Jeb Bush’s organization tweeted on the morning of February 20 that I “liken school choice to Nazi invasion.” Whoever posted that tweet under the name of Jeb Bush’s organization either maliciously ignored the fact that the first sentence of the post says that the post was written by a parent, or was confused by the formatting. I did not liken school choice to a Nazi invasion, period.
I can’t do anything to diminish the malice of others, but I did revise the post to insert the words, “she writes” to make clear where her comment begins. And I added the link to the Naison-Bernstein post to which the comment refers.
I want to add that I defend the right of everyone to use historical analogies to refer to current events. People do that all the time, as well they should. Free speech permits anyone to use analogies to slavery, Jim Crow, the Brown decision, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the Great Depression, McCarthyism, Prohibition, the Holocaust, Chamberlain, the Munich Pact, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Pearl Harbor, or any other historical event or person to make a point. I believe in free speech. It is your choice to like their analogy or not like it, but it insults the intelligence of everyone to say that all historical analogies are out of bounds. If people make ridiculous analogies, then it makes them look ridiculous.
So to clear up any confusion, here is where the original blog begins.
This parent takes issue with Mark Naison and Bruce Bernstein, who wrote a post about how to tell whether your local charter school is avaricious. The few “good charters” are used by the corporate charter chains to clear the path:
She writes:
Superb list. Very true. However, I must disagree with this sentence: “We will not categorically write off charter schools because there are some great ones.”
Maybe. But the privatizers declared war on our schools, our kids, our teachers, our parents and our taxpayers.
We didn’t start this war, any more than Poland in 1939. But we must fight back. And ultimately, emerge victorious.
And when you’re in a war, and you’re defending the lives of your community, unfortunately, nuance or thoughtful qualifications become luxuries we can no longer afford.
Every “ed reformer” has lines like this down pat: “Well, charter schools aren’t a silver bullet. I’d never pretend that they’ll solve all of our education challenges. And I’ll be the first to admit that there are some bad apples. But we should all acknowledge that there are some great ones…” blah blah blah and before you know it, you wake up one day and you’re living in Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia or Indianapolis, with the mayor running the show, and cutting up “the pie” for all his fellow country clubbers and new billionaire buddies.
You may technically be right about some “good charters”, but I think such a reasonable concession is just what they’ll use as an excuse to then drive a truck right through it.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies really should be taken more seriously.
I am really coming to loathe “Godwin’s Law”. Mainly because of how it’s misunderstood and used to render a whole category of discourse unacceptable. Nazi comparisons shouldn’t be used lightly, of course, but the twisting of “Godwin’s Law” renders all comparisons unaccepable, and sometimes not only is the comparison relatively valid, but it’s important to talk about the similarities so that we don’t go down the same path again. Of course no two situations are the same, so of course education rheephorm isn’t exactly like Hitler invading Poland. But there are some valid comparisons that need to see the light of day.
Anyway, Glenn Greenwald wrote about it much better than I can here: http://www.salon.com/2010/07/01/godwin/
“so of course education rheephorm isn’t exactly like Hitler invading Poland”
In my opinion, it’s not even remotely like Hitler invading Poland. I think a safe rule of thumb is that if you’re smart and sophisticated enough to make a point without resorting to a Nazi analogy, then you should avoid the Nazi analogy. If nothing else, it eliminates the possibility of distracting discussions about whether the circumstances at issue are or aren’t exactly like Hitler invading Poland.
Flerper – Shall we just say the that Rheephorm “opens the door” to another invasion like Hitler’s invasion of Poland? When Democracy falls it leaves a deep drk hole.
Indeed. Good post! TY, Dienne.
I thought the analogy apt having more to do with the notion of appeasement. BEFORE invading Poland, Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and incorporated the Sudetenland. Britain and France did not intervene. The Polish army was defeated in weeks. Is this not akin to allowing charter schools to proliferate by taking space and resources from public schools, allowing the demise of democratically elected school boards in cities that have mayoral control, and the buying of school board candidates by billionaires in other cities? Are we to stand by and do nothing claiming some charters are “good”?
Yes, I thought about that as I was writing it and chose to take what some might think of as a small risk. Blogging comments, are often, by their very nature, a “first draft”.
For the record, I didn’t and I wouldn’t compare any “education reformer” to a war criminal or sociopathic nationalist. Give me a break. It’s a pretty subtle allusion, all things considered.
Admittedly, I thought about an alternative, such as “any more than (fill in the nation) in (fill in the year)” but every alternative was likely just as controversial or too arcane.
Incidentally, did anyone mention anything in a similar vein to Condi Rice and Joel Klein, just about a year ago, when they started barnstorming around the country, receiving a bit more coverage than my posting above, exclaiming that our “national security” will be at grave risk if we don’t privatize our schools, ASAP?
Nope, perfectly appropriate here, and can very reasonably be extended to include the hammer-handed use of extensive propaganda.
Lots of people who weren’t Nazis used propaganda. I agree with the comment above, I find it vulgar to make comparisons between one’s own situation and those who suffered through Nazi persecution. Issues of education tend to get us emotional: not only is it our profession, it’s our children. With this emotion there is a tendency to villainize those we see as threats to education in very emotional, hyperbolic, and inapt ways. Such characterizations, however, cheapen the dialogue and certainly don’t change any minds. If it’s been awhile, reread Night by Elie Wiesel… you won’t see many meaningful correlations to current education policy (or at least you shouldn’t if you have any perspective).
I also disagree strongly with the notion that we are somehow beyond thoughtful and nuanced discussion. This is a tremendously unsettling notion and is precisely what is wrong with our public discourse. What will save education from privatization? Reason, intellect, ingenuity, an informed public, and honest debate. In short, education will save will save education… not ideologues.
Not comparing our “suffering” to those who experienced Nazi Occupation. Comparing the circumstances which allowed it. Also not criticizing the concept of privatization but the reality of it applied to public education. Where do you live? I live in Louisiana.
