Steven Singer has written recently about the origins of charter schools. He insists that Albert Shanker, president of the AFT, was not their father.
The real fathers of this first big step towards privatization, he writes, were Ted Kolderie and Joe Nathan of Minnesota, who wrote the nation’s first charter school law and opened the door wide for entrepreneurs, grifters, and attacks on unions.
Singer is a flame-thrower in this post, because he has come to see that behind the “progressive” facade of charters lurks Betsy DeVos, the Walton Family, the Koch brothers, ALEC, and a galaxy of public school haters.
He begins:
If bad ideas can be said to have fathers, then charter schools have two.
No, I mean two flesh and blood men who did more than any others to give this terrible idea life – Minnesota ideologues Ted Kolderie, 89, and Joe Nathan, 71.
In my article “Charter Schools Were Never a Good Idea. They Were a Corporate Plot All Along,” I wrote about Kolderie’s role but neglected to mention Nathan’s.
And of the two men, Nathan has actually commented on this blog.
He flamed on your humble narrator when I dared to say that charter schools and voucher schools are virtually identical.
I guess he didn’t like me connecting “liberal” charters with “conservative” vouchers. And in the years since, with Trump’s universally hated Billionaire Education Secretary Betsy Devos assuming the face of both regressive policies, he was right to fear the public relations nightmare for his brainchild, the charter school.
It’s kind of amazing that these two white men tried to convince scores of minorities that giving up self-governance of their children’s schools is in their own best interests, that children of color don’t need the same services white kids routinely get at their neighborhood public schools and that letting appointed bureaucrats decide whether your child actually gets to enroll in their school is somehow school choice!
But now that Nathan and Kolderie’s progeny policy initiative is waning in popularity, the NAACP and Black Lives Matter are calling for moratoriums on new charters and even progressive politicians are calling for legislative oversight, it’s important that people know exactly who is responsible for this monster.
And more than anyone else, that’s Kolderie and Nathan.
Over the last three decades, Nathan has made a career of sabotaging authentic public schools while pushing for school privatization.
He is director of the Center for School Change, a Minneapolis charter school cheerleading organization, that’s received at least $1,317,813 in grants to undermine neighborhood schools and replace them with fly-by-night privatized monstrosities.
He’s written extensively in newspapers around the country and nationwide magazines and Websites like the Huffington Post.
Read it all. Joe Nathan has frequently commented on this blog, defending charters as just a different kind of public school. I disagree vigorously because it is obvious by now that charters have become vehicles for busting unions (more than 90% are non-union), charters are more segregated than public schools (especially in Minnesota, where there are charters specifically for children of different ethnic and racial groups), and they remove democratic control in communities of color. The proliferation of corporate charter chains adds to their reputation as destroyers of democracy.
Bottom line is that Walton money, Koch money, DeVos money is not meant to advance public education but to eliminate it.
There is a reason that the Democratic candidates for president are distancing themselves from the charter idea. They understand that they can’t support the DeVos agenda. Betsy did us all a favor by removing the mask.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
At this blog Joe Nathan defended a pal. The pal, earlier in a comment thread, espoused Koch economics.
The anti-democracy Koch network isn’t just anti-government, it loathes the common good that it’s social Darwinist members can’t separate from socialism.
Robert and Rebekah Mercer, Bannon’s benefactors, steer the same pirate ship.
The truth is there is no substantive difference between DeVos’ approach to public schools and that of “liberal” ed reformers.
They haven’t been able to distinguish themselves from her because it’s the same plan, down to individual words and phrases.
Did you see that article about Corey Booker and DeVos? He is flailing in that interview. He first claims not to remember working with her, then has to admit he did when the reporter shows him 4 examples over a period of years.
He is unable to draw any meaningful differences in the approach to education policy, and he had to know this question was coming- he’s had 3 years to plan an answer.
If Booker can’t do it what are the chances any of the less savvy and experienced ed reformers can? They can’t do it because the differences don’t exist.
They quibble over payment mechanisms and how to design the privatized systems they seek but there’s no real “debate” in ed reform. It’s an echo chamber.
