“Aside from being a pure contradiction in terms, "privately run public institutions," is the most convoluted logic ever proffered. I know the profit seekers behind the charter school project try to assert some degree of "publicness" because they are allegedly providing a similar service to public schools, albeit to a more limited (read less costly) population. The fundamental flaw with this logic is that merely providing a similar service to a public institution doesn't make an institution public.
Blackwater/Xe (or whatever they call themselves now) provide similar services to the US DOD. In fact in some places they have taken over duties that used to be the domain of the Marine Corps. Should we begin calling them a public mercenary service, or an independently managed military branch? No, the construct "privately run public institutions" represents oxymoron ad absurdum.
The charter school industry exists in the short term to channel public money into private hands; and in the long term to undermine school systems in order to hand the public commons over to those long resentful that they had to help subsidize the public good finally achieve their goal of an entirely privatized system.”
Dignity24601 on Jul 26, 2013 at 02:11:50
“Here, the law allows Charters to have equal access to public space (thus public schools have no more legal right to it than the Charters). The boards were disregarding the law and ignoring the rights of charters, requiring many lawsuits to correct this. Now the boards use the least appropriate, efficient and effective means to comply (sharing schools) as a political ploy to say "I told you so" and you blame the charters.
The issue that is being discussed is a properly enacted law. Complain to the civil servants who are trying their best to break it.”
“Love the cavalier fashion that you disregard the human rights of special needs children. Do you come from that political tradition that believes in culling that part of the population, because what you advocate is tantamount to just that.”
“You've admitted earlier that you don't live in California and aren't very familiar with Prop 39. Yet you keep prattling about how this is somehow fair and any resistance to the inequity of private institutions occupying our public schools is all initiated by our local teachers union. You are wrong on every front. Most of the organized resistance to Prop 39 is by public school parents and community members. What Prop 39 does is allow these privately managed entities to do is essentially double-dip. They get ADA from the taxpayers, and then also get nearly free facilities placement under Prop 39. While the public school's ADA all goes to the host school site, the charter uses most of their for extras-gourment lunches, CEO salaries, etc. Separate and unequal. Spin this all you want, those of us that live here and are fighting colocations actually know the facts and witness the horrors of inequity.
“If it was a private business occupying space, then I agree. The Charters are privately run public institutions. Forcing them to rent space elsewhere would increase their costs and would take money away from the kids. As the space is public, it should be allocated to all kids. I don't need to be in California to present this.
You may correct me but the rationale (officially anyway) was to deal with a claim that districts were very slow to offer facilities to Charter Schools, even though they had space available. Thus, (like in many similar cases, public and private) if the school districts had been more open to cooperating in allocating space in the first place, prop 39 would never have been proposed or passed.
Now passed, it is the school districts, not the law, that resulted in shared facilities (ideal to neither the public, nor the Charter. The district should look again at how it is doing the allocation of space.
Consider that the district allocates the space and many (particularly the LAUSD) are clearly opposed to allocating space. In government mentality, the normal response to being forced to do something is to comply in a manner that causes the most pain so as to try to push for rulings to prevent them having to do anything. Could this not be the case here?”
“Yet charters featuring astronomical executive salaries and sweetheart backroom deals with their vendors (who are often their board members too), somehow are making "kids" their first priority?”
Dignity24601 on Jul 25, 2013 at 02:26:54
“The oversight board can certainly deal with any such obvious abuses (and seem to in many cases). Excessive salaries and back room deals also happen in the public schools. Not a function of type of organization, but a normal feature of any government funded operation.”
“Charter are NOT public schools. Federal Courts, California State Courts, the U.S. Census Department, and the National Labor Relations Board have all ruled that charter schools are NOT public entities. http://bitly.com/bundles/rdsathene/f As private entities, they are not public schools. In California they even have unelected boards that are wholly unaccountable to the public.”
“1) Patently false. Federal Courts, State Courts, the Census Dept., and the NLRB have all ruled that charter schools are NOT public entities. http://bitly.com/bundles/rdsathene/f 2) As private entities, they are not public schools. In California they even have unelected boards that are wholly unaccountable to the public. 3) Under Prop 39 privately managed charters pay well below market rate for the facilities they are displacing. 4) In CA Charter teachers typically are emergency credentialed, or worse, 5 week trainees courtesy of TFA. 5) Charter schools are all about stuffing public money into the pockets of their executives. Show me a CA CMO CEO, and I'll show you a quarter million dollar salary. We know all about what you care about.”