I live in Newark. And yes, by making the comparison of circumstances there is certainly an implied comparison of situation. To suggest otherwise is attempting to cover up blatant emotional manipulation with intellectual dishonesty. In essence, the comparison made in the post is saying “like the Poles slaughtered during the blitzkrieg, we didn’t start this thing”. I am extremely uncomfortable with such a comparison. Why make it? Why compare the privatization of public schools with the attempted extermination of an entire people? Even if you can obliquely draw certain similarities in circumstances, is it tasteful… or respectful. The answer is no, it’s not. It’s melodramatic at best, cruelly insensitive at worst.
Agree!
Or, you could be living in Wisconsin…
“And when you’re in a war, and you’re defending the lives of your community, unfortunately, nuance or thoughtful qualifications become luxuries we can no longer afford.”
Aieee. That sounds a bit too close to Bush thinking (“You’re either with us or your for the Terrorists”) for my tastes. Just the other day you had a post from a founder of an Indianapolis progressive charter school begging for help and you seemed sympathetic to their plight. I also have to point out that the charter school union (tiny though they may be) supported the CTU strike here in Chicago.
I don’t know. I too have misgivings about any charter schools, even the “good” ones, because they pull money and other resources away from actual public school. But I struggle with the issue. I do think a lot of charters were started and continue to operate with good intentions and we needn’t make enemies where we really need allies.
Dienne — We’re talking about Nazis here, for God’s sake.
Did you use the words “progressive” and “charter school” in the same sentence?
rdsathene – I’m referring to Diane’s post from February 18 entitled “Indianapolis: Farewell to Public Education”. The school highlighted in that post was a progressive charter school (The Progressive School), according to the person claiming to be one of its founders.
Again, just to underscore my point: You used that words, not me. I never used that word—the one that describes the political group that took control of a major European country in the 1930’s. Nor did I mention the name of their infamous leader.
I never said that any individual in favor of privatizing our schools was a member of that group or anything similar to it. And, I revised my original comments, conceding that I may have written that part of my post in haste.
I hope that settles it.
Or will you now accuse me of equating the privatizers with bellicose military functionaries, obeying the orders of a sadistic megalomaniac in a black beret?
I accept what you’re saying, and I’m not accusing you of anything. My point had to do with rhetoric. You can’t invoke the invasion of Poland without invoking Nazi Germany. It would be trying to invoke the World Trade Center attacks without invoking Al Qaeda. I get that you weren’t trying to suggest that genocide is relevant to charter schools, but the comparison is lazy, sloppy, and almost never helpful. Witness, for example, the number of people on this thread that actually do think Naziism and genocide are relevant to charter schools. It’s just too much noise.
Who are you to accuse someone of being “lazy, and sloppy”? (@8:38 am).
I find your words rude and unhelpful.
Or — you could be living in Wisconsin — where now they talk of privatization as a way to make our public schools better for THOSE kids (“competition is good for everyone”) and refer to providing students with “scholarships” to choice schools (we no longer call them “vouchers”). There is a great deal of misinformation around the efficacy/success of the charters/choice schools… We have many true PRIVATE schools (academies) that have stellar academic records… we have a few charters that do well on “the test” and seem to be healthy places for children (although they tend to operate more like public schools with certified teachers and administrators… they have strong educational partners…)…. but, here, very few of them out perform our Milwaukee Public Schools… and many do much worse (as you — and other reputable folks — have pointed out). The right still holds tight to the adage: A lie repeated often enough becomes a truth — especially when it is repeated on conservative talk radio!
And do the good ones take the learning disabled, challenged learners who struggle
because of poverty (dietary deprivation, homelessness, abuse, just plain poor, etc.), social and emotional behavioral challenges? Do the good ones have an open enrollment and a working plant that lives up to the standards of all the mandates for the programming, services, programming, and accommodating physical plant for all the students? I think the point has been made.
Credit always should be given to what may be a poster child for what is a good example
of what is being sold, but this really is about selling and commerce, more then it is about the welfare and education well being of children. That is why it is reprehensible to think
a Democracy, a country dedicated to the masses and their opportunity for a future (no matter their station or ability in life) would sell out or give up on their public school system.
To say this is a true private public partnership is reaching beyond believable. The public
is pulled along while the privateers name the conditions of the movement. Closing schools in mass and then scattering children and neighborhoods to the four winds is not a partnership it is a sell out!! Follow the money.
Amen to to that thought!
The attacks on public education and teachers have been viscious, deceptive, and ruthless in too many cases. The propaganda mills at various think tanks with ample funding from the usual suspects have managed to frame reform in a way that has allowed the continued exploitation of our most needy communities. The fact that there are some good charters does not justify what has been perpetrated nor balance the instances of charters that have exploited children for profit.
Amen!
The only reason a charters is “good” is because they controlled the type of students that they allowed through the door. They are not doing anything new or great. The reform movement has stooped to the dirtiest, lowest, ugliest tactics in order to defame public ed and usher in corporatized schools. I agree that every measure should be taken to “fight” back because there is a “war” on public ed. The reform movement has put plenty of teachers out of jobs and ruined careers.(Look at Detroit and other urban areas) There are tons of teachers who were knocked out of jobs at a vulnerable time in life when it was difficult to rebound. (Many older teachers replaced by TFA) The charters are not good for teachers nor students. They are not a replacement for public schools. The whole movement is a fraud. I still can’t believe it was able to get the backing of so many politicians and presidents.
Follow the $$$$$.
There are basic assumptions guiding the conversation here that really do need to be tested. One is that public schools are necessarily good schools and that alternatives are problematic because they open the door to privatization. There is, of course, truth in these assumptions, but there is no value in defending what is indefensible and the quality of education delivered in some public schools is, in reality, indefensible because of the consequences for students who are so unlucky as to be in a bad school or in a classroom with a bad teacher. By denying that such schools and such teachers exist is to ask too many to ignore first hand experiences and believe in the institutions of public school and classroom teacher for reasons other than sound analysis and good sense. Even if it means giving “enemies” stuff upon which to build their arguments, it is absolutely essential that educators deal with reality as reality plays out in the minds of sensible people. If sensible people saw no problems in the quality of education received in some public schools by some public school students, then the outright defense of the system would be warranted. But enough sensible people do see problems and they see them in problematic schools employing problematic teachers (and administrators who work in problematic schools districts under problematic state boards of education).
