He is especially disturbed by the idea that so many reformers are promoting a kind of schooling for poor children that they would find intolerable for their own. The people who fund corporate reform don’t want no-excuses schools for their children.
He asks an important question:
Why are the corporate reformers creating schools for poor and/or minority children that engage in practices that affluent parents would never accept for their own kids?
He argues:
It is fundamentally anti-American to espouse one type of education for poor urban children and another type for affluent suburban children. If we really, truly cared about these most-neglected and most-deserving kids, we’d be working to make their lives as much like those of their suburban peers as possible – both in and out of the classroom.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
He is, of course, right. But the charter school way is the fasted way to get scores up. It is about charter schools’ needs to please their donors so that they can stay in business. It is not about kids.
I think it is essential that education be tailored, as closely as possible, to the student’s individual needs. This is difficult or perhaps even impossible in a school system where admission is based on geographic proximity to the school. An earlier poster spoke eloquently about the difficulty of teaching a seventh grade class when some students are reading at a second grade level and others are reading at a post high school level. Why not allow for an education system that has a number of somewhat specialized schools designed around the needs of different populations of students? This could be an extension of the magnet school concept or charter schools.
Schools don’t generally provide the same education to every student so it’s not clear to me why this should be difficult. Quite the contrary, studies show class integration is great for poor students and does not hurt the non-poor. But punitive test driven education doesn’t ‘t work well for anyone.
I am not arguing for “punitive test driven education”, but for education that is designed around the student’s individual needs. I was not thinking about dividing students between poor and non-poor (though our geographically based admissions system does do that) but for matching student needs to school assets.
Define their individual needs, remember schools must meet “standards,” so the “reformers” must have their data. Individualization goes against the dynamics of group control. The agenda put forth is a business leverage plan, not really an education plan.
The key phrase,” if we truly cared” obviously they don’t
“It is fundamentally anti-American to espouse one type of education for poor urban children and another type for affluent suburban children”
This is so true. I attended a public elementary and high school in the suburbs and then taught special education in public schools located in the inner city. There was a great disparity between the two areas. The physical conditions of the schools were quite different and the amount of resources varied greatly as well. It really bothered me but I felt helpless to really make a difference. The Board of Education did not seem to be as concerned as I was. It was as if they were willing to except things as they were and had no desire to improve this situation. If nothing else, with the exposure of what the charter system movement is attempting to do, this disparity is being brought to the forefront for all to see.