“"[S]orry to burst your bubble"?—do yourself a favor, obtain Form 990s from five CMOs on Guidestar, then look over the charter executive salaries. Let's make it easy, I sometimes collect 990s when writing essays about this topic:
Again, I'm not in a union. Social justice advocates critique the greedy charter sector for often having lower or equivalent performance while at the same time under-enrolling the students that public schools are rightfully required to accept. Let's be clear—any educational institution that takes money from the public should be required ethically, legally, and morally to EDUCATE EVERY CHILD. Charter sector profiteers dodging this social contract should have their gravy train closed.
Glad we agree that charters are NOT public schools. Big mystery is how privately run institutions are allowed to gorge themselves at the public trough, and steal resources from public schools. In my circles, equity is the name of the game, and we will continue to fight institutions exacerbating and advancing inequity--namely charter schools.
Your last paragraph demonstrates that you neither read the original article, nor paid attention to my comments. I mentioned public school children displaced from their neighborhood public school because a charter is physically occupying some of their school's space under Prop 39. An immoral situation at best.
BTW, if you were familiar with California charter law, you'd know applications and lotteries are just one form of enrollment.”
Dignity24601 on Jul 24, 2013 at 01:37:03
“Yes some of the staff of such schools are probably overpaid and this should be addressed by limitations in the Charter.
Regarding profile of students, you are preaching to the converted, I always advocate that ALL schools, Charter and Public, be held fully accountable to the same standards. If they do not enroll the specified groups in appropriate numbers, then they can be fined as a means of inducing correction.
Sorry, I did not realize you were referencing the co-sharing specifically. In this, I think the Charters should be entitled to public space (for the good of the kids, not the charter). But the allocation must be reasonable and appropriate. There is no justification in busing students in to the charter and others out to the public school. I would hope you are referring to the exception rather than the rule.
Regarding gorging at the trough, I believe there is enough of this in both the public and the charter system. This is an unfortunate outcome of politicians spending other people's money. The process would be improved if the spending and allocation was made more transparent and the people more accountable in both systems.
Lastly, I admit my ignorance, I am not living in California and thus am not up on the specific features of the rules there. However, allocation should be fair if it is public money and the basis of allocation of spots set out in Charter. Of course if you are talking about a magnet school (say”
“Jealous? Fat chance. I'm outraged that public schools are being undermined by the plutocrat class who already have a profit pipeline tied to the lucrative charter sector. That's the motivation for their investment, er... cough, donations. BTW, I have no affiliation with UTLA or any union for that matter, so your constant repetition of UTLA only works to enrage your fellow tea-partiers.
The only way to address the charter industry's open discrimination of special needs children would be the elimination of these privately managed entities. Since the responsibility of educating every child is at odds with charter executive salaries and profitable sweetheart vendor deals, there is no way of addressing this in a non-public system. Federal and State Courts, Census Department, and NLRB have all ruled that charters are NOT public schools.
The idea that the students of charter schools get distinct material advantages over public school students is the heart of the issue hear. That a child might be displaced from their own neighborhood school just to accommodate a charter subsidizing some executive salaries is beyond the pale.
Even a cursory reading of the UCLA and UNC studies on privately manged charter schools exacerbating segregation not only bear out my citing Plessy v. Ferguson, but make the case that you're advocating for it. "School choice," was and still is the clarion call of segregationists. Something tells me that doesn't bother you.”
Dignity24601 on Jul 21, 2013 at 11:59:00
“Lucrative charter sector, that is a new one. The private universities make a much better bet for less effort. In fact, running a charter school is high risk and little real return, sorry to burst your bubble.
Much of the reason for Charters possibly increasing segregation is due to the communities that are selected and approved for their siting. In any case, since the union asserts that they are much worse than public schools, such segregation would in their mind only help the minorities. Amazing that the anti charter crowd blame them for having poor quality and yet complain that they disadvantage various groups for not letting them in.
Charter schools are definitely not public schools and I did not need to spend a great deal of Court time to determine that. However, these same Courts seem to have also generally ruled that Charters are legal within certain parameters.
By the way, i have never heard of a Charter forcing students to enroll. I thought it was by application and lucky draw if the applications exceed spaces (as is usually the case). In this light, what is the basis for your comment that children are displaced from their community just to benefit the charters?”