The goal should be, can be nothing other than quality public schools for all students. Yes, quality public schools, not private schools or even charter schools. All schools should be good schools and good should be defined against the institutional values of the society, that is, at least until those institutional values are found to be faulty by a people so well educated as to be able to recognize the flaws in the institutions they have built and give permission to to regulate, to some extent, the lives they live.
If schools were providing students with the education they need to be able to think for themselves and the ability to demand a say in the operation of the society in which they live, with good sense (whatever that may be) then the people would have a sense of how to develop institutions that provided people decent educations.
What I think needs to happen is that we (whoever is willing to put in the time and energy) do what is necessary to set up the forums for discussion and debate about what constitutes sound education for a society such as ours, education supportive of the basic principles that govern our decisions as citizens of a democratic society as defined in the Declaration and the Constitution (if we decide that the principles ascribed there are still valid and adequate, which I think they are) and then consider the schools that are essential for such a society (perhaps we decide against schools) to live up to its principles before determining whether schools as they are are good or that they are in need of substantial change.
I think we would discover that substantial change is needed but only if we were to be upright and honest about what is right for people, not just the few, but all and built our schools to help people get at the truth of things so they could act upon their world in ways that would help it become a place where all people could lead decent lives as human beings.
Privatization is a terrible problem, not because of the source of the funding, but because of the motives of the funders. Public schools are not necessarily good schools because of the source of their funding. They are only good public schools if the public receives a good education. If there are good charter schools out there that do good things for their students, then they should only be shuttered when students can go to the public schools that are not charter and get an education at least as good as that provided by the charter. And, that selectivity issue, well that is a terrible problem too. But who gets to go where is not only a private/charter/public school issue; differential treatment of students is a concern in all types of schools, public schools notwithstanding. A school with a gifted and talented program, special education programs, and the like, select students for differential treatment. Our conversation should be an honest one about selectivity across the boards, the consequences not just for the some but for all and how we operate to insure that all are given the opportunity (and motive) for achieving all that they can achieve. This, of course, will raise questions of the possibility of equality when separated.
Anyone interested in talking about the complexity that makes both democracy and proper education of democratic citizens interesting subjects for discussion, get in touch!
Get in touch how?
Corporatized charters were promoted as the “answer” to the issues involving urban schools. They’ve done nothing to solve these issues. It’s a scam that helps people get rich. The idea that public tax dollars have gone to enrich corporatized school owners is obscene. The whole movement needs to end.The few anecdotal stories about charters mean nothing.
What’s a “corporatized” charter school?
A corporate charter is run by a corporation. Some are chain stores, like Walmart.
Should we distinguish between not-for-profit and for-profit corporations?
Many not-for-profit corporations hire for-profit corporations to run their charter. I oppose corporate control of public schools.
Even not-for-profit corporations that don’t hire for-profit corporations to run their charter? As in NY state. (Or are you saying that NY state has for-profit corporations running charters in this way?) What organization forms would you approve of?
I like public education, where every community has a good school that accepts all students. Schools with arts programs, experienced teachers, a good library, classes in history and civics and literature and foreign language and the sciences and math. I like schools that have social workers and guidance counselors and, where needed, health clinics. I like schools with a good physical education program. I don’t see why the public should support different public sectors, one that makes its own rules, and the other that follows state laws and takes everyone. Reminds me of the segregated schools in the South that I attended.
Would you close the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf? It is a state chartered private school that receives public funds. They did not have biographies for the board of directors, but it seems likely that at least one member of the board is a hedge fund manager.
I like all those kinds of schools, too. The arguments that outline the reasons why charter schools are desirable are well rehearsed, and I know you’re familiar with them, since you used to make those arguments yourself.
I was interested in what organizational form you find acceptable for a charter school. To me, there seems to be a big difference between a state like New York, which doesn’t allow for-profit corporations to run charters, and many other states like California and Wisconsin. But what I think you’re saying is that there is no acceptable form of charter governance. It would follow that all charter schools are, for lack of a better term, bad. Am I misrepresenting your views?
The lines have been blurred between for-profit and non-profit charter schools. The non-profits often pay their executives six figure salaries that are higher than what public school superintendents earn to run entire districts.
For example, Juan Rangal, CEO of the non-profit UNO charters in Chicago, makes more money for running 11 schools than Barbara Byrd-Bennett, CEO the the Chicago Public Schools, earns for running over 600 schools. Other UNO executives make six figure incomes, too. They got a $98M state grant not long ago (plus donations from corporate sponsors) and they are currently being investigated for awarding seven figure no-bid contracts to relatives of an executive.
Without much regulatory oversight of charters, there’s a lot of room for graft regardless of non-profit or for-profit status.
That sounds like a good argument to re-ink the lines.
Many good points, Mr. Lafer. However, there are two things I need to comment on, right away.
You wrote: “…and the quality of education delivered in some public schools is, in reality, indefensible…”
True. But why do we never see such public schools in Greenwich, Newton, Beverly Hills, Chevy Chase or Scarsdale?
Is that just a coincidence?
You also wrote “By denying that such schools and such teachers exist is to ask too many to ignore first hand experiences.”
I never denied the existence of good charter schools and bad public schools. I also never denied the existence of good, bad, and middling teachers in both types of institutions.
I genuinely appreciate and understand what you’re saying. And I agree with a lot of it. However, maybe it’s because I’m a marketing and sales guy, and not an educator—a much more difficult and skilled job, I’ll be the first to concede—that I think first of exact wording, the need for simplicity and brevity—or “punch”!—and the importance of staying on track with an easily understood and repeated message.