I sometimes read some of the paid cheerleaders and then go over to the US Department of Education and the language is virtually identical. Which shouldn’t surprise anyone- they’re the same people. They move from the lobbying groups to government and then back again.
If we hire an ed reform we don’t just get that ed reformer- we get the whole echo chamber.
“there is no substantive difference between DeVos’ approach to public schools and that of “liberal” ed reformers.”
Exactly right.
If Duncan/Obama were still in office, most Democrats would have no qualms with what they were doing because they had no qualms back when they WERE in office.
It’s a big dog and pony show.
It’s actually pathetic that they believe we are all dumb enough to buy into it.
Well even Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were “dumb enough” to believe it back then.
What we really need is a progressive who is willing to force the issue — discuss this realistically, much the way that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren publicly discuss Medicare for All. We have horrible public policy because we have horrible discussions of the issues (and the media is part of that). Let’s debate the pros and cons — you may have to give up private health insurance, but you are just as likely to lose that private health insurance anyway and most people aren’t very happy with that private health insurance anyway. I love when that issue is brought up in debates by Warren or Bernie as a talking point.
We don’t have that discussion when it comes to charters. Even in the last debate when a question specifically addressed charters, I hoped Bernie would provide a terrific rationale for his position. Instead he talked about “free college”. That’s an admirable program, but if politicians who (finally) stop supporting “public” charters as a panacea are unable to explain why to the public, then the public is just as happy to vote for a reformer.
Sadly, we have a situation where logical fallacy is the norm. Charters will save public education. Every public school should get the same results as charters. Charters should be free to teach whoever they want to teach with no local oversight to prevent them from teaching who they want because the parents of the kids charters want to teach like it that way.
We need politicians who support public education who can explain what is wrong with all the arguments for why charters must exist. Just like they explain what is wrong with the rationale for having two health care systems — private insurance for those who “like” their private insurance and Medicare for All for the people who insurance companies no longer want to insure and those who don’t have private insurance or who have it and learn after getting seriously ill that their private insurance doesn’t cover the treatment they need.
and so much of the exact same devastation being wielded monthly by “DFER” — the name/idea of Democrats For Reform still so brazenly thrown about by politicians across the nation
The presidential candidates have learned that it is not a good idea toaffiliate themselveswith the Bush-Obama-Trump education ideology. Even if they secretly do.
Charters are BAD!
“charter schools and vouchers are virtually the same”
In many states, the overwhelming amount of voucher money goes to Catholic schools.
I wouldn’t want to identify differences between a Catholic school chain (in almost 1/2 the states) getting voucher money that buys Common Core-aligned curriculum and utilizes blended learning and, a corporate-model charter school chain.
Rocks and hard places-
Speculating, if a Catholic school is in Ave Maria, Tom Stephen Monaghan’s town, the taxpayers potentially funding vouchers would have to acknowledge the Fla. legislature passed an anti-democracy law permitting the town’s autocratic governance, designated a “special interest ” town (Daily Kos). Questions were raised about Ave Maria, after papers were reviewed that critics allege, prohibit women wearing pants, using rhythm birth control, having hysterectomies even if the woman’s life depends on it, etc. Reportedly, the only GYN doctor in town won’t prescribe contraception medication to any woman.
Development of the curriculum for the Ave Maria law school was assisted by Justice Scalia. Clarence Thomas gave the law school’s first lecture and, Robert Bork was on the faculty.
Monaghan founded the Legatus organization, that has 90 chapters made up of thousands of Catholic CEO’s.
The candidates who claim to be progressive and Democrats may well get their talking points from the Center for American Progress. Cory Booker has been a supporter of charters. No need to repeat myself.
Joe Nathan keeps trying in his redundant, mulish comments here to liken charters to magnets, ignoring the whole ‘locally elected school board’ thing. He wants communities to give away their democratic rights to run their own schools to grifters and exiled Turkish imams. Joe Nathan says why not let any greedy, feebleminded, entrepreneurial outsider run your schools for an exorbitant tax break? How about letting Boris Johnson run your schools? Heck, why not let Bolsonaro run your local fire department? Contract out your local police to Spetsnaz, anyone?
