A while back, I read a story in the New York Times that really bothered me.
It explained that neighborhood public schools are now compelled to “market” themselves because of competition with charters. In Harlem, charters are omnipresent, and the city administration has closed many public schools to make way for charters. New York City Department of Education officials make clear their preference for charters, leaving no one to fight for or defend the public schools against their competitors. If charters want public school space, they get it, usually over the opposition of the parents and community.
But what was so striking about the story–and you have to read to the end to find this–was the contrast between the resources of the public school and the invading charter. The public school had $500 or less to market itself, with flyers, brochures, volunteers. The charter–in this case, Harlem Success Academy–spent $325,000.
Wow. How can a public school compete when the charter can expend $325,000 to persuade people to participate in the lottery?
This story made me realize that the lottery isn’t really about admission to the school. The lottery is a marketing device. By whipping up interest, curiosity, and enthusiasm, all that money produces large numbers of applicants for the lottery. The lottery is an extravaganza with balloons, the turning of the wheel, the announcement of the winners, the disappointment of the losers. The daughter of a hedge fund manager in Connecticut, who is deeply involved in the charter school “movement,” produced a documentary called “The Lottery,” to promote charters.
Marketing is part of the business plan. Public relations is part of the business plan. Promoting the idea that charters are a cure for the ills of poverty is part of the business plan. Presenting charters as “the civil right idea” of our time is part of the business plan (a cry echoed by both Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney).
In some cities, the business plan is to replace public education altogether with corporate sponsors.
It’s sad that public schools must waste money and time marketing themselves. They should be devoting themselves completely to their mission, not to competing with the charters.
It’s also sad that the corporate and philanthropic interests that push charters so insistently don’t give a thought to the damage they do to an essential democratic institution.
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Of course one is reminded of this short story: http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html
All of the discussion of lotteries with charters just makes me think of Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery.” Unfortunarely, these lotteries bring about more than just one casualty each year.
America has finally found a way to make money off of children -charter schools and lots of standardized testing 😦
The bottomless marketing budgets of the Gates and Walton foundations vs. the strapped, bare-bones budgets of America’s public school districts.
When I first researched the Little Hoover Institute’s inchoate assembly of the structure and purpose of the charter school (way back in ’92), I interpreted their documents to be a framework for a public school under the regulation of the local school district. Further, charters were a part of the same funding as the district in which they resided. The charter school offered students an alternative to state standards. Publicly owned. Entry was often controlled through a lottery system. Privatization of charter schools was considered anathema to the original purpose of developing alternative educational sites.
National Association of Public Charter Schools publishes a “Lottery Day Event Tool Kit.” According to the kit: http://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/08-09_Charter_School_Lottery_Day_Event_Tool_Kit_20110402T222332.pdf
This event presents a wonderful opportunity to:
• draw media attention to the demand for high-quality charters,
• grow awareness among families of the availability of quality schools of choice, and
• create an opportunity for charters to communicate their quality and
success.
More here: http://madisonamps.org/2011/09/25/is-it-%E2%80%9Call-about-the-kids%E2%80%9D-and-what-that-might-mean-%E2%80%94-take-two-in-relation-to-ulgm-and-madison-prep/
NYC DOE has a budget of $24 billion per year. The DOE has a near total monopoly…parents without means to send their kids to a private school have little choice than to send their kids to their local district school. To compare a charter’s outreach (what you refer to as “marketing”), which is really a social justice imperative, to district schools budgets is silly. Everyone knows they can go to their district school, few know that high performing charters are even an option. Most of the outreach is done early on and tapers off as the charter makes a name for itself in its neighborhood.
Why is it that only families with with means are allowed school choice for their children? They can choose a private school or they can move to a district with a good school. Families without means have no choice, and some hope to keep it that way.
Read the links. Schools choose, not families.
I am not taking sides here, but I do have a question and it is from a Canadian perspective. When public education is failing, what are people, including teachers to do? We do not have charter schools or many of them at all and we do not have private schools. Public education has a monopoly. Certainly, there are bright spots, but I can disaggregate the data and show you the serious problems. For example, we have a dropout/incompletion rate of almost 30% in my province. This is even higher for indigenous peoples. I am not saying private or charter is the answer. In fact, I believe public education is essential to foster a democratic society and citizenry. Thank you.
Why would you think that turning schools over to a private corporation would produce better education?
As opposed to public school systems largely influenced by special interest groups? Everyone seems to forget or ignore the “traditional” public school politics and the dollars that (although not used for marketing) do still influence (or impact) the education of our children.
As opposed to allowing/continuing traditional public school systems to be largely influenced by special interest groups? Everyone seems to forget or ignore the “traditional” public school politics and the dollars that (although not used for marketing) do still influence (or impact) the education of our children.
I would not want private industry to run schools, because private industry has vested interests. I think there is substantial room for improvement and change in public education that we run the risk of losing it as an institution within a democratic society unless we act. I am just sure where to begin.
Sorry, I was not very clear. I would not want to turn over education to the private sector. I think they have interests which would or could run contrary to the democratic interests of people. What do we do to prevent the further erosion of public education and its role in creating a democratic citizenry? Several months ago I was informed I was an optimist to believe we could salvage public education. That is discouraging.
Why would you say “turning schools over to a private corporation” when you know perfectly well that there are no for-profit charters in NYC? Wall streeters also fund libraries, hospitals, opera, museums, health clinics, anti-poverty organizations, etc. Does that mean that all these organizations have been turned over to private corporations? Meanwhile, our public school districts are the target of constant lobbying by for-profit technology companies and other vendors and the districts are constantly falling for the bait and purchasing crap – something we as public school parents have no say over. It’s sad to me because you could use your considerable influence to push for important changes like better curriculum (e.g. history!) and better education schools and you choose to waste it by preaching same-old same-old to the choir.
Charters are run by private boards. They can make their own rules. They push out kids they don’t want. They have gone to federal court and the NLRB insisting they are not public schools. They won.
Some Charters are “Partially-Funded” by Private Organizations and Individuals. To make a blanket statement and say that these donors actually “run” or govern the curriculum is incorrect. But then again, I would expect nothing less from the poster girl for the anti-charter movement….
Do the rich play the Lottery? Likely not. If you have all you could want, why gamble? Much like gaming lotteries, the marketing of charter schools is geared towards the sector of society most likely to participate (or fall for it): the poor.