Mike Petrilli at the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute has an interesting post about the high expulsion rate in DC charters (72 students are expelled from DC charters for every one expelled from the public schools). Be sure to read the story in the Washington Post that he refers to as well as the short video, in which Mike Petrilli appears).
Usually, corporate reformers insist that charter schools enroll exactly the same kids as the public schools. They even insist that attrition rates from charters are no different from public schools. They claim that if they could get high scores with “exactly the same kids,” why can’t public schools.
Petrilli disagrees. In effect, he says that charters are not for all kids. Charters are for strivers. So what if they kick out the lazy kids and the troublemakers. He thinks that’s a good thing because it rids the charter of the kids who don’t want to learn. That way, they can do their best for the strivers and not waste time on the non-strivers.
This commentary by Petrilli is refreshing. We can move past the claim that charters enroll exactly the same kids. We can acknowledge that they are created to skim off the best kids in the poorest neighborhoods. And increasingly, they are opening in affluent neighborhoods where they will skim off top students and destabilize successful community schools.
His post reminds me of a dinner I attended a few months ago in Chicago with a wealthy charter supporter. He said that they are schools for the kids who are motivated to succeed. I asked him what we as a society should do with the other kids. He didn’t know or care.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is exactly what I posted several threads back. I agree that his candor is refreshing. The thing is, the rheeformers will continue to haul out both arguments, it just depends on who they’re talking to. The corporatists have an amazing ability to make two (or more) completely contradictory arguments and pretend that they’re being completely sincere and there’s no disparity whatsoever. It’s a tactic they picked up from domestic abusers.
They are like the sophists that Plato & Socrates warned us about.
We have exposed the fact that Charters are “private entities” and they are not denying this but are actually using this fact to reduce their regulations, control their employees, the teachers and increase their profits.
We have exposed the fact that Charters “skim” the students from the Public schools and send back the ones that they cannot handle. They are basically forced to admit to this and are countering this by saying that this is the way it should be, save a few of them, the rest are not worth the bother.
Ok, so suppose that the “rheeformers” really wanted just to have schools with different quality of students. We could have A, B, C, D and F schools, the students could attend by their quality of work. If this is really what the majority of the American people want, that could be accomplished with Public schools.
But wait, would we need private corporations running these schools to do that? Would we need private corporations taking taxpayer money from the teachers and the students? No!
So, what it boils down to is that what “rheeformers” really want is the MONEY!
OK, what should be done with the troublemakers? How much quality of education for the huge majority should be sacrificed to make room for all? Today schools can’t expel kids, cannot discipline them, can’t fail them and the 95% of the kids that want an education are dumbed down to accomodate the slothful. My school had mostly good students and some bad. The really bad were expelled. The poorer (scholastically) were pretty much segregated into non-academic paths and easier classes. However, they could read and do arithmetic when they graduated.
What happened?
Yes Ms Ravitch and friends.
“What should be done with the troublemakers?” or is the only ‘solution’ that those who want to learn should be stuck with those who won’t, with the only way out is to move their families or homeschool?
egbegb,
When you state “my school” to what are you referring, the school you attended or a school in which you taught?
Duane
The school I attended.
Hah, so much for high expectations for all kids. Work hard, be nice, or get out.
Yeah, and the no excuses mantra seems to disappear when they don’t benefit from the slogan. Hypocrites all of them!
Cream. The secret sauce.
It is refreshing to hear a charter privatizing supporter admit they actually see the elephant in the room. As a 30 year teacher (20) and principal (10), I know there is much more to the reform movement than giving poor children a chance. I have heard it over and over from parents, teachers, community. I have consistently over these 30 years heard these complaints.
1. Low income people’s kids get resources my kids do not. I pay the taxes, their parents don’t work, I am having to pay for their kids and mine.
2. Other parents don’t support their kids in school. I do homework with my kids to make sure they succeed yet I have to pay taxes so that kids whose parents don’t help them at home can get someone extra to help them at school.
3. I make sure my kids behave at school. Other parents do not. My kids have to put up with other people’s misbehaving kids in their classes. This takes a lot of extra time from the teacher and the whole class misses out.
These are the big three – how people see the equitable use of resources, the equitable use of time, and discipline problems in schools.
This is what the reform movement is about whether the reformers will admit it or not – money and separation.
I am not making a judgement about people wanting more for their children – I just wish they would tell the truth of the reasons why so many of these reforms are being pushed across this country.
So Mike P,
What if you or one of your children were determined to be not worth it? A group of teachers or administrators decide your child isn’t working hard enough. He isn’t competing his homework. He doesn’t walk quietly in line, sit up straight eight hours a day or make eye contact at the right times. When and how do we decide that YOUR child is not worth the effort anymore? What age should we give up? Seven? Ten? Twelve?
Please help us decide when to toss a kid out and tell him or her, “Sorry…you’re just not worth the effort anymore. Good luck in life.”
Please Mike…share your criteria with us.
Evidently, you know better than the trained professionals. We will await your reply.
No kids are going to get tossed out. Some kids won’t be in advanced classes. Others won’t be on an college prep schedule. Others may be at alternative schools due to their behavior, but none will be “tossed out”. This is a red herring.
Really? Tell that to the thousands of families whose kids have been “counseled” out of charters. Sorry you’re not a good fit or phone call after phone call at work or fines you can’t afford anymore. They wait until after October so they can keep the per pupil expenditure, but many return to the public schools all the time. They ARE tossed out by the charters. They really need good test takers to stay in business.