“Odd that CCSA's Ricardo Soto advocates for "equal" access to facilities, but doesn't advocate for equal access to the billions of extra dollars the charter school industry has in the form of plutocrat and foundation donations. These privately managed charter schools, who are able to under-enroll students with special needs, disciplinary issues, or ELLs, get every advantage--extra funding, next to free facility placement via Prop 39, and a free ticket to discriminate. It's no overstatement to say that the charter school sector has brought back Plessy v. Ferguson. As one of the activists who helped build the resistance to both the Gabriella and CWC occupations of our local schools, I can say that there are no good colocations. Our public schools are underfunded, let's stop stealing from them to line the pockets of wealthy charter executives.
"Colocation is eviction... It doesn't mean sharing, it means displacement." — NY State Senator Bill Perkins”
Dignity24601 on Jul 18, 2013 at 03:41:07
“So you are jealous that the Charters can appeal to people to donate money because of what they are trying to do in the face of and over the objection of the entrenched union objections.
Looking at the other issues:
Free placement - and the public school pays more for the facility. Note that the building and resources were paid for by the taxpayer and that all children of citizens (not just those forced to ensure the UTLA) are entitled to access these resources. The students, not the Charter are getting access (the Charter is just acting on their behalf).
Regarding under-enrollment of the disadvantaged, this is a matter to address in the Charter and in the administration.
The Plessy v. Ferguson argument is inaccurate and insulting to all the students. Charter schools admission is by lucky draw and thus cannot discriminate based on race. If they were punting the minorities, there would clearly be lawsuits (there are none). The only segregation is between those who escape the UTLA prison and those who are still serving time. If you want to end such segregation, turn the entire LAUSD into a Charter School only system.
Finally, it is interesting that you end your argument by citing a quote from a known Democrat mouthpiece of the NY teachers' union. Hardly an impartial observer.”
“Because the wealthy and powerful would keep the cost of their elite private schools low enough that a lowly voucher would cover the costs? Have to love right-wing mendaciousness, except in cases like this where you're trying to deceive the poor into yet another scheme to profit from them.
Everywhere vouchers have been tried, they've been an abject disaster, and, more to the point, they have not allowed access to elite schools like Sidwell Friends. They are, however, a get rich quick scheme for all manner of unprincipled profiteers.”
karlpopperfan on Nov 12, 2012 at 08:34:58
“there are many working class and middle class Catholic schools. Just look at New Orleans or Boston”
“Saying President Obama is soft on unions is like saying The John Birch Society is soft on communists or people of color. For goodness sake Arne Duncan is U.S.A.'s #1 union buster, and DFER are bigger profiteers and opportunists than the avaricious Romney could ever hope to be.”
scrapiron5 on Nov 5, 2012 at 21:28:25
“This is totally true. At several education blogs that I frequent, the debate is raging (among traditional, union-member teachers) about whether or not to vote for Obama because of his educational record, which most educators I know believe as about as pro-union as Wal-Mart. I live and teach in Wisconsin, where our governor removed the collective bargaining rights we won decades ago without so much as a hearing and Obama didn't lift a finger to come to our aid. He and Duncan were too busy cozying up to Michelle Rhee and DFER and the other public school destroyers.”
“What party line am I parroting?
I am not a member of any union, but instead a community activist and widely published education writer. I don't know any teacher that opposes evaluations, but we are are discussing Romero's extreme right-wing stance that evaluations should be tied to standardized test scores.
Aside from the fact that VAM/AGT has been proven in academia to be a pseudoscience at best, social justice activists know that standardized tests are both racist and classist. Are you trying to suggest that NCLB, RTTT, and CCSS are good for Latino students? If so, then we're wasting our time.
I find your somewhat reactionary insinuation that unions exist only for economic interest and that teachers have disparate interest from students and parents to be a false dichotomy. Maybe that was true for you, but all the educators I know use their rights to due process to advocate for their students.
Romero's ties to fringe-right organizations, many of which are overtly racist, but love her tokenism, needs to be called out. Your stalwart defense of her reactionary politics suggests you might want to reexamine your own views. Call my views a "joke" all you want, at least I'm not in alignment with Cato, AEI, and Heartland, like Romero is.
Robert D. Skeelsschoolsmatter.info”
“You're joking right? "The interests of the students, parents and community activists" are aligned with the CTA, not with Gloria Romero's funders, which includes hedge fund managers, wealthy charter executives, and right-wing ideologues. As a community activist who is intimately familiar with education policy, I challenge your mention of "procedures for increased accountability and more objective evaluations" for what it is: AEI and Hoover Institution talking points to union bust and privatize education for the same profiteers Romero works for. She was the epitome of a Sacramento politician who was on the corporate take, which explains why she has aligned herself with the Kochs, the Chamber of Commerce, and ALEC on supporting this vile legislation.”