What I’d be happy to concede, debate and ruminate upon in an academic journal, or as part of a panel discussion conducted over lunch at a highbrow, “brand” university or think-tank, shouldn’t necessarily comprise our “talking points” that are critical when trying to reach a mass audience.
Let’s put it this way: If the privatizers go before an audience of 200 million American adults, and say “Our schools are failing!” or “We’re falling behind every country!” or “Teachers are lazy, apathetic and dumb and they can’t ever be fired!”…etc.
And if all we can say in response is the following:
“Well, when you consider all of the variables that are ineluctably involved in such complex assessments, and candidly evaluate the relative weight of the primary, aforementioned factors—while fully conceding your prior assertion, regarding the assessment parameters for faculty that are nominally employed, at least in a traditional pedagogical context, within traditional public institutions of primary and secondary education, it is undeniable—glaringly so—that some charters are quite good, and should always be a point of emphasis in any intellectually honest colloquy of dialogue regarding education, classified by any label—including public, charter, private and parochial, the latter of course, strongly associated with one of the primary theological orientations within the United States…”
then we’re going to have a big problem on our hands…like we already do.
Where’s the bumper sticker? Where’s the elevator pitch? Where’s the three-word summary? If these don’t exist, we need to create them. All of us.
K.I.S.S.: Because people have arguably never been more busy, more stressed and more easily distracted. Like it or not.
I don’t think Diane is comparing privatization of education to National Socialism. She’s using a legitimate comparison of those who start wars to those who defend themselves against aggressors.
I agree with her point that charter advocates are arguing that the exception to the rule proves the rule is a good and useful one—in this case, that although charters generally fail to live up to their hype, the few exceptions justify making charters a national model. An anomalous success sweeps away all legitimate criticism. Similarly, I am sure that there are pharmaceuticals that are effective that have yet to meet the test of FDA-approved trials, but that does not prove that we can or should dispense with rigorous standards of testing before we release that or any drug to the public. Basing public policy in solid evidence-based science is the best way to proceed.
Exactly. Had Diane said Pearl Harbor in 1941 instead of “Poland in 1939”, the Godwin card would not have been played. If there is a more fitting analogy in history, it would have to be a war that was waged against one’s own troops, like Stalin’s purges in the 30s.
A reminder of the CREDO research: only 17% of charters were found to outperform traditional public schools, while 37% were found to be worse than traditional schools and the rest were about the same.
If a 17% success rate was found in pharmaceutical trials, the drug would not pass muster and make it to market. That politicians, corporate sponsored “reformers”, etc. will accept a 37% failure rate as a fair trade-off for a 17% success rate for America’s children underscores that their priorities are really the money and power involved in privatization, not students and the achievement gap as they claim.
Just to be clear, Diane didn’t say any of this. She’s just cutting and pasting another commenter’s post. So we don’t know if she believes that you should never say anything positive about any charter school. But I suspect she wouldn’t compare the charter movement to Nazi Germany, even if she were desperate for a military metaphor.
There is no charter school, there are many charter schools. The success rates for pharmaceuticals as a group is very low, far far below 17%. Is that a good reason for you to refuse penicillin?
Excellent point! Without a colon distinguishing what the parent said or a link to the parent’s post, I’m not sure who said what now!!
Diane has said in the past that you can’t win a war by firing on your own troops though, because that is precisely what has been happening. Even worse, Obama, Duncan, Rhee, etc. publicly proclaim that they love teachers, while their policy actions attack, undermine and discount the voices of educators at every turn.
I think you are looking at success through trials to market rate, which is very low, not treatment response rates. There are many articles indicating very high rates of success for patients taking antibiotics such as penicillin including this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18823862
“And when you’re in a war, and you’re defending the lives of your community, unfortunately, nuance or thoughtful qualifications become luxuries we can no longer afford.”
I believe that attitude is common in the blogosphere. Right or wrong, it risks making many of our debates pointless.
Ken, I hope you’re not trying to draw false equivalencies here. Even a cursory knowledge of the history of privatization, and the vast advantage it holds in financial resources and political connections, should deter you from relying on such superficial and inaccurate comparisons.
One side IS in a full scale attack on pubic education, and the other side IS trying to defend and retain it. That IS it!
Ironically, it’s the intellectually lazy and cynical “They’re both doing it and they’re both just as bad!” nonsense that has done more to make our public conversations “pointless” than almost anything else.
“Ironically, it’s the intellectually lazy and cynical “They’re both doing it and they’re both just as bad!” nonsense that has done more to make our public conversations “pointless” than almost anything else.”
Completely agree!
Historically, the key to rendering a society helpless against its aggressors always starts with removing the educated or ability to be educated. It would appear that privatizing education is a systematic approach to eventually having a society that is not educated, just given information that is controlled by the very people who have the most invested financially in keeping it that way.
Could you point out the historical precedents that you are referring to?
I can’t speak for Michele, but the Nazis removed the educated in Poland: by massacre. The Khmer Rouge did it in Cambodia during their genocide, too.
I’m not comparing charter schools to genocide, honest. I teach Holocaust and genocide and take the comparisons very seriously. But Michele is correct that there have been groups that have removed the educated in order to control the populace.
I do agree with Jennifer, but I was specifically referring to the Armenian genocide which began when the Ottoman government began a systematic effort to wipe out the Armenian population in 1915. This began with the massacre of Armenia’s political and intellectual leaders. With the “educated” removed, it was easy to round up close to 1.5 million Armenians, tell them they were being relocated, and march them off to concentration camps in the desert before killing the ones who survived the trek.
I know that it has been done. But the statement was ‘the key to rendering a society helpless…” Just because it has been attempted, does not make it the key. In fact, far more aggression hasn’t bothered with the intellectuals and just killed without making the distinction.