Re: “skimming,” and focusing on NYC, where I live — Isn’t “skimming” also caused by private schools in NYC? And by the gifted & talented programs and selective-admission high schools within the public school system? And, on balance, by the public schools in Scarsdale, NY and Glen Ridge, NJ, where people with means so they don’t have to send their kids to school in the city with “troublemakers” and “kids who don’t want to learn”?
I don’t think there can be any serious debate that *all* of these schools have negative effects on the “regular” public schools in NYC. That’s obvious. But is it therefore wrong for parents to send their children to private school or to move to Scarsdale? Yes, parents have the legal right to apply to Dalton or Collegiate or move to the suburbs. But parents also have the legal right to put their child’s name in a charter school lottery. So leaving aside the question of law, do we think it’s morally just to permit those with money and savvy to inflict damage on public schools? What’s the moral and/or limiting principle? To me at least, this is actually a really difficult question to answer.
The private schools indeed skim, but they don’t do it with public money.
That seems to sidestep a lot of the moral question, though. It’s a limiting and legal principle more than a moral principle. (I.e., “yes, it’s morally wrong, but we’ll draw the line here because of the Constitution, or just to have a line drawn.”)
Also, people pay for private schools like they pay for televisions, with post-tax income. How much post-tax income they have depends on tax policy. A lot of people who send their children to private school might send them to public school if taxation levels were substantially higher. There might be both less skimming and more funding. In other words, it’s not public money, but it could be if our rules were different.
flerper,
To what “moral” principle do you refer?
Duane
“To what ‘moral’ principle do you refer?”
Duane: I don’t know. What I mean to ask is whether there is any moral justification for allowing private schools, selective-admission public schools, or urban flight patterns to inflict damage on public schools? There may not be a good one. By “moral principle” I mean a principle based on fairness.
Flerper: Free market capitalism does not know the word “fair”.
Plus “life isn’t fair,” I suppose.
Yes, our new US motto: survival of the fittest…every man for himself.
Take care of your own.
But private schools aren’t new. Nor is Bronx Science.
Flerper,
Well for starters in this country the only “morals” that count are those that are constitutionally acceptable. Now that doesn’t mean that said morals are right, good, ethical and just. It’s just that we have to ask if those practices are allowed by the various state constitutions which authorize all public education in this country. The Supreme Court has already ruled that private, sectarian and/or religious schools are allowed, that the government cannot coerce a parent to send their children to a public school as long as they are being educated in some fashion or another-including home schooling.
Have you read Rawl’s “Justice as Fairness”? If not I’d suggest it as a good starting point in understanding how justice can be tied into the concept of fairness.
And to R. Pointer, you are correct unfettered capitalism is anathema to fairness and justice. And unfettered capitalism in the public education realm is what the privateers would love to have come to pass, you know, caveat emptor-let the buyer beware.
Duane
I have read that book, yes, and Rawls’s concept of fairness is probably close to what I have in mind. But I’m pretty sure Rawls wouldn’t agree that “the only ‘morals’ that count are those that are constitutionally acceptable.” At least I don’t agree. The Constitution is just a legal document (albeit a very important one), and the Supreme Court determines what’s legal, not what’s fair (although thankfully the two aren’t always distinct).
Or do you simply mean that it’s not practical or productive to talk about what’s fair if what’s fair conflicts with the law? If so, I agree it’s not practical, and it may not be productive, but I’ve never really found “life’s a bitch” a satisfying answer to any question of fairness.
Also, I see no constitutional impediment to abolishing all of the gifted & talented programs and selective-admission high schools in NYC. Nor with raising taxes to levels that would effectively leave families unable to afford private schools. These may or may not be good policy proposals, but they’re not unconstitutional.
Flerper,
I pretty much agree with you on your last two posts. Because something is legal definitely doesn’t not make it just, desirable, good, etc. . . . And, yes, I am thinking that it really is rather impractical/nonproductive.
I happen to be reading Rorty’s “Philosophy and Social Hope” again and find his pragmatic arguments to be persuasive. So that may be a reason I see this “moral” argument to not be very productive at this point in time.
How would you apply the difference principle here? I think it could be easily argued that skimming in education does disadvantage the worst off in society. The examples that come to mind are engineering and medicine, but others as well.
That is the question, isn’t it. I can’t remember how Rawls defines the “worst off,” but if it literally means the handful or fewer of the very worst off, I can’t imagine any argument that skimming — by charters, by selective public high schools, by gifted and talented programs, or by private schools — benefits that group. The justification for
skimming would probably have to be utilitarian.
flerper,
What about skimming by medical schools?
At that point, we’re probably getting near the point where skimming might be justified. No? The worst off need competent medical care, assuming they get any.
If a private school on their own money without any public financial input can skim off of public schools no problem. The problem is when it is done with public money which is not supposed to be used to discriminate.
When my parents sent me to private school there was no loss to the public in fact they got a gift. I was not the public treasures financial responsability. They tested kids before they let them in at the time so in essence they were cherry picking.
The problem is when charter schools, which are publically financed, cherry pick. This is discrimination and should not be allowed. What we need is “Real Public Education” wherein we bring back the trade classes, arts and other outside studies. We need well rounded citizens.
These charter school pushers, if profit and power is what they are really after, put this money and energy into helping regular public schools succeed what could really happen? Unfortunately, they do not care.
Some who post here would argue that sending a child to private school does create problems for the public school by removing the most motivated students and the most passionate parents from the public school. Would you say those arguments are incorrect?