China wants to buy the London Stock Exchange. Let’s sell Wall Street
to Greeneland.
And if you click the link and go to Singer’s site, you will get a chance to join his running “debate” with Joe Nathan in the comment section for his post.
I think Joe Nathan doesn’t realize that the war he started when he went after the public schools to replace them with “CHOICE” is heating up and may soon became a real war where one faction wants to erase choice along with Joe Nathan.
What happened is that charter supporters like Joe Nathan allowed their quest for power, influence and very likely financial compensation outweigh their quest for the truth.
There is no question that charters work well for the parents whose kids are allowed to remain in them, especially when the same people who support charters have used their billions to undermine traditional public schools so that the “choice” for those parents is an underfunded public school that has to teach the kids that charters refuse to teach.
But the big lie that charter advocates like Joe Nathan will push regardless of how many kids it harms is that the “success” of charters has nothing to do with their exclusionary policies. “Absolutely not” they say, our charter welcomes all kids and how can we help it that the things we do to target the kids for removal that we despise decide to leave?” It’s like a health insurance company that has a policy to refuse to pay for every procedure 15 times before finally recognizing it as legitimate and then says “how can we help it that sick people don’t stay on our policy?” Or they raise the rates of the sickest patients and say “how can we help it that those patients don’t stay, we gave them a choice and they choose to leave”. It is dishonest and I sometimes wonder how those people look themselves in the mirror.
There are others like Robert Pondiscio who say why the heck should any charter have to teach kids who aren’t highly motivated whose parents will do everything that is asked of them? And why the heck shouldn’t we all agree that all children who don’t do well in such charters are struggling only because their parents aren’t keeping their bargain and doing all that they promised to do? That’s is the fault of the parents and of course we should not expect any charter to have to lower itself to teach such poorly raised children of the parents I and the rich people who underwrite my generous salary despise.
Pondiscio embraces the tautology that the charter will welcome any student who tries hard enough and whose parent will do all that the charter asked. And the way that Pondiscio can identify those deserving students is that they do well in charters! And the way that Pondiscio can identify those students he knows deserve to be kicked out is that they don’t do well in charters because they and their parents fail to do all that is asked of them!
It’s like Pondiscio extolling the virtues of a health insurance company that just wants to encourage patients to be healthy and the way that Pondiscio knows they are so great is that the health insurance company only keeps the patients who stays healthy and kicks out the ones who clearly don’t want to stay healthy and get sick. Pondiscio would marvel at how wonderful such a health insurance company is.
We really need to have a better and more honest discussion about charters. It is appalling that those who spout outrageously ridiculous justifications for charters are allowed to get away with it.
I notice that Joe Nathan always makes the same argument whenever people point out that charters simply refuse to teach the kids they don’t want to teach.
Whenever that comes up, Joe Nathan basically says as long as there is a magnet school that is part of a public school system then charters have a right to choose who they want to teach.
It bemuses me to understand why Nathan insists that there is absolutely no difference between the charter movement’s complete abandonment of teaching unprofitable at-risk kids and a public school system’s establishment of magnet schools which in no way absolves that public school system of responsibility for ALSO teaching the kids who are not in that magnet school.
Think about what Joe Nathan is saying. Nathan keep saying that there is absolutely no difference between a charter only teaching the students it wants to teach and excluding the rest, and a public school system which has two tracks and teaches some kids in an advanced track and some kids in a less advanced track. Whether those two tracks of students are in the same buildings or other buildings is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that the public school system is responsible for ALL of those students’ education and spends money — often more money per student — to teach the ones who aren’t in magnets, too.
Nathan claims there is absolutely no difference between teaching kids who aren’t in the magnet in another public school, and having the kids who aren’t in the magnet rotting in the street because Joe Nathan’s pals don’t think they are worth teaching. It’s shocking that he constantly cites that as his justification for charters excluding so many at-risk students. Joe Nathan’s rationale is that it is fine for charters to throw the kids they don’t want to teach in the street because that is no different than a public school system with a magnet teaching the students who aren’t in the magnet in other public schools. Say what??
