Gotham Schools ran a story that questioned why the city’s leading advocate for public schools had enrolled her son in a private high school after many years as a public school parent. The story subtly implied that she may have lost her right to advocate for public schools because she was no longer a parent of a public school student.
Leonie Haimson founded Class Size Matters and is a co-founder of Parents Across America. She is a fearless critic of high-stakes testing and of the Bloomberg administration. She has been the most articulate and persistent supporter of class size reduction. She currently is waging war against the titans who are invading student privacy. She works out of her home with no pay and a shoestring budget.
You can see why powerful people would want to discredit her. She is a force, she has a large following, and she threatens them.
Consider the premise of the article: only public school parents may advocate for public schools.
This is classic corporate reform ideology. Corporate reformers use this specious ideology to argue for the parent trigger, claiming that the school belongs to the parents and they should be “empowered” to seize control and give it to a charter corporation.
This is as wrong as the attack on Haimson.
The public schools belong to the public. They are a public responsibility. Everyone has the right to advocate for them as well as to criticize them.
You don’t have to be a public school parent to care about our public schools. You don’t even have to be a parent. You just need to care about children and the future of our society.
Full disclosure: I am on the board of Class Size Matters. I know Leonie as a woman of intellect, principle, and integrity. Her courage inspires me and many others in the struggle for better schools.
Also, FYI, I am a product of the Houston public schools, K-12. My two grown sons went to private schools in NYC. I have three grandsons. The older two attended religious schools. The youngest is a public school student in Brooklyn. I support public education. That is my right as a citizen, regardless of where my offspring went to school.
Thanks for the clarification about where your own children attended school. Yes, that is your right.
So we won’t see further criticism of people who make suggestions about how to improve public schools but have sent their own children to private schools?
(PS Our 3 children attended urban public schools k-12. None of these schools had an admissions test.
As you perfectly well know, it has to do with consistency. If someone advocates that public schools should be more like military academies, and sends their own kids to a military academy, I may not agree with their position, but at least I admire their consistency.
But when people like Arne Duncan and Rahm Emanuel advocate for public schools being more like military schools and then they turn around and send their own kids to progressive schools, that’s just blatant hypocrisy.
I think you’re smart enough to understand that.
Apparently we view the word “consistently” differently, Dienne. There often have been comments here, sometimes by Diane Ravitch, criticizing people for sending their children to private schools, and then pushing for certain changes in public schools. I think people have the right to recommend changes in public schools, where-ever their children attend.
Also, having heard Duncan speak several times, and having read things he’s written, I’ve never heard him say the only way to organize schools is like a military academy.
For example, last year he came to Minnesota and praised a district high school for developing a collaboration with a local 2 year public school. This collaboration allows high school students to earn an AA degree prior to graduating from high school.
http://hometownsource.com/2013/03/28/new-high-schoolcollege-collaborations-are-win-win-win/
You cannot be that obtuse, Joe Nathan, not to see the vast chasm between what Arne Duncan wants for other people’s children via RttT vs. what he whats for his own children by sending them to elite public schools in Arlington VA.
There is a vast difference between people like him and Rhee and Emanuel who destroy public education for other people’s children while sending their own children to elite progressive public or private schools vs. those who, perhaps with regret, send their kid to private school to avoid the hellhole that Duncan, Rhee, Emanuel and many others have made of public schools.
I send my daughter to a progressive private school to avoid the twelve (12!) annual standardized tests – not to mention the accompanying test prep – that she would be subject to because of all kinds of mandates on our local public school. As soon as public schools are allowed to operate more like her private school, I will very gladly put her in public school. What I want for all children is the opportunity to attend a school like my daughter’s school. I am not trying to destroy other children’s education while reaping the best for my daugther.
Again, I think you understand the difference.
Dienne, as noted, Mr. Duncan has recommended a variety of approaches. I don’t agree with some of them, agree with others. I disagree with much of what Rhee suggests.
I’m glad you’ve been able to find a school that works for your youngsters. There are great public schools all over the US. Sorry there is not one in which you have confidence.