If everything turns into grande hyperbole, we are left without the ability to have a discussion about anything. That is what this whole debate is about, is wild hyperbole justified? I’d argue that it doesn’t help and just contributes to the lack of intellectual thought that got us into this situation in the first place.
If the only way that we will beat back the privatization is to resort to their tactics, lies, slander, and hyperbole, then let them win–the country deserves what it got. I’m holding out hope that we’re really not that stupid as a country, just incredibly selfish and self-absorbed. A crisis usually shocks people out of that.
Who should decide what is wild hyperbole? Shall we have an Official Censor or free speech?
I guess that common sense would suffice. You sure don’t like the hyperbole when it comes from the reformers. I guess that the person speaking in hyperbole determines whether or not it is valid.
No, the person speaking hyperbole is not the one who determines whether it is valid. His or her listeners decide.
That is one major reason for education.
So the public is not fooled by people who make grandiose or ludicrous claims and promise to cure disease with snake oil.
“Who should decide what is wild hyperbole? Shall we have an Official Censor or free speech?”
And back we go into wild hyperbole!
Take a deep breath. We aren’t facing a choice between free speech and censorship. Nobody’s suggesting that the government (or even a private publisher) should put a prior restraint on any speaker who intends on making a stupid comparison to the Nazi Holocaust. When one commenter calls out another commenter for wild hyperbole, that’s not a threat to free speech.
agreed. Free speech is free speech. It is up to the listener to characterize it. What is “wild hyperbole” to one person is reasoned discourse to another. And vice versa.
One reason Godwin’s law has proved useful in online discussions is that once the law is violated, the discussion becomes less relevant to the issues at hand.
And what about NET NEUTRALITY? Folks, this is an assault on democracy…or what we have left of democracy. Public education is necessary and egads….education costs less than jails. Remember….FOR PROFIT JAILS!
To say that good charter schools exist is meaningless, unless you specify that they are schools that truly reflect the demographics of the (poor, underserved, as per NYS charter school law, for example) communities in which they are located, and successfully educate those students. Otherwise, it’s a fallacy to compare them with neighborhood public schools.
We know that very, very few charter schools do that, and we also know that a large majority of them, even with their cherry-picking on the front end and counseling-out on the back end, do no better or often worse that the public schools they are diverting resources from.
Those few mom-and-pop, community-based charters that serve the entire community (ELLs, Special Needs, SIFE and homeless students, etc.) will ultimately be closed or merged with a larger chain. Economies of scale and the logic of the business model of education will demand it. Having functioned as Trojan Horses to get the Big Money guys inside the gates, they too will be sacrificed.
And when they do, it will be just like in The Mob: nothing personal, just business.
Kudos, Michael. You’ve hit the target here, straight on.
Great job, Michael!
Thank you.
Let them operate as the private schools they are and charge tuition. They should not be taking public money, period.
Would it be ok to let the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf to continue to operate? Private school, state charter, and publicly funded.
Generally, war-centric rhetoric masks nuance and qualifications, as Diane says. But she’s correct in arguing that the goal really is a destruction of public education as it now exists.
When you look at neoliberal reformers’ plans, they aim to privatize the entire school system. They use “market-based reforms” to create an opening, but the end goal is the same as Friedman’s: parent choice, free market education.
When you look at investors’ demands, they reflect this. They mindlessly parrot “more charters!” and “turn school districts into service providers!” or, more subtly, “regulate outcomes, not delivery mechanisms.” The politicians they buy and beguile do their bidding.
It is definitely an existential threat that public education faces. Poland ’39 makes for a good analogy. US relations with China, a more delicte situation, would not make a good analogy — neither party has threatened the existence of the other, despite tensions and aggressions.
Diane,
I might be alone on this, but sometimes the way you introduce quotes from others makes readers who aren’t careful confused about who wrote what (I’m one of those readers). Perhaps there is a better way to format this? Not sure what that might be, but thought I’d point out the potential issue.
I suggest the use of a colon.
Seconded. (Hi, Ken! Hey, Flerp!)
I’ll go one further and volunteer that it would be helpful, Diane, if you clarified what it means when you “hoist” a comment from a thread to become its own separate entry. Does it mean you wholeheartedly endorse the content of the comment, is it merely meant to be a jumping-off point for further discussion, or is it something in between?
Leaving this unstated was problematic when a commenter wondered whether ‘teacher bashing’ may have motivated or affected the inhibitions of the Newtown shooter, it was problematic on this post, and it’ll probably be problematic on a different topic in the future.
I post whatever I find interesting, whether I agree or not.
It’s my blog.
Thanks, Ken.
I try to use a colon to introduce the writer’s comment and separate it from my introductory remarks. Sometimes I am hasty and forget to do so. Sometimes I make typos. Sometimes I forget to post the link and add it when I see my error. I have no staff. I do this alone. Try running a blog with more than 50,000 comments (I read them all), 5-15 posts daily, and writing a 600-page manuscript at the same time, while maintaining a speaking and travel schedule!
I’m not complaining. I love what I do.
But, Ken, I could use your help!
Your productivity is truly impressive. Please view my comment as a constructive one, potentially one with no practical solution. The role of the commenter is much easier than that of the blogger!
Thanks, Ken. I appreciate your attention and comments. I should have a research assistant but I can’t take the time to break one in.
“I should have a research assistant but I can’t take the time to break one in.”
Perhaps a veteran educator who could do the work at a distance and not need a lot of training would be less taxing on your time commitments. Someone like me?
Thanks for the offer. Send me a comment offline.
Why are there “some good charters” is the question. The answer explains why no charter is a good charter if funded by taxpayer dollars taken from a democratically run public school coffer. Why are not all public schools good is a more relevant question and one that needs to be answered and the answers used to improve educational outcomes or all children.
If anyone’s wondering what Prof. Ravitch’s own view on this topic is, below is her response to a David Brooks column from 2011:
Mr. Brooks has misrepresented my views. While I have criticized charter schools, I am always careful to point out that they vary widely. The overwhelming majority of high-quality research studies on charters shows that some are excellent, some are abysmal and most are no better than regular public schools.