Now maybe what Joe really believes happens in public school systems is that once a magnet school is established, the rest of the kids are thrown in the street and told to figure out some charter that will take them. Maybe Joe Nathan mistakenly thinks public school systems with magnet schools are just like charters and they say “we don’t have any responsibility for the kids who aren’t in our magnet school just like charters don’t have any responsibility for the kids who aren’t in their charters. They can rot for all we care.” But Joe is wrong about that and I don’t understand why he keeps posting responses where he pretends not to notice the difference.
It tells me he has no integrity. Nathan doesn’t really want to have an honest discussion. And that speaks volumes about him.
Joe is a master of false equivalence.
To understand Joe’s role in charter history, read Paul Peterson’s article explaining how the first charter law, written by Ted Kolderie and Joe Nathan, shaped the charter concept, cementing its role as a vehicle for privatization.
https://www.educationnext.org/no-al-shanker-did-not-invent-the-charter-school/
Diane and Steve give Ted and me way too much credit.
In the 1960’s, we called the kind of thing we’ve worked on “power to the people.” The “power to the people” theme is part of what led Kenneth Clark to insist that in 1968 that “It will be necessary” that new public schools should be created outside the control of local school boards. He recommended that unions, social service agencies and others be allowed to do this.
https://hepgjournals.org/doi/abs/10.17763/haer.38.1.vj454v36776725q7
As to polls about how African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and whites, feel, there are a variety of results. This poll, led by a University of Chicago professor, commissioned by the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation, surveyed a “nationally representative sample of adults ages 18-34”
Click to access GenForward-Education-Report_Final.pdf
It found that 65% of African American, 61% of Asian American, 58% of Latinx and 55% of white millenials said they supported charter schools.
This 2019 poll commissioned by Democrats for Education Reform, found
https://www.the74million.org/for-democrats-race-plays-a-key-role-in-support-of-charter-schools-new-polling-shows
58% of African American Democratic primary votes, 52% of Hispanic Democratic Primary voters and 28% of white primary voters “view charter schools favorably.”
As everyone reading this knows, both the Gates Foundation and DFER favor chartering. We can toss polls back and forth.
When people began working for African American and Hispanic voting and housing rights or began working for equal pay for women and men, the majority of Americans probably were not in favor. But these expansions of opportunity, within limits were, imho, great ideas.
The same is true in public education – families ought to be able to choose among public schools that are open to all. I’m opposed to any public school – district or chartered – that has admissions tests.
As also noted, for 49 years I’ve been a fan of, and have worked hard, to make it possible for educators to create new public schools or schools within schools, that are open to all. That includes terrific district programs like the Boston (district) Pilot Schools, the LA (District) pilot schools, New Visions (district) schools in NYC, teacher – led district schools in Minnesota, etc.
Charters have turned into parasites, sucking resources out of the already underfunded public schools.
Their primary funders are rightwing, anti-union groups and individuals like the Waltons, Koch, DeVos, Anschutz. They are promoted by the far-right organizations like ALEC, the Heartland Institute, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. They are supported by every Republican governor.
You fantasize that because Kenneth B. Clark proposed some ill-defined form of choice sixty years ago, that makes Betsy DeVos a leader of the civil rights movement.
Joe, the ground has shifted. Charters and vouchers are the agenda of the far right.
Public school choice that includes schools open to all – NOT k-12 schools with admissions tests, remains on the agenda for thousands of progressive educators who work in them every day.
There’s also a growing group of district & charter educators working together to create “teacher powered” and “teacher led” public schools – both inside districts and as chartered public schools. In some of these schools, teacher working in them are a majority of the members of the board that runs the schools. This represents a new professional option for educators.
https://www.educationevolving.org/
Many of them and I reject about 99% of the DeVos Trump agenda
Public school choice also appears to be favored by the majority of African American and Hispanic, and Asian Americans, ages 18-34 and African American, Latinx and Democratic primary voters.