Private schools are not that large a percentage to make that much difference and most of them are religeous private schools anyway. Those who have the money and want a religeous education spend the money and send them there. Public schools have a different purpose in that they cannot cherry pick students and parents. They have to take every combination and be equitable to all. That is the strength of public schools. They have to deal with it all and should as we are all a part of the whole. Who says a child who needs extra help is bad and we can throw them in the trashcan? Public schools are at the base of a civil society and we should remember that as all must mix together and get along and that is important.
The last figures I saw where that 85% of students are educated in public schools, 10% in private, and 5% in charter. Give that private schools educate more students than charter schools, I don’t think you can dismiss the impact of private schools on public schools.
What a cavalier attitude Petrilli has about the high expulsion rate in charter schools. He embraces this as a good thing? This is an abject failure on their part. I thought they had the keys to student engagement and were going to share them with the rest of us regular public school folks.
While I am glad Petrilli is owning up to the facts about charter school expulsion rates, I do not feel refreshed. I feel agony for the students and the families who have experienced being thrown out. What utter chaos.
And if they have the miracle cure, why do they have to toss any of them? They are doing what the public schools are not able to do, so why would they have any problems at all? No excuses until you need them, then there are plenty of excuses.
No one really cared about this until people started dumping on public school teachers for doing a “bad job”. Presumably, the money behind the reforms has already calculated exactly how much hypocrisy it can get away with before it becomes counterproductive to its real aims (profit). Once that point is reached — and once the profitable New Order of schools-for-profit has become safely ensconced in our educational system — perhaps it will back off on public school teachers.
After all, none of these investors really WANTS the sort of kids the public school teachers will be left with.
It’s hard to take Mr. Petrilli seriously when he conflates anti-charter with anti-reform, like Mr. Sevugan did on this blog recently.
I usually disagree with Linda’s comments, assumptions and statements. But she got this time. Nice comment Linda. You are correct this time. Now please don’t call me names.
Why would I call you names? I don’t even know what you are agreeing with and what you have disagreed with, so don’t worry. God bless you and happy, healthy and productive year to you.
It is refreshing to hear exclusionists to admit that their theory of education is to advance one group of students at the expense of another. One Louisiana state education board refered to the excluded students as “leftovers.” New Orleans educaton leader Martin Behrman understood the inherent flaw in this “progress by elimination” approach. The mission of public education, said Behrman, was is to serve “the unwilling as well as the willing.”
Ms Ravitch wrote…
“We can move past the claim that charters enroll exactly the same kids. We can acknowledge that they are created to skim off the best kids in the poorest neighborhoods. And increasingly, they are opening in affluent neighborhoods where they will skim off top students and destabilize successful community schools.”
Don’t district run magnet school and speciality schools do the same thing? How come you never (rarely) rail against them?
I have not seen that in magnet schools. Maybe private schools and charters, for sure.
Start here…
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/27/thomas-jefferson-high-school-sued-over-minority-admissions/
Here in NYC, absolutely.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you about magnets, and I’m as much opposed to them as I am to charters and vouchers. To hear what 7th graders go through here in Chicago is heartbreaking – almost worse than college applications. And if they don’t get into the top 1% or so to get one of the three top magnets, then, to hear people talk, it’s like they might as well have been consigned to prison. I’m sure, however, if you actually look at the non-magnet schools, they are all fine places filled with dedicated teachers. And if you look really close, you might even find students who are better off (and happier) at their neighborhood school than trekking clear across town at the break of dawn every day.
I don’t see why we can’t turn every neighborhood school into a “magnet”. Most public high schools in Chicago have well over 1,000 students and with that many kids, you’re going to find enough kids with talents/aptitude/interests to have respectable honors classes, language specialties, arts specialties, math/science specialties, etc., not to mention sports and other extracurriculars. And if every school were a magnet school, those opportunities would be waiting for kids who are late bloomers rather than consigning them to second-rate status if they’re not test masters in 7th grade. The middle-of-nowhere, 800-student high school that I attended managed to have respectable programs in all areas (and it got me into the University of Chicago), so I don’t see why neighborhood Chicago (and other urban areas) schools couldn’t do it (if they were adequately funded, that is).
Are you against it in higher education? Graduate and professional education?
TE – I have no problem with what private institutions do (so long as it’s legal and, preferrably, ethical, which is admittedly tricky to define), whether private (truly private, not charter or voucher funded) K-12 schools or colleges/universities. As far as publicly funded colleges/universities, I’m on the fence. There are some similarities, yet also some significant differences. For instance, even at a public university, the student (and/or his/her family) is still responsible for a large portion of the tuition, whereas public education is entirely financed by the taxpayers. Also, colleges and universities educate adult students who are free to attend or not, whereas K-12 educates minors who are required to be in school. And finally, college/university is the time in life when one is supposed to be choosing a field to pursue as a career, so specific institutions or programs geared toward specific interests/aptitudes are not a problem. So I think there’s more flexibility for public colleges/universities, but I still think that there should be public options available for all high school graduates, whether at least one state school per state or community colleges or something.
I am not sure that the funding source matters. As a society we do not officially allow private employers to discriminate on hiring or privately owned restaurants to discriminate against customers.
You might be pleased to know that my university still admits over 90% of the applicants (when I started teaching here the only admission requirement for in state students was a high school diploma). This does have some unfortunate consequences, however. Twenty percent of the first year class does not return for a second year. Students in the local high school know that it does not much matter how well they do in class, they can still go to the R1 state university.
