A report from the OECD, which sponsors the international assessment PISA, finds that competition among schools for students (“choice”) is not associated with higher math scores but is associated with higher levels of social segregation.
“PISA results…show that, on average across countries, school competition is not related to better mathematics performance among students. In systems where almost all 15-year-olds attend schools that compete for enrollment, average performance is similar to that in systems where school competition is the exception.
“What this means is that school choice may actually spoil some of the intended benefits of competition, such as greater innovation in education and a better match between students’ needs and interests and what schools offer, by reinforcing social inequities at the same time.”
In the U.S., school choice began as an integral part of the opposition to court-ordered desegregation. The word “choice” was a code word for segregation. Southern politicians were all for choice because it would allow white students to “escape” to white schools, leaving black students in all-black schools. Today, charter schools are more segregated than district schools, even in districts that have high levels of segregation, according to the Civil Rights Project at UCLA. today, the media celebrates all-black schools if they get high test scores. Charters have become a way of enabling renewed segregation.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Many of us in the Chicago area are hoping that Karen Lewis is able to defeat Emanuel–the ultimate privatizer corporatist. We must return to a strong public school system for all our children with a diverse curriculum–where learning is also fun and a challenge. My training was “bring every child to his or her potential,” not teach to tests all day long. If ever there was a way to kill the love of learning, today’s emphasis on testing will do it.
Why should students love to “learn” when “learning” means “pass a test”? What a hollow, shallow goal. How is passing a test supposed to make you a better person or fulfill your personal desires? I get chills thinking about it.
The bottom line is:
Teachers can scream all they like but NO ONE CARES and NO ONE is LISTENING. (NO ONE meaning the 1% who own America & their followers).
This blog is preaching to the choir. America has the highest CHILD ABUSE, PRISON, and CHILD MENTAL ILLNESS of any industrialized nation and its growing….and NO ONE CARES and NO ONE IS LISTENING! the 1% are not capable of empathy or guilt.
It’s time to stop preaching to the choir and put that effort into a movement that can wake people up. That means educating the masses who have been indoctrinated for too long.
De Mause studies are used in university classes and may be too advanced for mainstream non scientific thinking, but its time to educate the masses:
http://www.psychohistory.com
Diane wrote, “In the U.S., school choice began as an integral part of the opposition to court-ordered desegregation. ” I disagree.
Some wealthy families used school choice in the 1800’s to send their children to private schools because they did not want their children to attend “common schools” with young people from low income families. Some Catholics established schools because they objected to use of heavy influence of Protestants in some early “common schools.” Colin Greer and other education historians have documented both of these actions.
Unquestionably some southern states used school choice to oppose court-ordered desegregation.
Some progressive educators and civl rights activists have used school choice to help more youngsters from low income families succeed.
So you’re saying “choice” didn’t start with desegregation – bigots have always used “choice” to keep their kids away from “those kids”. Way to help your argument.
I’m saying people have used school in a variety of ways. The single largest tax supported school choice program is called the suburbs.
People like Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Marian Wright Edelman and Walker Tee Walker (Dr. MLK chief of staff) have supported the charter approach because they see how it can help expand options for students from low income families.
Not all school choice plans are equally equitable – like the choice plans commonly supported here that allow some “public” schools to admit only those kids whose families can afford to live in an exclusive suburb, and “public” schools that have admissions tests and screen out students who can’t pass their tests.
Mr Nathan says, “Not all school choice plans are equally equitable…” Cami Anderson’s One Newark plan has both federal investigation and state lawsuit re discrimination. It’s hard to see her plan as choice–when she closed schools that parents may have wanted & required parents to list 8 schools.
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse.
If charters renew or increase segregation, it is affecting to a tiny degree a massive problem that was created and has been sustained by the “neighborhood school” concept; “save our neighborhood schools!” was/is the rallying cry of those opposed to court-ordered desegregation.
It is probably more likely that they BOTH participate in a form of segregation and that they are BOTH opposed to their own forms of “court-ordered desegregation.”
There is enough evidence to demonstrate that no matter how small or large a problem is, it is still a problem. It would help the conversation and the problem if BOTH sides did not engage in deflection but owned up to the problems and actually tried to do something positive to solve them.
Actually, there are more than 2 sides.
Some want to push all families into neighborhood schools, some are ok with options in a district if they are controlled by a local board, some are ok with public school options that go beyond what a local board allows, some who support charters oppose vouchers, some support vouchers and tax credits as well as public school choice.
As for segregation – there is a vast difference between being assigned to a school (as happened in southern segregation) and being allowed to choose among various options.
Here’s a link to a column that the first African American elected to the St. Paul, Mn city council, who also is former Mn Commissioner of Human Rights and I wrote about this for Mn’s largest daily newspaper:
http://strib.mn/1rI5IRR
True enough, but I think that the proportionality, scale, and the history matter. The first charter school was created in 1991, which was long after residential and zoned school segregation were a done deed. It is sad to contemplate how few districts devised meaningful, actionable strategies to combat segregation.
The constant harping on charters for worsening segregation without providing that context seems to be an attempt to drag the charter movement on to a third rail.
I fully agree that there are more than two sides, Joe, but again with the deflection? Charters and TPS still have their problems and you’re still pointing fingers instead of making an effort to actually fix problems. Just another charter apologist.
And Tim, so this is a size and time issue, eh? The essence of your argument here is this: If we just allowed charters to grow and if we just gave them more time, all those problems associated with TPS and charters will just go away because charters are THE answer. That’s just completely weak.
Have no idea what you are doing but our organization works hard to improve district & charter public schools.
http://www.centerforschoolchange.org