Sigh. I know you’re being intentionally obtuse, but still. It’s not public schools I have no confidence in (again, as you perfectly well know). It’s the educational bureaucrats and politicians who are holding public schools hostage which I have no confidence in.
Nope, not being intentionally obtuse. It appears we have a different definition of “consistent.”
Also, I don’t think all people trying to improve public schools agree on what should be done. There is a lot of talk here about “reformers.” The facts are that there are a vast array of people (including many who work in public schools) who are trying to improve them. But for some people, “reformers” seems to be those who promote high stakes standardized testing, common core and some forms of school choice.
The world in which I live is more complicated. For example, the public school teachers and administrators who are developing new collaborations with colleges see themselves as reformers. So do I. The people at Main Street Academy who helped a kid with special needs who was having panic attacks 3 times a week at his large suburban district high school see themselves as reformers. I agree with them.
https://hometownsource.com/2013/04/03/now-he-has-hope-and-we-have-hope/
But educational bureaucrats and polititions are an inevitable feature of geographically zoned public schools. There is no way to avoid them.
Consistent = wanting for all children what you want for your own child. For example, if the “reformers” really think that drill-to-kill KIPP-style schools really do provide a good education, they should enroll their own children in such an academy *before* pushing it on other people’s children.
Despite how hard you’re working to convince me that you’re simply stupid, I think you understand that.
Consistent means holding the same standard for people.
Are you saying it’s ok to criticize some people who send their children to private schools and then make suggestions about how to improve public schools, and wrong to criticize other people who send their children to private schools and then suggest ways to improve public schools?
TE – not necessarily. Plenty of politicians, DOE administrators, school board officials, etc. recognize that teachers know their classrooms best and that the best they can do for education is to support the teachers and stay out of their way. The public schools I attended as a student were rarely plagued by overbearing administrators – our teachers and very wide latitude, as they should. Unfortunately, with the advent of the Broad Academy and ALEC legislation, fewer and fewer teachers have that kind of latitude nowadays.
Arg. “Our teachers *had* very wide latitude….”
I don’t presume to speak for Diane, but I never saw her complain about where politicians send their children to school, but about how the kind of education they want for their own kids differs so dramatically from what their policies dictate other people’s children get. Many politician’s kids are getting a progressive education, as many of them had in their own schooling as well, with a curriculum that has great breadth and depth, and they attend private schools, such as the University of Chicago Lab School and Sidwell Friends, where standardized testing is not a major component of education –if it’s done there at all.
That kind of curriculum could be provided in public schools, too, such as project-based learning, and I have had experiences with that there — but it was before the testing mania. Now, it’s not possible. I’ve worked in public schools where that was effectively banned in favor of a narrowed curriculum, in order to raise test scores, due to government mandates. That’s the issue that Diane has, as I understand it. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, Diane.)
TeacherEd, We’ve seen different things. But rather than debate the past, let’s look to the future.
Given today’s discussion, is it accurate to say that many of you won’t be criticizing people you disagree with because they send their children to private schools?
In my little town here on the plains, there is a private Montessori school, a private Waldorf school, and a private progressive school, as well as public schools with traditional geographically determined attendance zones. Can you see any realistic circumstances under which the traditional public schools adopt any of these approaches to education? I can’t, so unless public education moves away from the traditional zoned system, these approaches to education will remain out of reach for many in my community.
Sorry your community has not figured out the value of public school choice. Of course, some on this board have a record of pushing the neighborhood school and not recognizing the value, for example of having a Montessori option or a Core Knowledge Option or a progressive option.
There are communities that have recognized this helps students and allows educators a greater degree of professionalism.
Joe, I think you continue to misinterpret the point. It’s never been about whether people choose to send their kids to public or private schools. The issue is that politicians and policy wonks are choosing what they believe to be a decent education for their children in private schools, while the policies they advocate for dictate an entirely different kind of schooling in public education. Their mandates for high-stakes testing, overcrowded classrooms, and a back to basics curriculum have made it virtually impossible to replicate in public schools the kind of education that politicians want and get for their own kids at private schools.
