schools are being strategically used to pave the way for vouchers...We already have the privatization of the military, as we’ve seen with the private military contractors in Iraq; we’ve seen the privatization of the prison system. Well, the next step is the privatization of public schools....In rare occasions, a charter school created by teachers in the public system and in collaboration with activist parents in the community have had at least short-term success.... They tend very quickly—even when they’re started by teachers with the best intentions—to enter into collaboration with the private sector."


* more than one million children attend some four thousand charter schools nationally.

* The Chicago Teachers Union has shrunk by 10 percent since the onset of Renaissance 2010, a program to break away one hundred schools from the Chicago Public School District.

*In Los Angeles 7 percent of children in public school attend charter schools.11

*Joel Klein, chancellor the New York public school system, has announced his intention that all of New York’s schools should be charters.

*In New Orleans, 57 percent of public school students attended charter schools at the end of 2007...

There is now a three-tier school district;
select students attend publicly funded charters,

others attend state-run schools (the Recovery School District) with a student-to-teacher ratio as high as 40:1 in some schools and no local school board to complain to,

still another group attends the least desirable Orleans Parish schools, where there is a security guard for every thirty-seven students.16

"Teachers who are committed to social justice should put themselves in the camp of those who have fought through direct action for equal access to quality public education. Our role models should reach from the former slaves who forced the Freedmen’s Bureau to create the first public schools in the South and the students who pushed for integration of the public school system during the civil rights movement, to the undocumented students fighting for access to public universities in the United States today.

As long as we have a system built on inequality, the policy makers will attempt to use schools to institutionally and ideologically buttress the division between the haves and have-nots. They will mostly succeed. But in the struggles to come for genuine equality, access to schools to meet the needs of every single child, not a select few among those who live in poverty, will be a call and a slogan of our movements. For the vast majority, this means quality education in public schools. Those who join that fight will determine what the word “quality” means, and will have an opportunity to force these concessions from policy makers until people decide that concessions are not enough."



More, with documentation:

http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/2009/02/charter-schools-and-attack-on-public.html

[MadHound]

1. Yep, charter schools are the opening gambit in destroying public education

If we continue down this path what we'll wind up with is a two tier education system, one tier that is private, though funded with public money, that will be for the elite and take in only a selective population of students. These student's education will be fully funded and get a high quality education.

Then there will be the tattered remnants of the public education system, beaten and battered, where the rest of the students will wind up, the poor, disabled, troubled students that the top tier schools don't want. Their education will take place in crumbling classrooms that lack the necessary equipment, books and funding to deliver a high quality education.

This is where are education system is headed, this has been the plan for awhile, and sadly, Arne and Obama are enabling the ongoing rush towards this system of education. And sadly, once this is in place, we'll all lose.

[fasttense]

2. Oh great turn public education into another Health Care debacle.

""the education industry represents the largest market opportunity” since health-care services were privatized during the 1970’s...."

Education will become so expensive only the uber wealthy top 1% will be able to learn to read and write.

[annabanana]

3. Unless & until Charter schools have to accept EVERYONE

regardless of ability, domestic tranquility, substance abuse, various physical, psychological & behavioral challenges...

They will be a threat to public schools.

K&R

[alstephenson]

10. Charter schools ARE public schools.

And they DO have to accept everyone. Many have long waiting lists, in which case a lottery system is used for acceptance.

There is SO MUCH misinformation about public charter schools. Most are operated by non-profit organizations. A for-profit organization would have a hard time making a profit on the pathetic amount of per pupil funding provided by most states. My state (Arizona) has one of the lowest per pupil funding in the country - we spend more on the prison system here than on education...

[salin]

13. State law dictates this point.

In my state charters are under tougher regulations per equal access than public schools that offer 'magnet programs'. Charters can not bar admissions except for the reason of full enrollment (after a lottery). Public schools magnet programs can have admissions bars. I don't know about other states. Charter laws vary from state to state.

[create.peace]

4. wow, thanks for the link

look out for the walmartization of the school system.

