Jan Resseger reviews the evidence about the “portfolio” model of school choice and weighs in on the Burris-Ravitch critique of the recent paper from the Learning Policy Institute that supported that model.
She writes:
“The Learning Policy Institute’s report, The Tapestry of American Public Education, promotes a lovely metaphor, a tapestry of school options woven together—open enrollment, magnet schools, charter schools, and specialty schools based on distinct educational models. The Learning Policy Institute declares: “The goal and challenge of school choice is to create a system in which all children choose and are chosen by a good school that serves them well and is easily accessible. The central lesson from decades of experience and research is that choice alone does not accomplish this goal. Simply creating new options does not lead automatically to greater access, quality or equity.” Here is how the Learning Policy Institute proposes that such fair and equal choice might be accomplished: “Focus on educational opportunities for children, not governance structures. Too often, questions related to the number of charters a district should have address school governance preferences, rather than the needs of children… Work to ensure equity and access for all. Expanding choice can increase opportunities, or it can complicate or restrict access to convenient and appropriate opportunities, most often for the neediest students… Create transparency at every stage about outcomes, opportunities, and resources to inform decision making for families, communities, and policymakers… Build a system of schools that meets all students’ needs.”
“The Learning Policy Institute’s recommendations sound familiar. They are the same arguments made by the Center on Reinventing Public Education as it describes its theory of “portfolio school reform.” Portfolio school reform imagines an amicable, collaborative mix of many different schools: “A great school for every child in every neighborhood. The portfolio strategy is a problem-solving framework through which education and civic leaders develop a citywide system of high-quality, diverse, autonomous public schools. It moves past the one-size-fits-all approach to education. Portfolio systems place educators directly in charge of their schools, empower parents to choose the right schools for their children, and focus school system leaders—such as school authorizers or those in a district central office—on overseeing school success.”
“Under portfolio school reform, a school district manages traditional neighborhood schools and charter schools like a stock portfolio—opening new schools all the time and closing so-called “failing” schools. CRPE says that portfolio school reform operates as a cycle: “give families choice; give schools autonomy; assess school performance; schools improve or get intervention; and expand or replace schools.”
“This rhetoric is all very nice. But the realities on the ground in the portfolio school districts I know fail to embody equity and justice. I believe it is a pipe dream to promise a great school choice for every child in every neighborhood. For one thing, there are the political and economic realities, beginning with the operation of power politics which is always part of the mayoral governance that is at the heart of this theory. There is also the unequal access parents have to information, and the unequal political, economic, and social position of parents. And finally there is the devastating impact of the ongoing expansion of school choice on the traditional public schools in the school districts where charters are proliferating. CRPE calls its governance theory “portfolio school reform.” Many critics instead describe parasitic school reform.”
Resseger cites studies by Gordon Lafer and Bruce Baker that show the harm the portfolio model inflicts on public schools.
And she concludes:
“The public schools are our mutual responsibility through public governance—paid for and operated by government on behalf of he public. We have a lot of work to do to realize this promise for all children. Bruce Baker describes our responsibility: ‘More than anything else, our system of public schooling requires renewed emphasis on equitable, adequate, and economically sustainable public financing at a level that will provide all children equal opportunity to achieve the outcomes we, as a society, desire for them.’”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If the rephormers actually wanted school choice to address equity, they’d have to be willing to fully fund multiple school systems so that any family that wanted their child to attend a progressive school or a military school or whatever kind of school could have their pick of school and the school would have space for their child and the resources to handle their child, even if their child has special needs.
As Peter Greene frequently points out, it could be done, but it’s a matter of going to the taxpayers and selling a tax increase so there can be excess capacity in every one of these schools just to make sure that no child is ever told “sorry, this school doesn’t have room/ability to deal with your child”. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard rephormsters argue for tax increases, so I’m thinking they’re not all that serious about that equity thing.
So another minority generation has grown up with no skills to take them into the world of A.I. They can be the abused workers at Amazon, Whole Foods etc.
This has been the plan from the beginning, minorities were obtaining an education and racist America can’t have that. Minorities should always be the modern day slaves just like in the old days. Rhee and the rest of the racist groups are embraced because they have been doing the work of the racist government.
We all have blood on our hands because we all knew what was going on. We made sure these children have limited opportunities and that is what racism is all about.
I don’t need anymore reports to tell me what the pillars of Jim Crow are all about I have lived Jim Crow and know what it is
I just don’t think it’s true that ed reformers are “agnostics”. It’s a laughable claim if one reads their outlets and looks at their lobbying efforts.
It is incredibly and uniformly skewed towards the schools they favor- charter and private schools.
Chicago is a “portfolio district”. Did you know the wait lists are longer in Chicago for certain public schools than they are for certain charter schools? It’s true. Why aren’t they replicating those public schools with long wait lists? Why do we never hear about wait lists for PUBLIC schools?
Because it’s ideological, not educational. It’s a belief system. It’s an almost RELIGIOUS belief that anything “market” is better than anything “public” ESPECIALLY if the public school has a labor union.