The reformys will say whatever they think their audience wants to hear. Sort of like Mitt Romney did behind closed doors talking to the “corporate” audience.
I was definitely not a striver in primary or secondary school. That came later when I started college. The same is true of a fair number of my students today, who really flourish academically and intellectually . . . just a little bit later.
I would have been discarded, along with quite a few others who bloom late. Those who seek to quantify and qualify excellence fail to realize that it is a dynamic and not a static quality, nor is its advent always conveniently timed.
Petrelli says in the Post article that “These high-performing charter schools . . . are going to dramatically increase the number of minority students on our elite college campuses and in higher education as a whole.” What is to be gained by society if some students make it to college at the expense of other students who are relegated to prison?
How often do “scholars” complete bubble tests in college while walking in straight lines and being quiet? They may be expecting candy bars for good work, too. I read somewhere, can’t recall now, that KIPP is trying to get an agreement with Princeton to accept their students.
Petrilli is obvious spewing marketing bullshit when he states that they “are going to dramatically increase the number of minority students on our elite campuses”.
I’m going to earn a million dollars this year, too! Please help me by first off buying some exclusive ocean front property I have for sale at the Lake of the Ozarks in central MO. It’s only $500,000 per acre.
See I can “market” my bullshit too!!
Expulsion is worse than skimming; this goes on students’ records and damages their esteem far more than being rejected from a school their parents may have applied to.
Sometimes they end up in suspension centers far from home, and either drop out of school or learn bad habits from other kids who have been expelled or suspended.
But you are right; at least Petrilli is admitting (here) that the two populations of kids are different.
I completely agree with Diane that it is refreshing that a leading intellectual light of the charterite/privatizer movement actually says what’s on his mind. IMHO, he is taking this stance partly because he realizes the facts aren’t on his side when arguing that characterization/privatization is good for all students. So in order to keep the argument going, he accepts the inevitable in admitting that the Rheephormistas are not for “a better education for all.”
And just who merits special treatment? Why, the meritorious virtuous poor—although not of course anything on par with Cranbrook, Sidwell Friends and Chicago Lab Schools. As for the rest? That is to say, the undeserving poor? Diane put it perfectly at the end of her posting: they don’t “know or care.”
So many times here and elsewhere on the web people have commented about the importance of public schools in anchoring communities. Here we have an admission that divide and conquer, breaking up communities, turning neighbor against neighbor, is at the heart of the charterite/privatization movement.
To use a phrase coined by those I usually disagree with: this is pernicious social engineering at its worst.
So thank you, MIke Petrilli, for your advanced thinking on the web. You have just given this blog, and many others, a big boost. May I interest you in another hoistable petard?
🙂
And that is the secret to the success of “superior” private schools. They pick their students.
How innovative and revolutionary…the secret sauce isn’t so secret after all.
Should we design a school system that allows each student to learn as much as each student is capable of learning? Should we design a school,system that sacrifices the learning of some in order to increase the learning of others? Those are the questions that “skimming” requires us as a society to answer.
Exactly. Do we want any skimming effect at all? Do we believe that a certain amount of skimming is good, but too much is bad? If a only limited amount of skimming is permitted, how should it be allocated? People seem to steer clear of these questions, either because they’re difficult or because they lead to uncomfortable places.
No, we should not be sacrificing the learning of some for the learning of others, but everybody does not have to be learning the same thing at the same rate. We wouldn’t be calling it skimming if we were trying to meet the needs of all students equally. It becomes skimming when the resources available are inequitable. Note, I did not say equal, but equitable. That is truly where the debate happens. One way of addressing the question is who is going to cost society more if we marginalize their needs now? We also have to ask what are the benefits to society of those on whom we choose to focus our efforts? Perhaps we need to start with deciding what questions we need to ask.
Tracking writ large. And those left behind will be in front of computers
Yes, Petrilli is admitting the facts and I am glad we can finally move past the “same kids, better results” argument. But I want to open the conversation to look at which kids are left out and what the implication is for these particular children. In my experience working with youth with emotional/behavioral and mental health issues in Chicago, the kids being left behind by “choice” are overwhelmingly the kids who are suffering from the worst effects of poverty. They are, on average, poorer, speak less English, and have more significant special needs. I wrote more on it here: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/01/katie_osgood_choice_or_equity_.html?r=781880448
So to admit charters kick out children who don’t fit, and to make the connection that the kids who don’t fit often don’t fit because of the effects of deep poverty, then we admit that charters are discriminating on the basis of economics and ability. Should we give public monies (and since there is no new money being introduced to the system take it away from other parts of the already bare-bone system) to schools which have made it a policy to not serve all children? I feel this is EdReform’s weakest link. There should be some major class action suits brought up by parents of students with special education needs. (I hope someone out there is already working on this). Those students are entitled by Federal Law to a Free and Appropriate education. I believe that “choice”, by moving money away from the schools that service these children, is denying children an “appropriate” education.
I am looking to join/start an advocacy group in Chicago to look at this particular effect of #EdReform. There are no “bad kids” just kids with more intense needs. And my students deserve a fair shot, darn it!
“There are no “bad kids” just kids with more intense needs”
I know what you’re saying, but I’m pretty sure there ARE some “bad kids”. Craig Price comes to mind.
What is the admission standard for Thomas Jefferson high school in Fairfax County? That PUBLIC SCHOOL skims more than any charter school. Will you call for it to be closed?
Crickets.