'The Walton Family Foundation of Wal-Mart is the single biggest investor in charter schools in the United States, giving $50 million a year to support them.21 The Waltons specialize in giving money to opponents of public education. “Empowering parents to choose among competing schools,” said John Walton, son of Wal-Mart’s founder, “will catalyze improvement across the entire K–12 education system.”'
http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/2009/02/charter-schools-and-attack-on-public.html

[alstephenson]

11. Again, charter schools ARE public schools.

So how can the Walton Foundation be giving money to "opponents" of public education. And are they giving money or "investing" - most charitable contributions aren't considered investing, other than maybe investing in the future of our children. Is that a bad thing? If public education (including public charter schools) were properly funded charitable contributions wouldn't be needed. Oh, and the Walton Family Foundation only gives money to charter schools who are operated by non-profit organizations.

[madfloridian]

5. Kicking, already recommended.

:hi:

[ihavenobias]

6. Thanks, there's some really interesting information here.

K & R

[Kixel]

7. The theory behind charter schools is good...

The reality is there is NO proof that they are better for kids. I think it is good to have a less restrictive environment to see if innovative ideas can come from it. That, however, is not how they have been used.

One of the smaller Asian countries (I can't remember which, sorry!) has a three tiered school system. The first tier tries out new ideas-it is pretty small. The second tier is a bit larger and tries to repeat the new ideas. If it the ideas are successful on tier two, the ideas are moved into the third tier (where the majority of children are). It makes sense-being innovative without having a huge amount of risk involved.

Letting schools go all willy nilly on their own with no clear mechanism of reporting success or failure is a huge waste of time and is worrisome for the future of education.

[endersdragon34]

12. Little math for you

http://www.ryanpatrickhalligan.org/ + http://www.summitacademies.com/Default.aspx?base = long long life.... I have heard of so many kids who were suicidal before going to a charter schools like that one (and talked to many of them a few years later)... its amazing how much good they can do for kids. Thats all the evidence I need for those.

[starroute]

8. There was a thread here a few years ago that relates to this

It quotes from an article at Raw Story titled "Norquist Protege's push for charter school privatization plan in Southern California worries educators." It doesn't seem to have gotten much attention at the time -- maybe people will be more responsive to the issue now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2405298

[leftstreet]

9. K&R

[salin]

14. the charter movement itself is very politically diverse - those pushing an agenda are a different

thing altogether.

There seem to be two very divergent types of folks very involved in the charter movement. Free market conservatives, and liberal social equality activists in large urban areas that have decades of failing public schools. While it seems that the public push comes from the former, many of those folks involved in large, urban, poor areas are the latter. Having worked in or with some of those districts in the previous decade (pre charters) I can certainly understand the social activist side of the movement. That said, I also have seen some very predatory orgranizations trying to create any school (regardless of trying to improve educational outcomes for populations that have traditional been far underserved by their schools) that makes me very cynical per carte blanche defending all charter schools.

Long before charters existed or were proposed there were districts like the Detroit Public Schools that had decades of extremely abysmal performance (e.g., less than 40% of freshman go on to graduate and a large segment of that group that did graduate could pass the then graduation test for a regular diploma.) There were no options to the families in that district. You can tell me til the cows come home that the entire problem was students and their families. However, I worked there - with those kids and their families - and it was a systemic failure to which the schools often contributed. Michelle Fine's book on Drop outs (or Push Out) published in the 90s about schools in NYC and Philadelphia very much captured what I experienced.

That said, there is no question that there is a large number of for profit entities trying to coopt the movement. But those same entities have been vulcherous per marketing to regular public schools (think Open Court) to make a killing. To me - the business is about watching the vulchers/corporate predators whether they be entities "selling" programs to schools (expensive programs which schools are coached on using grant monies such as Title I to pay for - draining Title I monies away from directly serving students) - or whether it be for profit management companies (such as Edison) that sell their services to traditional public schools or charter schools. (Note that in most states it is legislatively required that charters are run by non profit entities; the loophole is when a nonprofit privatizes management out to a for profit entity like Edison.)