That is a reprehensible double standard. It sends the message that only those who can afford a decent education deserve it. If no standardized tests and/or low-stakes testing, small class sizes and a rich curriculum are what is right for the children of politicians, then ALL kids should have access to that kind of education. I believe that preventing public schools from providing this is an abuse of power.
And it’s not about money. I have implemented project-based learning on a shoe string budget in a class with more than the optimal amount of students, so I know it can be done. It’s about all of the other constraints placed on public school teachers, due to political mandates, including high-stakes testing, that now makes it virtually impossible for them to implement curriculum they believe works best for the children in their classes.
Actually, Joe, many of us believe that those kinds of choices can be offered within the school system, as they have been in some cities for decades, in magnet programs at neighborhood schools as well as at magnet schools. There is no need to establish unregulated charter schools for such programs or to give choices.
Choice is certainly possible in a public school system, just not with the traditional geographically determined admission system. Many posts on this blog criticize magnet public schools as well as charter schools, especially if they have admission criteria that is not based on geography.
Yes, school districts can offer options. Some do, some don’t. As Al Shanker noted many years ago (decades before NLRB), teachers who try to create new schools sometimes “are treated like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lockstep.” If they somehow succeed in creating a new district option, “they can look forward to insecurity, obscurity and outright hostility.”
You’ll find a number of district educators working in charters because that’s an accurate description of what they faced when trying to create or operate an option within their district.
I have a problem with charter schools and vouchers for a variety of reasons, including because they are unregulated and they siphon funds from already cash-strapped school districts. I support magnet programs and magnet schools in school districts. I have not seen a lot of posts by people here who oppose them.
It sounds like you have a problem with the level if regulation, not a problem with charter schools per say. I think many would agree with you.
There have been many posts here opposed to any form of school choice, arguing that allowing for high performing magnet schools, for example, advantage Peter at Paul’s expense.
No, it’s not just about lack of regulations. I said there were a variety of reasons and you overlooked a very important one, that they siphon funds from public schools. I do not at all support charter schools or the privatization of public education.
This is exactly the argument that was used in 1970 when a group of parents and educators came together to create a new district public school K-12 school option in St. Paul. It was a district school but that did not matter to opponents because it was “siphoning off” funds from existing schools.
For decades there have been people resisting the idea that families should have publicly funded options. Some of us believe families should for educational reasons (no one best school for all students) and philosophical reasons (in a democracy, families should have only one option).
Of course, there’s the fairness issue too.. the reality is that unless the government insures some options, only the wealthy will have options. They can afford to move from place to place to select the “public” schools they want their children to attend.
If taxpayers approve of the allocation of funds, it would seem to be legitimate. Would you eliminate public funding for the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf because it is a privately run charter school?
Joe, if it was a district public school, then I don’t think that comparison applies. I have seen new public schools open in my area and was glad to see that parents and the community had a say in the establishment of those schools. Charter schools are not under the purview of the district and they compete with the district. In my area, I have yet to see parental or community input in their establishment or serving as representatives on their board.
Glad your local board is open to options. All over the country educators and families have encountered boards that were not.
Placements for children with special needs must be made on an individual basis and based on the student’s strengths and needs. If the multi-disciplinary team and family come to a consensus that the most appropriate placement for that child is a private school, then the district is obligated to pay for it, and I would support that.
Actually, I don’t have a school board that is open to much, but occasionally they have come through. For example, they were responsive when, in a gentrifying neighborhood, some parents wanted a new selective enrollment school for gifted, others wanted a new magnet school and still others wanted a new traditional neighborhood school. They satisfied the community by compromising and including all three components in the new school.
If readers must read the Gotham News story, please read the comments as well. Public school parents and teachers in NYC know what a committed advocate Leonie is.
Committed to her single issue, which is a red herring in the school reform debate.
Class size a red herring? That’s not true. Research supporting class size reduction is strong.
I agree, Diane, but wasn’t our side making a big fuss about one of Michelle Rhee’s daughters attending a private school? I think we need to be careful both ways. Thanks.