Public schools won’t be supported or created in portfolio districts. The clear preference is for charter and private schools. It’s just a sneaky end run around public opposition to privatizing schools. They simply slapped a new label on the same dogma they’ve been pushing since Goldwater.
Go read any ed reform outlet and look for any promotion or support of any public school, anywhere. Occasionally you’ll find a throwaway line at the end proclaiming that they are “agnostics” with absolutely nothing to back that up. If they were agnostics they would be supporting SOME public schools. They aren’t. In fact, they spend most of their time denigrating them.
The portfolio models continues the parasitic relationship that public schools have with charters. Marketplace ideology is inherently unfair to public education as it presupposes competition, winners and losers. The public schools end up being the host to parasitic private entities. With too many parasites, hosts eventually whither and die. This may be the fate of many public systems. Equity is not a value in such a system. Our current system of out of control charters harms the quality of education public schools can deliver.
If options are a value to parents and communities, why not provide more funding to districts that want to create schools to address different needs, or that want to integrate schools, or even partner with another public school district to provide a needed service? Several states offer educational programs through a consortium model. Through this approach authentic educators are in charge of the plan and the changes. Moreover, there is no profit from such an endeavor. The profit motive corrupts school choice and has resulted in waste, fraud, embezzling and enhanced segregation. Where there is profit, student needs take a back seat to manipulating services to increase profitability. All governance of such schools should be directly accountable to the tax payers of the district. If these schools fail to deliver the appropriate services, the local board of education can opt to close them.
The portfolio model is just another step to complete privatization.
We heard the exact same song and dance when they started marketing charters- we were all told it wouldn’t lead to vouchers.
Now the echo chamber all support vouchers.
They never, ever move in the direction of public schools. It ALWAYS moves Right. It’s a constant negotiation based on wheeling and dealing to get permission for public schools to continue to exist.
If we just give them charters they’ll allow public schools, if we just give them charters and vouchers they’ll allow public schools, it’s a constant capitulation to the demands of privatizers. There is never a benefit to any public school. They’re permitted to exist. For now.
Agreed. It turns public schools into a host that private systems use to feed on. The private systems operated by amateurs get preferential treatment without accountability. Then, the public schools become the schools of last resort for the discarded students. It can never provide equity.
If you’re an ed reformer and you’re going to claim you’re an “agnostic” shouldn’t you have to show us something specific to prove that?
So let’s see. Let’s see the public schools they support. Because there are a lot of solid public schools and this “movement” is opposed to ALL of them.
The onus is on the people claiming to be “agnostics” to prove that, and they should be able to- they have “transformed” lots and lots of cities. So show us. Which public schools were supported, replicated and marketed? Find me a public school principal who says “wow, I was really helped by those ed reform folks- couldn’t have done it without them”
People who spend 90% of their time and money lobbying for charter schools and vouchers are not “agnostics”- that’s just nonsense, and worse, it’s deceptive to the public.
People can read this stuff themselves. Here’s one of the big promoters of “portfolio” systems.
He wants to get rid of public schools. I actually appreciate that he tells the truth about it. The goal is to replace your kids school with a contractor.
It’s really unfair to do this to public school families- to tell us you support our schools when you don’t. Just tell us. Then at least familes who live in these ed reform dominated districts can transfer to one of the ideologically correct forms- privatized schools – instead of just having support for their public school quietly withdrawn. Don’;t trick us.
https://twitter.com/osbornedavid?lang=en
The whole portfolio market-driven thingy? It doesn’t work, and in Oakland, we have yet another example of this right now. Four charter schools are up for renewal: 3 elementaries, and one middle school. Most are still low-performing, and according to Ed Code, performance (via test scores) is the most important factor in determining charter renewal. I don’t agree that test scores is a valid way to measure anything, but this is the game charters signed up for. If they don’t want to play by the rules of that game, then they shouldn’t be playing at all. But, in the end, I bet that the board renews their charters anyway. Virtually our entire board has been bought by our own local CRPE-loving charter support group, GO Public Schools (Waltons, Bloomberg). Even if they don’t, charters can appeal all the way up to the state level. And yet, we hear the constant drumbeat of closing underperforming district schools all the time. The entire portfolio model is favorable to charters, and they know it.
Here’s some more reading for you, from another lobbying group for “portfolio” systems:
90% unrestrained charter cheerleading and the usual throwaway line admitting that public schools still exist:
“But charter schools do not have a monopoly on excellence. District-run public schools, given the right levels of autonomy and support, can specialize and become excellent.”
https://www.the74million.org/article/robin-lake-on-the-25th-anniversary-of-the-center-on-reinventing-public-education-a-look-at-lessons-learned-new-imperatives-ahead/?platform=hootsuite
If you have a child in a public school you should know that your public school will be a low priority, and the focus will be on charters and vouchers, because that’s how this “movement” operates. Your school won’t get support or resources or marketing efforts, not like charters and vouchers will.