Jimmy Franco on Oct 16, 2012 at 01:47:49
“I have been a community activist for 33 years, educator a member of the CTA and UTLA. Unions are organizations that defend the economic interests of adults while the parents and students have no union. At present in the LAUSD, the faulty evaluation procedure allows people to teach through a porous probationary period and stay teaching with a superficial Stull evaluation which is a joke that is known to everyone. This sad situation also applies to administrators. I do not believe that the interests of Romero nor the bureaucrats from the CTA are totally aligned with Latino students. Your parroting of the party line is what sounds like a joke.
Jimmy Franco Sr.”
“Prop 32 spokeswoman Gloria Romero knows all about special interests. As a career politician she enjoyed a constant flood of campaign funds from the lucrative charter school sector and the CCSA to craft pernicious legislation like SB 592, which hands public school property over to private corporations.
Romero and Austin's corporate charter trigger law, which had plenty of input from Bill Lucia of Reed Hastings' EdVoice (one of Romero's biggest corporate contributors by the way), and Friedman acolyte Arnold Schwartzenegger. These fringe-right forces made sure the trigger law would be amenable to The Heartland Institute and The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The former is the trigger law's biggest promoter, the latter turned the commons robbing idea in ALEC template legislation.
When her billionaire special interest backers couldn't buy her the State Superintendent job, they gave her the next best thing: a $250K a year gig with the hedge fund supported DFER. In other words, Romero went from taking money from special interests while she was in Sacramento, to being one of the deep pocketed special interests influencing her former colleagues to push through more revenue streams through school privatization.
Progressive? Please. For an overview of Romero's real political leanings look up my essay "Peas in a pod: Koret Foundation, The Hoover Institution, and Democrats for Education Reform" on schoolsmatter.info”
changing on Oct 16, 2012 at 01:19:49
“I so wish all the defomers would destroy each other. Unfortunately they are all on the same side. Romero a progressive? Don't even try it.”
Oct 4, 2012 at 02:55:02
“Good for a few minutes of Schadenfreude, given the vitriol parent trigger supporters spew at social justice activists. The most extreme right-wing propaganda film since "Birth of Nation" has been an abject failure in the box office. Not that Anschutz or Murdoch cared about recouping their expenses. The film will be a cult classic for the AEI, Cato, Heartland, Heritage, Parent Revolution, and the John Birch Society. Meanwhile those of us engaged in bringing authentic reforms to our schools will continue our struggle against the corporate reformers.”
“You continue to boast that your offspring will never see a public school. Terrific, but I'm surprised that a bagger like yourself believes the rest of us should have to foot the bill for that. More to the point, vouchers and charters discriminate against the most vulnerable--special needs children--because they cut into their bottom lines. While the idea that these charter and private school executives put their bloated salaries ahead of the obligation to educate every child, I'm sure the concept sits well with you. After all, eugenics is the natural extension of ideologies that fetishize competition.”
JimsAutomotive on Sep 17, 2012 at 12:34:42
“First, two of my eleven children are special needs. The charter school is where the younger one's needs are met exactly, unlike when the older one who went to a public school. And, my nephew has cerebral palsy. He also goes to a charter school due to the better eduactaion and care. How are the "rest of you" footing the bill? The charter schools receive the same compensation per child that the public school would if the child were there when they do their population count. No more. That is money paid for with my tax dollars as well. The public school system ends up with less as parents now have a choice to send their children to better schools, to allow their children to receive better educations. Two of my children have graduated a year early and my sixteen year old is on track to do the same thing. Until you have had the experience, which obviously you have not, please gain more information prior to making comments without having all the relevant information. And, you certainly sound like a union teacher who is afraid of being evaluated, or a supporter of such.”
“I'm need to stop wasting time with baggers, birthers, and Birchers, but if you don't understand why standardized tests are classist and racist, then the bibliography I'd have to suggest to you to get up to speed on the topic would probably comprise more books than you've apparently ever read.
Charter schools have been demonstrated again and again to exacerbate segregation (cf. the UCLA and North Carolina studies) and more abjectly, deliberately discriminate against children with special needs (you can verify that here http://bitly.com/bundles/rdsathene/4 but I doubt you care about other people's children).
Competition bred every single economic disaster in recent history, including the 2008 financial crisis. I don't have time to teach basic economics here though.
The 1% own the police and the military, so yes, in a way they did do it at gunpoint. Tell you what, when you become one of the 1% you can write me back with such banal platitudes about how to become the 1%. I know the secret, profit is unpaid labor. In other words, the biggest theft of all.”