Some charters succeed because they have additional resources, supplied by their philanthropic sponsors; some get better results by adding extra instructional time. We can learn from these lessons to help regular public schools.
Others succeed by limiting the admission of students with disabilities and those who can’t read English, or by removing those with learning problems. These students are then overrepresented in regular public schools, making comparisons between the two sectors unfair.
flerper: I was biding my time to see if someone would do the obvious—and minimal—research necessary to clear up Diane’s publicly stated views on the matter.
Not surprised it was you. Thanks. As someone might have said in the Jeffries Projects on the west side of Detroit [near the Lodge Freeway and a short walk away from Wayne State U] where I spent a few years in the 1960s as a teenager: you can take the boy out of the projects but you can’t take the projects out of the boy.
Of course, I am completely off topic here [answering a previous query by you I didn’t see until recently], but at least I didn’t incur a disciplinary fine at my local Noble obedience center for violating Godwin’s Law.
🙂
Fine and good, flerper, I agree with everything Diane wrote to Brooks.
But I was talking about winning in the court of public opinion. And damn it, I want to win.
Tell me about the last time Jeb Bush, Cory Booker, Joel Klein, Chris Christie or Michelle Rhee ever said anything positive about public schools, except other than as a rhetorical tactic, or useful prop in their stump speeches?
My goodness! And to think this entire thread was provoked by my offhand—and quite subtle—use of the first analogy that popped into my head.
Okay. Mea Culpa. Again, for the record, I never referred to any European country other than Poland. Neither did I mention any political ideologies or movements, nor refer to any individuals.
But, just to “clear the air”, please accept my revision (v.2) which appears below. Lo siento.
“We didn’t start this war, any more than Kuwait in 1990. But we must fight back. And ultimately, emerge victorious.”
Time to move on and discuss the actual substance of my post and my sincere contention that we are fighting—peacefully and always non-violently, in the spirit of King and Gandhi—for the very survival of our schools and our historic commitment to free, universal education for all.
Yes. I got the point from the beginning. I think things got taken a little too far. We got way off track, didn’t we!!!!
Don’t let our self appointed hall monitors grind you down.
😉
It was an excellent post and a very good conversation to have, IMHO.
I posted a response to your original post agreeing with the idea that our side genuflects too much when we discuss public education.
I am tired to having to admit to “bad public school teachers” at every turn.
I know of no other profession that is obliged to say “Yes, there are some bad ________”. Every time the job is mentioned.
Bad cops?
Bad military?
Bad lawyers?
Bad CEOs?
The private schools, and charter schools never seem to have to say this
(Really ALL of them are great, “cage busting”, excellent, teachers? Really?).
I think we allow the other side to frame the debate when we are so quick to offer up the bad teacher bit.
Ang. Thanks for the kind and supportive words. Much appreciated.
But, mainly thanks for your brilliant and cogent posting on the critical importance of “framing the debate”.
You hit it right out into the third deck seats with the based jammed. Congratulations!
Agree, Ang.
Regardless of what war you wish to use in the analogy, I need one thing cleared up: what is the role of the millions of parents who are applying to charter schools of their volition, many of whom are trapped, due to economics, segregation, or both, where they live?
Are they dupes? Misinformed? Would you send your own children to types of zoned schools that they are trying to avoid?
Taken in by lies and propaganda about the charter “miracle”
I agree, Diane,
How about these possibilities, also:
Taken in by the “our failing public schools” myth?
Frightened by the diversity of some public schools?
Upset that we cannot push their particular version of religion at the public school?
Having lived and taught in major urban centers, I can assure you that for many parents, the local school option is not much better than not sending their kids to school. The answer shouldn’t be charters, but for cities, states, and DepEd to do something about it.
I have no issue with the cry against public schools, I take issue with the fact that teachers and students get beat up over it and the people who really are responsible–superintendents, city councils, state DepEd’s, the clown Duncan, and even the President aren’t the ones taking the heat for it. Still just because i’m being wrongly blamed doesn’t make those schools any less of a disaster.
I’ll gladly clear that up for you, Tim. First of all, define what you mean by “parents who are applying to charter schools of their volition” (SIC)?
If my neighborhood school was deemed “a failure” by some ignorant, self-serving miscreant, with little or no real background in education, such as Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein or Arne Duncan—all of whom seem to close such schools with glee—I suppose I’d look like I was “applying to charter schools of my volition” too. Wouldn’t I?
If I’m forced into a choice of an expensive private school I can’t afford, or a charter school on the other side of town, I’m going to “choose” the charter. Aren’t I?
Some ARE duped, as most of us would, once the buzz starts flying around the school that “all of the smart kids” are leaving this “bad school” and running as fast as they can, “to the really good charter school—which they say will guarantee our kids admission to the very best colleges!”
“And, best of all, people are saying, they saw Bill Gates himself, saying that charters are WAY better than the dumb old-fashioned schools we used to send our kids to. And he should know, because he’s so rich!”
There’s your answer, Tim. Shouldn’t be too tough to figure out. Give me the resources of Broad, Gates, Walmart and a bunch of other hedge fund guys and I guarantee charters will be eating dust within the next 72 months…
I think it’s far more likely that positive word-of-mouth is what’s driving charter popularity, particularly from parents who have had an older child in a challenged district school. I’m also pretty skeptical that the Gates/Broad/Rhee message is filtering down from 35,000 feet — “Won’t Back Down”, which no one saw; WSJ editorials; wonky education blogs — to reach the ground.
Whites and anyone with the means have been bailing on our inner city schools for 50+ years (but as long as they are bailing for traditional district schools, all is well, right?). Just like cops, doctors, lawyers, etc., teachers prefer the best possible working conditions, so good teachers and administrators have been bailing on these schools, too. Throw in a dash of crime, a disintegration of the family structure, and an absence of families who have negotiated the college pipeline themselves, it is really hard to believe that parents would find ANY choice better than what’s at their neighborhood schools?
