The National Education Policy Center regularly reviews reports from think tanks and advocacy groups. In this report, its scholars review an effort by charter school advocates to defend charter schools against critics. The conclusion: charters promote privatization and segregation.
“National Charter School Report Misleading and Superficial, Review Finds”
Contact:
Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.edu
Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org
EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 23, 2015) — A report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) attempted to “separate fact from fiction” about charter schools. The report addressed 21 “myths” regarding charter schools, which were quickly rejected. However, an academic review of the report finds that it perpetuated its own myths and fictions about charter schools rather than adding to the discourse surrounding school choice.
The report, Separating Fact and Fiction: What You Need to Know about Charter Schools, was assembled by NAPCS with no author identified. Gary Miron, Western Michigan University, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, and Kevin G. Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
Succinctly, the original report addressed various claims about charter schools in such areas as financial equality of charter schools, lower teacher qualifications, student selection demographics, academic outcomes, segregation, and innovation.
Yet, the reviewers found that the report’s main purpose appears to be the “repetition or ‘spinning’ of claims voiced by advocacy groups and think tanks that promote privatization and school choice.” Furthermore, the reviewers found that it relied almost exclusively on advocacy documents rather than more careful and balanced empirical research, and provides only a superficial examination of any “criticisms” regarding charter schools.l
The review is organized in a format that lists each of the criticisms identified, and then provides a short commentary based on the extant research literature. Where the original document overlooked research evidence, the reviewers provide readers with a valuable tool to examine charter school criticisms.
Additionally, the reviewers find that the report fails to redirect the sector toward its original ideals, “Charter schools were originally designed to be a new form of public school. They were supposed to be small, locally run, innovative and highly accountable. They were supposed to be open to all and were expected to provide new freedoms to teachers to creatively innovate and serve their communities.”
Instead, the reviewers point out the most disappointing non-myth that comes out of the research: “In reality, the main outcomes of charter schools have been to promote privatization and accelerated the stratification and re-segregation of schools.”
The reviewers conclude, this report is unlikely to be of any use to “the discerning policy-maker” and fails to engage the important underlying issues.
Read the full review at:
Find Separating Fact and Fiction on the web:
http://www.publiccharters.org/publications/separating-fact-fiction-public-charter-schools/
Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
The review can also be found on the NEPC website:
http://nepc.colorado.edu
Where does the Great Lakes Center get its funding?
Gary Miron is interesting because he’s a former charter school supporter. He testifies frequently in Michigan.
This is his testimony from 2011. One of the headings is “Who Stole My Charter School Reform?” 🙂
Click to access 06.01.11_miron.pdf
” A report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS)”
Like that subtle rebranding of “charter schools” to “public charter schools”. Lying bastards!
Yes, that little tic always gets me. Aren’t all charter schools allegedly supposed to be public schools? Are there any charters running around calling themselves non-public schools (I mean, except when it’s convenient not to like auditing or labor purposes, for instance)? Even the large for-profit chain charters still bleat that they are public when it suits their needs.
In Ohio they call them “community schools” in the statute, although it never caught on, despite earnest efforts at positive branding.
A charter is a grant of authority or rights, which is exactly what politicians did when they turned “public education” over to contractors. It’s easier for them than running public schools. This way they just distribute funds.
I think that’s been part of the branding effort from the very beginning — at least since the first charter school laws were enacted in the late 90s. Almost all the statutes start with something like: “Charter schools are public schools . . . .” And charter advocates never miss an opportunity the adjective “public” in there. I’m sure over the years Diane herself has written the phrase “Charter schools are public schools” many, many times.
I appreciate Miron’s testimony and work – I’m glad there’s some pushback to the narrative on charter schools- but I’d love to ask him how he thought this would turn out, back when he was promoting the idea.
He thought a deregulated contractor system of publicly-funded schools was without risk? He saw NO possible downside? He never, ever considered the (to me obvious) risk of political capture and the damage to the larger public school system as a whole?
That seems reckless to me.
Many times, I feel like we’re just hounds, baying around a racoon which we have temporarily treed. The charter chains don’t give a hoot nor a toot. Sure, some arm of the “movement” will stake out a push back paper and reliable sources will award 4 Pinocchios. But these charter chain businesses move blithely, smoothly, along with their business plans. Right now is all that matters. Right now, EMO’s are collecting fees and amassing real estate. Later on, maybe not so much. So what? The $$ will have been made and paid.
“. . . we’re just hounds, baying around a racoon which we have temporarily treed.”
Then we need to shoot the raccoon.
Yep, and Diane’s got the guns!
How’d that happen?
Diane, please delete the extra post, thanks!
What post, Duane?
Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind has already been made up and besides, I can make a LOT of money perpetrating that mythology which lines my pockets.
Hillary spoke today. I do not know, yet, if she said anything about education. I doubt it…probably more “maybe I will, or maybe I will tell you later”, but she might have talked about substance. I reread Diane’s april and November posts about Elizabeth Warren…..given what she is making strongly worded issues about, she seems headed for not being part of the Bush, Obama, Gates, Duncan…….and Clinton? crowd. Hillary is a more natural fit for them…..Warren is not………I hope Diane and others are proactive in making any significant differences between the two as visible as possible…….The reform movement clobbers women….and if Senator Clinton….who said in 2008 that as far as she knows Obama was not a muslim………..and has somehow made it possible for Rush Limbaugh to point out the women on her senate staff were paid 72 percent of what the men were paid……..is that true, because I certainly do not trust Rush……..Do not wait until late to demand the clarification we need, which the press does not care much about….regarding Hillary and the privatization efforts.
well….at least whoopi Goldberg gave a colorful description of the 72 cent thing.
130 million items on the google search today….if it is important to cover what’s his name yapping about Obama not loving the country……surely somebody will react to Hillary talking about a special place in hell for women who do not help other women….surely some sort of explanation will be demanded….or not.