JimsAutomotive on Sep 17, 2012 at 13:01:39
“Bagger to me are people who install air bags on their vehicle to lower them. If your implying that I am a tea bag member, I am not If tests can be perceived as racist then someone is not doing there job when teaching these children. The square root of any number is the same no matter what color you are. Spelling does not change no matter what color you are. Geopgraphy does not change no matter what color you are. Why would we dumb your education system down to the lowest common denominator? We need to bring the children up that have a problem. The charter schools where I am are very diverse as they have open enrollment. Chldren from all areas come to the charter school, so it is not children from a particular area.
Please explain how competition caused the financial crisis in 2008. Any economists supporting that claim?
You have to gross at least $380, 354 to be in the 1%. I certainly do that with three businesses, and real estate. I do not own any police or military. By the way, wasn't slavery outlawed 160 years ago, so how would I own people? You still did not explain when and how money was stolen from you. Most thefts are reported to the Police.
Profit is unpaid labor? So are you saying I do not pay my employees? They would not be here if I didn't. I pay most of them $27.50/hour, plus bonuses.”
“Not familiar with any legitimate studies supporting your wild contentions, but I've seen some policy papers cobbled together by hit-men economists working at right-wing funded academic posts and for fringe think tanks like Hoover.
First off, I'm not a teacher. Moreover, I don't know a single teacher that supports "bad teachers." Your obtuse statements to the contrary strain your claims to intelligence. For an individual fetishizing "economic gains" you'd think you'd be asking the right questions. If the impact teachers have on student outcomes are less than a fifth, then why aren't you looking at the causes of the other four quintiles? Doesn't fit your extremist right-wing ideology, so you conveniently leave it out.
Teachers don't want bad teachers in their profession for myriad reasons. Most practical is that the higher up the K-12 scale a teacher is, the more they inherit the effects of so-called bad teaching. Problem you and corporate reformers have is two-fold. First, you overstate the quantity of teachers needing improvement. More importantly, you (because of your lack of background in pedagogy) misunderstand the ways to effectively quantify teaching. VAMs don't work, but observation by qualified peers do. Why aren't the corporate reformers pushing for the latter? Because it isn't as easy to manipulate and game as inaccurate VAMs.
Your "logic" is so tainted by ideology, that it hardly can be called logic. Perhaps reading some books about psychometrics would allow you to discuss this topic like an adult.”
“So you're not astute enough to fact check information from a hack at the Times, but have strong opinions on things you don't understand anyway. Nice.
BTW, as a nationally published education writer, I don't need to whine. I did criticize Kristof's use of the junk science in another venue though.
Do you even know what "tenure" is? Or are you just parroting more right-wing talking points without an understanding of the subject at hand?”
“As an education writer and school board candidate I've looked at the so-called "data," and it doesn't support the use of VAM/AGT or any other form of neo-phrenology.
"Bad teachers," even in the marginal case that that loaded phrase might be applicable, have, even in the worst case, only a negligible effect on students. Hoover/Standford's Erik Hanushek, darling of right-wing school privatization crowd, finds teacher have less than a 17% effect on student performance. In other words, the biggest advocate for the data and policies your ilk push, can't dismiss the fact that four-fifths of the causes of a student's low performance have to do with factors outside of a teacher's control. And none of that addresses the fact that your metric by which you judge students and teachers, standardized tests, are racist and classist by their very nature.
Experts like Professor Stephen Krashen and Professor P.L. Thomas have demonstrated again and again that the poverty is the problem. That painfully inconvenient fact puts to lie all the rest of your reactionary right-wing arguments.
You ask: "Are Chicagoans dumber than average Americans?"
No, just Chicago's ruling one-percent, like Rhamney Emanuel.”
thereisonlyoneparty on Sep 14, 2012 at 10:50:30
Economic studies have shown that replacing a poor teacher with an average one result in huge gains for the economy in general. Better teachers produce more economic gain long term.
I do not get teachers (maybe because I am actually intelligent, so stupidness is foreign to me). Every other profession works to rid themselves of the anchors holding them back. Doctors do not support bad doctors. They want them gone. They are harmful to the profession.
Teachers love bad teachers.
It does not matter if the claimed percentage is small. It matters. How dumb are you, child? Would a doctor say "oh, you have two wounds, but the smaller wound only accounts for 17% of blood loss, so it does not matter"? Of course not. Then again, doctors are generally intelligent (more intelligent than average). So they think logically.”