Inequality and unequal opportunity has always been the status quo in American education, “Choice” reinforces the savage inequalities in our schools. This is why I fight for equity, not choice.
That sounds like a yes. Is it?
Selective enrollment and magnet schools do not say they have “better results with the same kids”. They do not claim they have proven “poverty is not destiny”. Magnets do not make some CEO somewhere rich. Magnets do not save money by hiring inexperienced and uncertified teachers. Magnets do not use “blended learning” in order to cut back on labor costs. Magnets provide a rich,well-rounded curriculum complete with the arts, music, and foreign language, not a test-prep canned curriculum often devoid of arts and recess. Magnets tend to have more humane discipline policies. And magnets do not need to get rid of unions or tenure to accomplish their goals. No one’s union busting agenda is served by investment in magnets and selective enrollments.
I believe that EVERY child deserves the kind of schooling found in magnet and selective enrollment schools. For too long we have allowed these savage inequalities to exist. It is not about taking away from successful schools, it is about adding to struggling schools. But will we as a society ever be willing to equitably fund schools so that ALL children have access to neighborhood schools with those types of experiences? No, now poor kids get ‘no excuses” charters. They don’t get the additional resources they deserve, they get resources stolen from some other sicker and poorer child in the system and pumped into an agenda, not a quality school. Nothing equitable about that.
Let me go through the list of things that limited admission magnet schools do in fact do:
1) They are EXPLICITLY DESIGNED to take he cream of the crop away from traditional schools. The parents go with the students.
2) They MUST TAKE FUNDING from traditional neighborhood schools. If they pull enough students out of the system, neighborhood schools WILL BE CLOSED.
3) They DESTROY COMMUNITIES by having students in adjacent homes and streets going to different schools.
These are some of arguments against charter schools, and I think they apply to magnet schools as well. Am I mistaken about this?
I actually do not know of the education available at a magnet school because neither I nor my children have had one available. I do know that my academically gifted son was miserable in the traditional high school, but excelled in the university classes he took in high school and now that he is in college at an elite university.
I’m not actually a big fan of magnet or selective enrollment schools. Magnets especially were designed to address segregation, but the overrepresentation of whites and middle/upper-middle class students tells me they have somewhat failed in their mission (they do tend to be diverse, just not representative of the city’s demographics). I’d rather have equity in funding and opportunity with more for all instead of any kind of choice for some. I just think charter schools are a low-quality version of the status quo of inequality being sold to low-income communities IN LIEU of equity and attached to a very specific right-wing agenda.
Neighborhood schools in low-income areas have always been neglected in favor of middle/upper middle class schools. Just now in the new world of marketplace schooling, neighborhood schools are being purposely sabotaged like never before for an agenda that is hell-bent on union-busting and profit-mongering. Charters bring a whole new dimension to the savage inequalities already present in the system. They don’t fix anything, they make it worse. Talk of desegregation is completely lost from the conversation. Progressive visions of what schools SHOULD look like have disappeared replaced by these too often cookie-cutter ‘no excuses’ test factories. They take away the very fundamentals of democracy by handing over the public good into private and corporate hands. Magnets and SEs have their flaws, but they don’t do all that.
Ultimately, all of this is proof that we will never truly fix the disparities in education until we fix the disparities in income inequality, school funding inequity, address the very real racism still present in our society, and yes, address poverty.
” I believe that “choice”, by moving money away from the schools that service these children, is denying children an “appropriate” education.”
Yes, Katie. THIS is the civil rights issue of our time.
Katie, I am sorry to tell you this but I am a parent of a special needs child and I don’t see or hear anything in my corner of the disability world (autism) that leads me to believe that my peers or national organizations understand just what the privatization movement threatens us with. I think the pushback will have to come from somewhere else. It’s disheartening to me, personally.
Perhaps we should start something then! They are taking resources away from our precious children with special needs, the ones who need them the most. I’m ready to fight.
Present in charter/reformer ideology and practice are many affinities with Victorian and earlier attitudes toward the poor. These attidudes are on display with a (literal) vengeance throughout so-called education reform. That they are falsely couched in contemporary liberal platitudes (“The Civil Rights Movement of our Time”), doesn’t change that.
The dynamic is one of sharp distinctions and policies concerning the treatment of the Worthy and Unworthy Poor. The Unworthy Poor – the “vicious” and ” idle” in Victorian parlance, the “troublemakers” and “lazy” in Petrilli’s – are subject to harsh discipline and reprobation. The Worthy Poor – Petrilli’s “strivers” – receive some more resources, discipline (No Excuses!!), much condescension and training for possible anointment into the middle class.
They don’t call it The New Paternalism for nothing.
Petrilli’s seemingly unconscious channeling of these attitudes also ignores the fact that charter schools systematically exclude special needs students and English Language Learners.
What did those children “do” to be included among the Unworthy Poor?
Be born to the “wrong” parents (or maybe only the wrong mother) at the “wrong” time and “wrong” place.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The curtain has been pulled back for a moment and see that they are, as the scarecrow says, “humbug!” I am amazed that someone would not spout the party propaganda all the time. It was never about helping all kids reach their full potential, it is only about helping those that help themselves. The rest get what they deserve though they are only children. Now if you bring me the witches broom stick you will be highly effective!