Michelle Rhee is attacking public schools. Leonie Haimson is defending them. Michelle Rhee profits financially from her posiiton. Leonie Haimson does not. Michelle Rhee is connected with standardized test fraud in DC. Leonie Haimson has no such charges against her. Michelle Rhee takes pleasure in firing public school personnel on camera. Leonie Haimson takes pleasure in defending an established democratic institution against selfish exploitation by private interests.
Leonie Haimson has nothing to gain personally by her devotion to public schools. Therefore, it does not matter that her children attend private schools. Michelle Rhee, on the other hand, is in it for the money and power. Therefore, her children’s school attendance, and her trying to pass herself off as “a public school parent,” are duplicitous and should be exposed as such.
I read Dr Ravitch as saying where your children go to school is irrelevant to the merits of the arguments you might make. I think that is true for all.
Excellent explanation, M, for those here who really don’t GET it.
Sara,
I don’t care where Rhee sends her daughters to school. I do care that she does not advocate the same thing for children in public schools (small classes, the arts, experienced teachers) that she wants for her own children.
I think this is the critical difference ssteve2–leonie wants education in public schools to be more like the education that private schools provide. Rhee, on the other hand, wants public schools to be more test driven. She does not advocate for smaller class size, for example, rather she focuses on test scores. Rhee’s vision of schools is very different from a private school. She believes in charters, yet, she has not chosen a charter for her daughter.
Private schools like the ones Haimson sends her children to are notorious for not offering tenure or pension benefits. Does she want public schools to be more like that?
The decision she made regarding her child’s education should not diminish her role nor impinge her integrity. She has walked the talk for many a year. The fact that she will continue is a tribute to her beliefs and dedication.
A parent and a student help explain how public school choice helped them:
https://hometownsource.com/2013/04/03/now-he-has-hope-and-we-have-hope/
My conclusion after hearing hundreds of these stories is that there is no single best kind of public school for all students.
One good argument against the Gotham Schools article might be: “If only parents of public school students can advocate for public schools, would it not follow that only parents of public school students should pay the taxes that support public education?”
I applaud your continued and extraordinary efforts, Diane, to keep us all informed.
Sent from my iPad
I find this “parents only” attitude deeply offensive. I am 61 and a grandmother. I’ve volunteered at my neighborhood elementary school for four years, this year for two days a week plus whatever special events or situations I’m needed for. I research and write about public education. I went to the Capitol as a citizen lobbyist on education bills. And more. I also substitute as an elementary media specialist (which pays slightly more than minimum wage) as a service. I don’t need the income.
Through all this, and more, I am more deeply engaged in my local schools than many, if not most parents. When Georgia’s parent trigger bill excluded me from any decision-making or voting, I was incredulous.
We worked hard and turned back the leguslation altogether. Concerned citizens with no school-age children shouldn’t have to fight for the right to participate in decision-making for their own tax-funded school systems.
“Concerned citizens with no school-age children shouldn’t have to fight for the right to participate in decision-making for their own tax-funded school systems.”
Yes!
How do they (charter advocates) plan to continue to collect $ from people (older persons, childless persons) and then give them no voice or direct benefit?
When we ask those people to pay for public schools they elect a school board (voice), they have incentive to want and even support good schools in the neighborhood (property values increased), they have benefits like local activities at the school.
What does the childless or older person get from “let the money follow the child”…ripped off!
Thanks Diane for sharing this. Readers might appreciate Peter Gow’s recent EdWeek post — “We’re All Stakeholders in Public Education” http://ow.ly/jK0CT — in which he explores some of the unfortunate assumptions at the root of this debate.
As a private school leader and a public school parent, I found his last line inspiring and true about so many of us: “We [all] want to see democracy, not capitalism, survive as the root, stem, leaves, and fruit of American education.”
So Chris, I’ll ask the same questions I asked of Mr. Gow: how much money has your school received from corporations, and from wealthy individuals who made their money via capitalism.
My experience with corporations is that like individuals, they vary widely in how they operate.
How much does the private school where you work charge in tuition and other fees? Are part of the costs paid by wealthy individuals and corporations?