Oh, and regarding your last question, “Would you send your own children to types of zoned schools that they are trying to avoid?”
Yes. I can and I do so right now, today.
Like the public schools I attended, some of the teachers in my kid’s school are good. Some very good. Some not. Same with his and my fellow students, who ranged from future Rhodes Scholars—literally—to kids in the same class who dropped out long before graduation. (One of whom became a hotel janitor who recognized me when I was visiting a city near my hometown on a recent business trip.)
Any more “clearing up” required here?
One more thing, yes. I wasn’t asking whether you’d send your kids to your own local zoned school (or conversely, whether people are choosing charters over your local zoned school). An enormous amount of the charter school demand where I live, New York City, arises from districts where 75%+ of 8th graders aren’t proficient in English; where out of 1500-2000+ kids in a grade, maybe 5-6 kids score high enough to qualify for a specialized high school or middle-school gifted and talented program; and where the college preparedness (a student who can attend a CUNY college without needing remedial courses) rate at high schools is in the low single digits.
Would you send your kids to schools in these types of districts?
I wouldn’t. But that’s just me.
I think this is a fair question. But I think one always has to keep in mind the distinction between an individual solution to a problem and a social systems solution. If you personally are near a narrow exit during a fire in a theater, you may be able to get out first safely if you rush, but your individual solution will not work if everyone tries it. Nor does it solve why there were not proper fire exits in the first place.
So as a parent, you have every right to try to obtain the best solution for your child if confronted with a neighborhood zoned school that you think is unsuitable. Charter schools where they work do so by effectively selecting a specialized group of students with greater parental involvement and avoiding students with special needs or problems. That may work for you, but it won’t work as a generalized policy if all public schools are converted to charter schools.
In fact, in the DOE there are other available options also. There are gifted and talented programs in zoned schools, you have the right to apply to non-zoned schools if they have available space, and there are district wide or specialized schools available to apply to also. As a teacher and parent in nyc, this is what we did with our child who attends public school. But ultimately for the concern of everyone, the charter school option is limited social policy and other solutions must be tried and are available.
Thanks for getting this back on track. 🙂 I was wondering if anyone saw Rhee on Charlie Rose last night. Speaking of nonviolence…I wanted to jump through the tv and punch her in the face. Oops, did I say that out loud??? Seems like Charlie is drunk on the Ed Deform Gates Koolaid. Shame on him and PBS for perpetuating their lies. I have lost all respect for my formerly favorite interviewer. I know PBS has fallen victim to its high dollar funders, (Gates), but I thought Charlie Rose had more integrity than this. I have to admit, Rhee is really convincing. It’s a shame Mr. Rose didn’t even mention the DC scandal, or ask why her amazing results were unsustainable upon her departure. I guess it’s time to remove old Charlie from my DVR.
Charlie Rose is the most slobbering television interviewer I’ve ever seen. He’s like this with everyone. James Lipton gives harder-hitting interviews.
When Rose interviewed Diane, he quoted the results of the CREDO study on charters –that 17% are better than traditional public schools, 37% are worse and the rest about the same. Why educated people like him who are aware of these figures would still fall for the B.S. that charters schools are the saviors of public education is beyond me.
I’m not a gambler, but I’d venture a guess that the odds are not very good for bets on a 17%.success rate, when it comes with added perks (corporate contributions, extended time on learning, counseling out difficult to teach and more costly students, etc.) over a 37% failure rate. And we are talking about children here, not racehorses, as Obama and Duncan would like us to think!
Most of the arguments presented here are not arguments against charter schools, they are arguments against students choice. Geography as destiny is the orthodox position here.
TE you are certainly on the wrong blog if you want to find closed-loop charter school propaganda such as the slogan you are parroting.
Geography is not destiny, poverty is. School choice does not cure poverty. Neither does geography. Poverty programs cure poverty–as they have in other countries with far higher test scores than the USA (not cured, of course, but greatly alleviated).
Geography determines which traditional school you attend. Can’t afford to live in Scarsdale? New Trier Township too expensive? You don’t get access to those schools as you don’t meet their admission requirements.
Traditional school districts are designed to reinforce the socioeconomic segregation of housing in the United States.
You can transplant poor children from broken homes and come to school hungry into the richest schools in the country and they will still have poor outcomes. Schools don’t cause poverty, and they don’t cure poverty–they are merely reflections of their area. You are reversing cause and effect.
And if the richest schools have lower class sizes, and better special education services? Still “poor outcomes” for poor children who attend? And I thought I had a bleak outlook.
But the children who could benefit from the resources in the rich public schools, the ones that live on the wrong side of the district line, they must go to whatever school the politicians decide. Their education must be sacrificed to the greater needs of the community.
@teaching economist
The solution to your argument would be to fund all school equally, or even to fund poor schools more (which is what we do in NZ).
That way all kids in the poor school get to benefit not just the lucky one or two who get a scholarship to a private school or the ones who jump ship to a charter school (that is unlikely to be better).
I guess you’d get the point that splitting school up so they serve fewer kids each is economically inefficient.
Equal funding would probably help, but equal access probably requires unequal funding with more funding going to poor and rural districts than to rich and urban ones.
The best outcome we could expect from the traditional geographically zoned school system is a system of cookie cutter schools that do a pretty good job educating most of their students. Perhaps the courts will step in and force the schools to work on educating some students out of the main stream, but at least so far, courts have not required schools to provide an appropriate education for all students. I had to look for classes outside of the public school for my son, for example. Being able to choose between a variety of settings would allow a better match between school and student strengths.
But I disagree that giving *schools* more money (which we should do regardless) is going to make poor kids suddenly non-poor. That’s just nonsense. People are pushing on a string trying to do this. Or at least that’s the most charitable interpretation.
A more realistic interpretation is that charters in the USA have only two drivers, which are segregation and profits, and all of the protestations about helping poor kids is just window dressing for those two drivers behind the scenes.