Your last sentence says it all. They do not know or care and that is all there is to it. That is why the “Correction Factor” and the latest DOE OIG report on the total lack of accountability over charter schools at all levels in Florida, Arizona and California. This audit is DOE-OIG/A02L0002. I am willing to bet the same problems are in your state also. This man is just stating the eliteism of the charter schools. You cannot properly compare two systems unless you have the “Correction Factor” included in the assessment. Would any of you charter school “True Believers” contest this fact?
Linda
If you think public schools don’t manipulate attendance to keep money you are dreaming.
Both charters and public schools do.
I am not so cynical to think that public and charter schools (both paid for
by the public school systems in most cases) are foremost about money.
I live it daily…not dreaming…living in reality. Can’t add kids, test booklets, class rosters, lunch counts, team totals, field trip numbers, homerooms, etc that don’t exist. Not sure what happened in your school. It doesn’t happen in mine. Charters report their numbers, but they keep the money after the kids are tossed out. That is reality here. Sorry to say.
+Linda
Love to talk with you about details. I have much to learn.
Public versus Charters is insufficient.
Specialize all schools and “charters” are irrelevant.
Is it OK to send a kid to another school after consulting with parents?
If parents want to place their child in another school (charter, magnet, religious, public, private, etc.) that is their choice. Obviously money is a factor for many families. I am not sure what you mean exactly. I would advocate for any child/student, but if a parent wanted another setting then they have that right. Ok?
Linda
I have seen magnets do the same as charters with respect to getting rid of students for all the above reason. Magnet school officials would laugh at community schools because they know what is really happening and the gaming they do. The only reason it is not exposed is because magnet schools are filled with union members so it goes hush hush. Let be real.
If I follow your logic then schools that are not filled with union members would not keep this hush hush, correct?
So charters in all cities are making it public knowlege how many students they are exiting each month and they are sending the pro-rated per pupil expenditure back to the receiving school, correct?
Just keeping it real from one union thug to you.
Y’know, for someone who doesn’t want to be called names, you sure are quick to make innuendos about union people. If you can’t take the heat….
I know…we are all lazy, incompetent, good-for-nothing child abusers who can’t even plan lessons or educate children, but somehow we will be competent enough to pack heat and defend children from psychotic assault rifle-toting maniacs.
The answer is
A magnet school for the unruly.
Two classes of school are totally insufficient. If many classes of school
can be created, the “private for profit” schools would be unnecessary. What
prevents a ISD from creating
a. High achievers
b. Ordinary
c. Unruly
d. deaf
e. blind
g. challenged
h. …
schools?
That is a serious question. Why have not such public
schools been created?
“Why have not such public schools been created?”
I suspect it has something to do with the parents of special education students, and their lawyers.
There is a difference between creaming the crop for highly gifted in a school district and giving them special classes as special ed has and creaming them away from all the rest into a distinctly private school with no connection to all others. This is blatant discrimination and should be intolerable. Charter schools have constantly, in general, lied that they would take the worst without discrimination. The facts show this to be not true.
George Buzzetti,
Could you articulate why there is a difference between creaming the crop for classes inside a building and creaming the crop for classes outside the building? What kind of connection is required between the buildings for it to be legitimate?
I thought I explained that it was inside of the district say for highly gifted to be in special classes and on the flip side are charter schools which are not a real part of the district by a separate private organization. This is how they are not called public schools in the court decision. Highly gifted should be allowed to advance at the rate of which they are capable. Discrimination is always wrong and all are as special as any other.
Special classes but not special schools?
I don’t really see why “inside the district” should play a role. My son, for example, had to take many classes outside the district to get an appropriate education.
If memory serves, I think you are in Los Angeles Unified. That school district educates more students than are in my state, a big square one in the middle of the country. It may be scale economies make things possible in LA that are simply not feasible in smaller districts.
I think it is a bit sentimental to say that there are no bad kids, just kids with really intense needs. We have to get real and admit that there are kids that public schools are not equipped to handle. It could have gone another direction: Charter schools with all their freedom to act quickly and respond to the demands of their own student population could have taken on the most difficult students. But they didn’t. Now public schools are stuck with the sentimental ideology, of education every student no matter what.
I think anyone who has worked in a high school has had the experience of looking at some kids and wondering Why are they allowed to come here when they do nothing besides harass other students and teachers and disrupt class? Despite all the phone calls, extra help, conferencing, etc. I don’t mean to get all Joe Clark on you. I can only think of a few students I’ve met who fit this bill, but public schools end up having to look more like prisons because the social problems that create these kind of kids are not being addressed. Meanwhile public schools’ stock is plummeting while charters ride around on their backs.
Wasn’t this the original idea behind the inception of charter schools before they were co-opted by profiteers?
Bingo, Alan (but without the high salaries, profits and lies).
This was the plan from the beginning. The profiteers were there from the beginning. Now, as in all investment tools, all have figured it out that here is another giant profit center. Do you have in your state and district school construction bonds which do not start to be paid off for 20 years? If you do you are now financially dead for the next 40-50 years. The payback on these bonds is (10-12)-1 instead of the regular bonds payback of 2-1 when you start to pay for them when you write them. These districts capability of writing new bonds in the future is dead.
Linda,
Thanks for keeping it real. But really? Most people including you and me belong to a union and they have self interest as they should. The point is that charters do the same as magnets in terms of sped and ell enrollment. Unions people including pro education blogs discuss charters more than magnets because charters threathen unions, including mine. Magnets do not. Your idol doesn’t write about magnets. Right? We know magnets dont dont pick certain kids. Happy New year to you too.