“"[G]old standard study?" A widely discredited, non-peer-reviewed policy paper from right-wing economists posing as research is hardly a gold standard. More to the point, exactly how does using a wildly inaccurate and highly unstable pseudo-science like value added, which itself is tied to racist and classist standardized tests, an indicator of anything except a priori results desired by the psychometricians hired to expedite the profitable process of school privatization?
You've been sold a bill of goods, or worse, your regurgitating the above nonsense about "data" as part of the propaganda campaign to sell other a bill of goods.”
Beck65 on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:02:46
“No he had a bad teacher.”
JimsAutomotive on Sep 13, 2012 at 17:37:45
“So are you saying that teachers do not have as big an influence as the study suggests? If that is the case then teachers are being paid too much since it does not matter if they are good or bad. It does matter. Teachers need to be compensated what they are worth as in any position. Why does a chef make more than a buss boy? Because he is worth more and brings a higher value to the organization. Bad teachers need to go. Our children deserve better. By the way I grew up in Chicago. I know first-hand about the low quality education children receive there. I now live in Arizona where they have private schools that are paid by the student with the same tax dollars, at the same rate as if they were in a public school. These schools are open to everyone. It works fantastic. Any parent, at any time can pull their children out of the drug or crime infested school, or a school that is not performing and put them in a school of their choice. How can this be a bad thing? It isn't, small class sizes, far higher quality education, and parents are directly involved as opposed to so school board meeting once a year. My children will never see the inside of a public school. Chicagoland students would do much better under the system we have here. I have seen the results personally. Competition breeds excellence.”
charles77 on Sep 13, 2012 at 14:31:56
“It came from the NY Times, go whine at them. But bad teachers need to go. Tenure needs to go.”
“Chicago teachers striking for better conditions for their student and themselves, while their Mayor fights to implement a corporate agenda, more racist standardized tests, and more revenues for greedy and discriminatory charter industry. Unless you're reading this from the country club, you should be supporting the brave teachers of CTU! We need more strikes and more unions to get back some of the money the one percent has stolen from us.”
JimsAutomotive on Sep 13, 2012 at 19:18:46
“A test is questions to be answered. Anyone claiming any test is racist is grasping at straws for lack of a better argument. I am not sure hoe the charter industry is greedy. they operate far more successfully with far less funds, as they are paid per student. I am not sure how they are discriminatory as students of all colors and creeds attend. My children have gone to charter schools for years. they will never again see the inside of a public school. Competition breeds excellence.The more competition the better the schools, the better the teachers, the better the education our children receive. You say money was stolen from you. Did you call the police? Did they use a gun? Quit whining about the 1% and join them. Take control of your future, only you can decide what it will be. Open a business, get more of an education if necessary. Do whatever it takes, let nothing stop you.”
thereisonlyoneparty on Sep 13, 2012 at 08:51:04
Look at the data. Bad teachers provide no social benefit. Resources wasted on them are resources that cannot be used in ways that benefit students and communities.
Chicago public schools are proud of having a 60% five year graduation rate. Yeah, four year graduation rates are the old way. The new way is projecting graduation rates based upon summer programs and additional years to complete requirements.
Chicago spends a boatload of money per pupil while seeing terrible results. The teachers are generally rated as being effective, so what is the problem?
“It's shameful that the lucrative charter-voucher industry puts revenue streams and executive salaries ahead of the needs of our most vulnerable students.
AEI's right-wing reactionary Andy Smarick wrote a piece entitled "Wave of the Future" in the fringe-right Hoover Institution's EdNext Journal several years ago. In the essay he outlines a plan of how the burgeoning charter school sector can help to bankrupt public school districts by increasing their own market share while leaving the district with all of the special education costs.
This vile and cynical plan has been executed perfectly by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the California Charter Schools Association. Being revenue hungry business-types, the concept of a legal, ethical, or moral obligation to educate every child is completely foreign to Jed Wallace, Ursula Wright, and Sierra Jenkins.
School choice was the clarion call of the segregationists. In so many ways, the charter school industry is fulfilling that hideous dream.
We must stand up for special needs students. If a school takes public money it should be obligated to educate EVERY child!”
“The fruits of the charter school "movement" are beginning to ripen. Segregation on one branch, pregnancy tests on another, teaching the creationism "controversy" another, under-qualified educators a large bough, and discrimination against students with special needs a laden branch too of the charter school tree.
It's time to shut down the decades of failed charter and voucher experiments and focus on improving our public schools.”