Joan, I haven’t seen anyone ever argue that giving more money to schools would “suddenly” make poor children not poor. The argument is that it will give them a better education. You’re essentially arguing not that poverty is a major factor in education, but that it is completely and inescapably determinative. You’re saying resources don’t matter, that class sizes don’t matter. Maybe you don’t mean these things, but that is what you’re saying on this thread.
TE is implying exactly that. The notion that schools determine your social class is a common refrain (and fallacy) of the charter industry. They do this because lawmakers love the idea that solving poverty is just a matter of firing a few bad teachers, not the billions required to bring our child poverty programs in line with that of the other countries who kick our but in aggregated test scores.
And no, not “inescapably determinate”. Individuals can do anything one way or another (up or down). That’s not how you set policy though. I’m saying that the biggest factor is poverty, so we should attack poverty. I’m saying that if you pour money (and it would require a *lot* of it) into “schools”, they will end up looking like the Harlem Children’s Zone, which is a poverty program that happens to have a school. (In my view HCZ punches a hole in the charter school dogma, ironically).
I already said I’m for greater funding for schools across the board–obviously. We should do that because it’s the right thing to do. If this is positioned as a zero sum game, then we will get nowhere.
I do not mean to suggest schools determine your social class, rather the opposite. With traditional geographic admission criteria, your social class determines your school.
Hey, “TeachingEconomist”, if you REALLY believe the “equality” line you’re pushing, then why are you advocating the specious “turn them over to the private, for-profit market” as if it was some kind of magic bullet?
Is that what Barack Obama did for his children? Or Arne Duncan? Bill Gates? Michael Bloomberg? Did they “let the market decide” the best school for THEIR kids?
Why don’t you advocate—as I have for years—that every single public school in the United States receive equal funding, significantly smaller classes, and the same type of curriculum, course selections, and resources typically found at Sidwell Friends, Dalton, Andover and Choate?
We know what works. We really do. Just follow the elite and replicate the “choices” they get to make.
Capisce? 😉
But every single school can not replicate the choices that the rich have. Every SINGLE school can not be a Chinese language immersion school and a Montessori school and a Carden school and a Waldorf school and a Progressive school. A better match between school and student is one of the advantages the wealthy have in educating their children.
TE, I’m unclear on exactly what your point is, but if it’s that charter schools will help create “equality” then look no further than our own charter school here in Los Altos, CA. They require (in aggregate) a “tuition” of $5000/child per year and they recently raised, for instance, ~$300k in one evening–all for a school of about 500 students. Their students get to go on program-coordinated “field trips” all over the world. They have “free” (see above) elective classes for music and art.
This school takes money away from our public schools here, and diverts donations from more needy kids across or school district by allowing parents to donate directly to their own child’s education (which I would argue and I suspect the IRS will argue is not a “donation” at all).
Whatever “theory” you might have about the effects of charter schools is disproven by the inescapable *reality* of charter schools being used as discount private schools for rich people. A Rand corp study showed that 1/3 of charter school students come directly from private schools, and California has seen a steady decline in private school attendance perfectly in line with an increase in charter school attendance.
I am arguing in favor of choosing a school that best fits the needs and desires of the student. Puget Sound Parent said “Why don’t you advocate—as I have for years—that every single public school in the United States receive equal funding, significantly smaller classes, AND THE SAME TYPE OF CURRICULUM (emphasis is mine) ….”. The advantage that wealth gives is that you can choose the type of curriculum that best fits your student. The wealthy in my town can choose a Montessori school for their children or the public school. The poor in my town do not have access to a Montessori education.
It’s not just funding that makes those schools desirable, remember.
80% of their students are paying full tuition with no financial aid.
They have a stringent admissions policy that requires 4 year olds to sit for an IQ test and be observed in their preschool setting. Being admitted to the upper grades demands a spotless transcript and near perfect scores on entrance exams.
Teachers are hired as “at will” employees. They can be fired instantly. They don’t need certification or master’s degrees in education; they get 403bs rather than defined benefit plans, and they pay a generous chunk of their healthcare premiums (and their coverage ends when they retire).
Still want to proceed?
I think some people here are being sucked in by the propaganda, which focuses virtually all of the attention on education as being the grand elixir for mediating poverty, since big business and politicians want you to believe that, because they would prefer that the focus not be on jobs that pay livable wages for the Working Poor.
Look at these alarming recently published statistics for college graduates in America today and stop buying into and passing along the lie that education is the path out of poverty, “Graduate Glut: Why College Graduates are Underemployed and Overeducated” http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765622561/Graduate-glut-Why-college-graduates-are-underemployed-and-overeducated.html
–From a member of the Working Poor, with multiple college degrees and decades of experience in my field, who knows all too well that education has not been the answer to ameliorating my life in poverty, but livable wages with benefits most certainly would be.
Link to better article summarizing this info:
“millions of college graduates over all—not just recent ones—suffer a mismatch between education and employment, holding jobs that don’t require a costly college degree.”
http://chronicle.com/article/Millions-of-Graduates-Hold/136879/
As a holder of one utterly useless advanced degree (not my law degree, which has proven quite useful), I’ve been there and I completely identify.
To whit:
“The New York Times Magazine said the [Harlem] Zone Project “combines educational, social and medical services. It starts at birth and follows children to college. It meshes those services into an interlocking web, and then it drops that web over an entire neighborhood….The objective is to create a safety net woven so tightly that children in the neighborhood just can’t slip through.”
We should be creating this “interlocking web” to stamp out childhood poverty in every poor area in the USA. Instead, the current “solution” to poverty is to close neighborhood schools. It’s insane.
The good charters are good in spite of, not because of their status as charters. Has anyone examined what the good ones have in common?How many more public schools are good for the same reasons?
My sincere thanks for the update and for clarifying your editorial policy on so-called rescued comments. I agree that people should be able to employ whatever terrible analogy they want, and I appreciate your willingness to engage your readership.