I don’t know what state you are in, but in CT due to a lawsuit about a lack of racial balance in Hartford (many years ago) our magnets must strive for a percentage of all races. So they do take all children who apply outside of the city area. They
cannot turn away sped. If that is what you mean. I do know teachers who work at magnet schools and that has not been what I have seen or heard.
I do admire Diane if the “your idol” comment was meant to be an insult. So that doesn’t bother me. I am sure Diane would comment on magnets if you asked her. It is hard to pick up tone sometimes..whether or not a person is kidding or not. Goodnight.
When I encounter people who tell me they don’t care what happens with struggling students, I remind them that they need to care – if not for social justice reasons, then for the selfish reason that some of the students without an education will hit them over the head at the ATM.
Linda
You are wrong about magnet schools in CT. I know their was a lawsuit and understand lottery but the data is no different between charter and magnet schools, especially in your home state. Look at the data in your home state. The only difference? Unions! Solution: create a separate lottery for sped and ell.You can call me names as i am grown but my point is that there are times that people make points that may be opposite of certain opinions and you tend to bash. And I don’t think unions folks are thugs as I am a union member myself. However, I believe magnets and charters have a selective system. And I was not being sarcastic about Ravitch being your idol. Nor was i when wishing you a happy New Year.
I am having a conversation with another person I guess. When did I call you names? I am sorry that my experiences do not match yours. I will leave it at that. Trying to make it to ten to watch the Frontline episode.
After watching Frontline, I think I understand how they kept the their funding for PBS!
Yes, Bill and Melinda pay so you play their way. They tell the bee story but leave out the duct tape story. Notice how her mother told her you don’t seem to care what people think; I am afraid you won’t make friends. She had no idea what he meant by compassion. I am starting to think the sociopathic terms does apply to this hollow human.
It just seems like crimes, crimes, crimes. Why aren’t there congressional hearings against all this discrimination??
It’s such swift erroneous manipulation of a basic right to a fair and appropriate education.
“I asked him what we as a society should do with the other kids. He didn’t know or care.”
So Diane, how do you comprehensively and constructively answer that question? Especially in the context of today’s economic climate and the willingness and capacity (or lack thereof) of our country’s taxpayers to pay for all the needed services of government, including education. Whether the “strivers” are in charters, magnets or neighborhood schools, what do we as a society do with the “non-strivers”, wherever they are?
I’d begin by saying that the basic principle of American education is–or is supposed to be–equality of educational opportunity, not survival of the fittest.
That’s where the conversation must begin.
Comparing your answer with Petrilli’s, it seems that you also don’t know but you do care.
If you don’t care, you don’t look for solutions. If you care, you start looking for solutions. If it were up to me, I’d turn to the most experienced educators in the system, the school, or this blog, and yes, we would have answers. We would not toss away the lives of non-strivers as insignificant. I assume you would. You better hope that no one ever decides that your children are non -strivers.
One good question to ask is, “Why are the ‘non-strivers’ failing to strive?”
If you’re a profit-motivated education company, you really don’t care beyond realizing that they aren’t striving and therefore aren’t profitable (servicing them will mess with the bottom line). You eat the fruit, throw away the peel, and let someone else worry about “garbage disposal”.
A poster claimed that high IQ students in the LAUSD where the most likely group to commit suicide. Is that also a way of throwing students away?
“We would not toss away the lives of non-strivers as insignificant. I assume you would. You better hope that no one ever decides that your children are non -strivers.”
1. Bad assumption.
2. The moral, ethical, and policy questions implicated by “skimming” are more complex than a single determination whether we should or should not “toss away the lives of non-strivers as insignificant.” I assume you know that. Bad assumption?
3. I have a son, in public school in NYC, and I worry about him. You don’t need to tell me what I should hope for him.
“1. Bad assumption.
2. The moral, ethical, and policy questions implicated by “skimming” are more complex than a single determination whether we should or should not “toss away the lives of non-strivers as insignificant.” I assume you know that. Bad assumption?
3. I have a son, in public school in NYC, and I worry about him. You don’t need to tell me what I should hope for him.”
Flerper, with the accusation that Diane does not have all the answers, you are actually over-simplifying the issue.
She stated that equality of educational opportunity is where the conversation begins–she didn’t say that the resulting inequality that stems from skimming those who strive is the only part of this dilemma that matters.
You obviously care about your own child. I await your solutions to the inequality issues we are experiencing in education on behalf of every child and the communities that benefit from equality.
If Mr. Petrilli had a chance to attend a cocktail party with the list of (by his definition
“Non-Strivers”)identified learning disabled men and woman who have contributed amazing gifts to our global society, I am sure he would make the time and buy the ticket. He would do well with a 101Course on how challenged learners are hard working “Strivers” which science recognizes along with their struggle and requirements for a level education playing field in order to achieve. He would of course try to find that value added gifted LD for his recruitment to the global workforce but would likely lose them as they often don’t come into their own later then the average learner. Often pushed through and many times dropped without the chance to explore their possibilites for success for themselves or us. The expediency of the Charter schools are not warm and fuzzy environments for these often creative learn differently learner.
But then, Mr. Petrilli, you know that with a world filled with enough value added problem
free babies you have no real incentive to finance or be concerned with educating the
rest. Afterall, there are not enough jobs for everyone anyway so this is really a numbers
game all along. The rest will fight for the scraps and be left to survive without concern
by those such as yourself. Shame!!
“He would of course try to find that value added gifted LD for his recruitment to the global workforce but would likely lose them as they often don’t come into their own later then the average learner.”