Refusing to acknowledge these progressive educators and these people of color helps illustrate why growing numbers of educators are trying to create new options – some inside districts, some via chartering.
Joe,
I feel sorry for you.
You drafted the law that allowed entrepreneurs, grifters and corporate charter chains to flourish at the expense of public schools.
You opened the door to non-union, segregated charters staffed by TFA.
You are an ally, like it or not, with the Waltons (who funded you), and other rightwing ideologues whose fondest hope is to eliminate public schools.
I am sorry that you can’t understand that you were duped.
This ends our conversation.
Dear Joe,
Please contact Rev/Dr. Anika Whitfield of Little Rock and ask her why the African American community in that city is fighting to restore local democratic control of their public schools and OPPOSING CHARTER SCHOOLS.
If the folks polled were genuinely Progressive, imagine how much they would have loved and benefited from having their kids in Progressive education programs, with veteran professional educators, rather than in “no excuses” boot camps with young, inexperienced TFAers who’ve had just 5 weeks of training in summer school, usually right after they graduate from college with a degree in something other than education.
Many African Americans think their kids really NEED very strict discipline. I’ve heard a lot of black parents say that, and also some black teachers. Years ago, Oprah did a show on this and postulated that it’s primarily due to how blacks were treated in slavery and under Jim Crow laws. Maybe they internalized the notion that their kids are wilder than other kids and need to be whooped into shape. I don’t know, but I think it’s mostly because that’s how many of them were raised and they know no other way. They need to learn that research indicates that the authoritative parenting/classroom management style is much more effective (and also a lot healthier) than the authoritarian approach.
Acton Institute (2017)
“Teach for Christ” has placed 8 educators in 4 schools (Minneapolis).
The goal is 1000 educators in 200 schools in 5 years.
The progressive, Republican Religious (sarcasm)
Joe Nathan,
I noticed you didn’t address my criticism of how you always claim that charters are no different than magnet schools.
At least have the integrity to admit that there is a vast difference between a corporate run charter network that has no responsibility – financially, legally, or ethically — to any kid they put on a “got to go” list, and a public school system that does have that responsibility to ALL students. And that responsibility by the public school system doesn’t end by putting a kid on a got to go list.
And to see how dishonest you are about what parents want, you just have to watch the audience reaction during the South Carolina Town Hall with Hillary Clinton when she was interviewed by another rabid charter supporter — Roland Martin.
“But the original idea, Roland, behind charter schools was to learn what worked and then apply them in the public schools. And here’s a couple of problems. Most charter schools — I don’t want to say every one — but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation, because they do, thankfully, take everybody, and then they don’t get the resources or the help and support that they need to be able to take care of every child’s education.
So I want parents to be able to exercise choice within the public school system — not outside of it — but within it because I am still a firm believer that the public school system is one of the real pillars of our democracy and it is a path for opportunity.”
You just have to watch the incredibly applause that Hillary Clinton received after making that statement and Roland Martin’s uncomfortable looking off camera and attempts to cut her off to understand that parents want good schools, they don’t specifically want privately operated charters, but the people who fund you have done their best to make sure the public schools that teach the kids that charters kick out are underfunded and undermined. And that is because so many charter supporters believe with all their heart that the students that charters don’t want to teach do not matter. I assume you believe those students don’t matter either because you equate throwing them on the street to rot with having them taught in public schools other than magnet schools.
Your insistence that African-Americans would rather have privately operated charters that well-funded choice public schools overseen by the community that get millions of dollars in donations is insulting to African-American parents. They want good schools. Dishonest people like you insist that they demand only charters run by people who believe many of their children are too violent to deserve to have an education at all.
Joe Nathan should talk to Rev/Dr. Anika Whitfield in Little Rock, who is fighting the state/Walton takeover of the Little Rock public schools. She insists that the people of Little Rock, especially African American families, want popular control of the public schools restored. They do NOT want charter schools.
Even with promised payouts from billionaires, I wouldn’t act as their point man to take away democratic control of schools from my fellow citizens.
It takes a dark soul to do it, rationalize it and publicly defend it.