But to call this “agnostic”? Come on. Grudging acceptance that public schools may still exist despite the best efforts of ed reform is not “agnostic”. It’s a plan.
Please note that in Linda Darling Hammond’s report, she notes that 40% of the charter schools that have opened since 2001 have closed. How’s that for excellence!
I am disappointed by Linda Darling Hammond’s support for this nonsense. I heard her speak on equity when she was at TC. She really seemed to understand the issues. She cannot think that so much instability is good for poor students, especially since most of these poor students are also minorities. These young people need an anchor, not more churn and chaos.
The CRPE portfolio model says, on the one hand that we should all “Focus on educational opportunities for children, not governance structures.” On the other hand, there is a very clear concept of proper school governance—centralized with mayors in charge of a “portfolio of schools” and empowered to open and close these. The double speak is clear to anyone who follows the market-based thinking of the CRPE ideologues.
In any case CREP is moving along with new schemes to dismantle democratically elected school boards altogether in favor of appointed community councils. It is not clear who does the appointing, but mayors are not specically mentioned. These councils are envisioned as free of any educators (to avoid conflicts of interest !!!!).
This new focus (or new rhetoric) extolls the virtues of a “nimble structure,” and a version of “agile governance” of education by these community councils, especially in metro areas. The community councils would include academics, parents, businesses and interest groups (excluding educators) whose functions would be provifing oversight of current “learning providers” and anticipating future needs, especially labor force needs of the business community.
Almost all of the ideas in CREP’s November 2018 papers about agile governance and nimble structures assume that money follows the student in choice programs long promoted by the fans of vouchers and variants. Add to this ideology of customer choice in education, the mantra of “anywhere, anytime learning” much of this found in venues untethered to brick and mortar schools. Schools might remain as a cost efficient venue for younger students to learn “gateway skills.” Gateway skills focus on math and reading and a dab of civics in order to assure students are on track, by age 14, to being employable by age 18 (p. 5) https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/crpe-thinking-forward-local-governance-innovating-system.pdf
The November 2018 papers (really essays with only a few references) were funded by the Walton Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://www.crpe.org/publications/thinking-forward-funding-nimble-system
The enchantments with anywhere any time learning have long been promoted by the Us Department of Education, EdSurge, and KnowledgeWorks.org along with the eLearning Industry https://elearningindustry.com/guide-to-open-badges-beginners
CREP, housed at the University of Washington, is financed by money solicited by the University of Washington Foundation and passed to CREP as a grant. William H. Gates Sr. is a director of the foundation (and father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates).
The advocates of “portfolio models” are specifically NOT advocates of public school portfolio models. They want to have privately operated schools — whether charters or private or Christian or anti-gay or anti-special needs or “you just aren’t our kind dear” schools — to be part of the portfolio. Yet they are never called out on what their philosophy really is.
It is absolutely possible to have “choice” schools that are PUBLIC schools because they already exist everywhere there is a public magnet school and public vocational school. Those schools to not compete with one another for limited resources because they are all part of a single system and one school dumping kids means another school in the same system takes them. It means the school that dumps kids can’t brag about their success because they are the SAME school system that has to take the very kids they dumped from their other school. Imagine Success Academy not being allowed to dump all their kids into public schools so they just dump them into 50% of their own charters which have lousy test scores. Were that the case, Eva Moskowitz couldn’t brag about the fact that half of her schools have 99% passing rates because the public would rightly point out that the other half have 10% passing rates and those are her schools, too. And as those very education reformers who support her say, it isn’t the great public schools that are a measure of a school system, it is the very worst ones that are and once big charter networks have to dump their rejects into their own schools, the designated charter network school for their dumpees will always be the measure of their terrible failure.
We seem to live in a world where people with the brains of a Trump voter are in charge of education reform and people with the brains of a Fox News personality are in charge of reporting on education reform. People who believe that “sorting” children into those suitable to attend privately operated schools that can dump as many students as they want (and are heavily subsidized by billionaires) and those children whose cost to teach makes them only suitable for a public school is their notion of “reform”. It isn’t reform. It is sorting. With the greediest immoral and unethical people profiting from claiming that their sorting has helped so many kids that they should be paid lots of money for being so willing to identify the kids who are worthy from those who are not.
Many large public systems offer an array of choices to students. Sometimes districts band together to provide expensive programs through a clearinghouse like NY’s BOCES, or they pool resources in a consortium. Students do not have to give up their rights as in a charter; instruction is from certified and qualified staff, and accountability and transparency are all part of the deal. Taxpayers get a good service for their money, and nobody embezzles funds or steal real estate. Most large public systems offer far more choices than any charter school.
Arizona has effectively abolished school districts. This gives parents the ability to select any school that is in commuting distance. I think more states should pick up on this idea.
Michigan did that long ago.
It has not been successful. Students transfer from district to district. Districts spend cumulatively tens of millions of dollars advertising for students because money follows the students.
There is less commitment to one’s community when your children are attending a school in another district or town.
The results have not been beneficial in any sense.