The same can be said of many students in the arts. It has been my experience that some students peek early as they are “discovered” for having some kind of “talent,” yet others will blossom later on. Often, it is the late bloomer who will actually have a successful career as an artist, and the student whose innate ability manifests itself while he is young often hits a wall. I have learned to never, NEVER give up on any student.
It does seem like there is a long list of now famous people who have/had learning issues of some kind; I can’t say that I’ve noticed that the “best of the best” tend to be more worthy of admiration.
I’m confident that if vocational and arts programs were expanded to be as robust as college prep ones, there would be far, far fewer students Petrilli could dub non-strivers.
Charters are like private schools in that they do not deal with problems they just eliminate them as they are bad for business in their model. Just look at who set up this mess, Why it’s Rhee and the other happy campers of the business model of education of our youth.
The corporate reform movement has been setting up an educational caste system from its inception. Petrilli is simply stating openly what the profiteers and politicians couldn’t say prior to NCLB and RttT at the risk of loosing the ‘sale’. They had to hide behind their rhetoric of saving poor kids to avoid push back from parents and community members who would never agree to the destruction of their public schools. They had to marginalize and demonize their critics (note how Diane has been expelled from the A list and attacked in the press) They could never reveal that private investors are funneling our public school money into the coffers of CEOs or that edu-compaines wrote favorable legislation through ALEC.
Arne Duncan’s DoEd has signaled they will not enforce equity, equality, or access for all children. Petrilli knows this. Privatization of our public schools is institutionalized all over the country backed by the full force of the federal and state governments.
Michigan is leading the way, too.
Well, his commentary might have been refreshing, your question to the charter supporter very important, but he obviously did know and did care! We had better come up with a meaningful practical answer to your question because the “Reform” movement has their answer, as have private schools and home schoolers and many in government.
Agree that it’s refreshing to see a nationally-recognized charter supporter concede that charters skim via enrollment, expel/counsel-out the problem students, and leave the neighborhood public schools with the unskimmed/problem students.
Seems like a productive/”American” approach to Petrilli’s arguments is to 1) shut down the charters; 2) allow the public schools to track students by motivation/behavior; 3) initiate reforms in the public schools specifically addressing the motivation/behavior issues, starting in pre-K and continuing through high school; and 4) initiate reforms in either the low-SES communities and/or the low-SES-area.schools specifically focusing on the educational disadvantages, particularly regarding health and limited word exposure/weak vocabulary, that disproportionately adversely impact low-SES students.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
I posted this on Petrilli’s blog.
Finally, honesty. We actually all know what you say is true. Anyone who has taught for awhile knows that even one majorly disruptive student can make a whole class hard to teach and result in less learning for all. We all know that high achieving students working together with only each other will produce better gains. However, as teachers we didn’t spend too much time whining about it. It was our reality, and we kept doing our best to give the most possible to each student. It was also our reality that we didn’t succeed with them all, despite trying our best.
Obviously it wasn’t enough because along came NCLB that told us we needed to do better, and really succeed with all kids. It still wasn’t worth complaining about because even though we knew NCLB’s demands for proficiency were going to eventually be impossible to attain, we knew that it was really our job to do our best by all of them. Then this morphed into VAM, doubling down on the idea that it was unacceptable for students to not succeed, making test scores the only thing that truly mattered and laying all accountability for achievement directly at the teacher’s feet.
So, we have demonized an entire generation of teachers because they couldn’t reach them all. Charters we have been told, were the answer. They could do what the public schools couldn’t. And now it turns out that these charters can’t reach them all either. Further, they are unapologetic about not even trying, because now somehow what we have been demonized for is ok. They are serving the needs of the “striver”, who shouldn’t have to be in classes with the “slackers”, who will simply slow them down. Slackers go to public schools, which will now be entirely populated with them, along with special ed. Students, and English language learners, i.e. those who can’t hack it in charters.
Well, Amen. But if this is true, why did we even care about the drop-out rate in public schools to begin with? After all, it’s just the same process getting rid of the dead weight. Let them go work in the strawberry fields. But I guess you can counter with the argument that in your scenario slackers still get to go to school. Wow. Public schools of the future = the new GED.
God Bless America
Damn straight, god bless friggin america!@!!
And all the daily killing of innocent women and children who are terrorists!!
Better to destroy them all than save any, eh?
Progressives and their education system. Sighhh
I personally am sick of teaching students who don’t care. 99.9999% of my failures are from students who are lazy and don’t want to do any work required for a course. It would be delightful to teach a group of students who want to learn. Even the honors students are grubbing for grades rather than wanting to learn. Multiple choice tests have ruined today’s students. They only want to get good grades with no effort and to know the “right” answer rather than exhibiting any curiosity. The others should have the opportunity of going to a vocational high school, which unfortunately, isn’t available in my county. Not all students are college material. The public schools and society need to value the trades as well as college prep. Charter schools might syphon off the top kids, but if all parents had vouchers and could choose where to send their students, then they could send them to good, solid, schools. Healthy competition is good for all.
Not all “college-material” kids are trade material, either. I shudder to think of where our society would be without American tradespeople. It’s bad enough every major corporation outsources labor–soon the prices of importing will catch up with us. You better learn how to be your own plumber and electrician, too. Car stop running? Just get a new one since you’ll “no doubt” be able to afford a disposable car just like every other citizen. After all, we’ll all be college graduates with excellent jobs. Future mechanics need not apply for an American education–apparently they’re supposed to go to college for STEM job-training since that’s all that matters.