How neat, Joe! Your profile links to your leadership position at the Charter School Resource Center (http://ow.ly/jKB8R), which accepts funding from Gates & Best Buy, yet you seem to imply a critical question about my, or Gow’s, on the basis of our working for organizations that receive private funding.
We receive no money from wealthy corporations. We receive money from wealthy individuals. We charge a boatload in tuition, and reappropriate well over $1mil per year in financial support to families. I don’t say any of this to defend the institution’s practices, but to answer your tedious questions. Check the details and data through public records, if you’re really asking those questions in the first place.
To cut to the chase, though: let’s not flash our ‘Integrity Police’ badges through each others’ peepholes, k? The point is for us to work together to support the needs of all learners, in all of our communities. My family makes its decisions about our children’s education. We make our decisions about our employment. And we remain committed to equity, opportunity, and access regardless of whether our employers, or our colleagues, or our sponsors accept funding from sources that don’t share identical philosophical, political, or pedagogical commitments.
How about I’ll trust that you don’t make decisions at your organization after running them by your financial sponsors for approval; you can trust the same of me; and we can both — separately — examine our attractions to ideological extremism at the expense of intellectual rigor.
You were the one who criticized capitalism, not me.
As an inner city public school teacher and administrator, I worked with a number of youngsters who had been picked out of elite private schools that charged a lot of money.
I’m a big fan of public k-12 schools that are open to all and don’t charge thousands of dollars tuition. That’s where I’ve worked, that’s where our children attended.
Do the parents who pay your tuition know about your opposition to capitalism?
Per my comments about intellectual rigor, Joe: I obviously didn’t express opposition to capitalism. I quoted a line that affirms the value of democratic principles in education.
We’ve obviously steered off the course of the blog entry, which was intended to explore reductive assumptions people make about one’s qualifications for public school advocacy. Let’s not inspect each others’ stripes, k? Good luck and good day.
If the argument is that what Leonie Haimson wants for all children she should want for her children also, then what the reformers want for all children they should want for their children also. If Ms. Haimson has to send her children to public school to be an advocate for public schools, then so should the reformers have to send their children to public school (if they are going to in their rhetoric to the public, “be an advocate for public schools”.)
What I was trying to say is if they don’t have to then why should she.
Above and beyond the not very subtle smear on Leonie Haimson, Decker’s article was a poorly written, tabloid-like piece of trashy gossip. Gotham Schools has been on a downward spiral ever since Anna Phillips left. I’m surprised that the WSJ considered this newsworthy, but at least their article attempted a more balanced discussion. It’s a good thing Leonie Haimson has so many supporters who stand in awe of her tireless activism on behalf of public school parents.
After being in education for almost 20 years, I am ready to pull my kids out of public school. They are not doing what is right for kids BUT it isn’t (in most cases) the fault of the teachers and principals! It is a direct result of every Federal and State mandate that is dictating every minute of a child’s day. They tell us how to spend OUR money to do what THEY think is best for our children.
I wish more non-parents would get out and fight! We need all the help we can get!
What proportion of your local school expenditures come from the state? What proportion from the federal government? As long as state legislatures are paying, there is a danger that they will think they should have a voice in making the rules.
I think you forget that state and federal money comes from us. The government is not benevolently bestowing their largesse on us. They are making decisions on how best to redistribute our contributions/taxes for the benefit of society as a whole. That certainly does not give them the automatic right to tell local authorities how to spend the monies returned to their communities unless it is so specified in the state and/or federal constitution. More or less frequently, they may operate on the principle that they can probably get away with a lot of “iffy” mandates if they make their pronouncements loudly and with authority. Unfortunately, we probably don’t have enough lawyers willing to risk their careers fighting guys with lots of clout for little financial return and lots of aggravation. (They have to feed their families, too.) If there are lawyers out there fighting the good fight, they are certainly, I hope, not announcing their actions on a blog.
I do not forget that, but if you don’t want politicians to decide how to spend your money, vouchers are your only option. Given your other posts, I am surprised that you support vouchers.
If I wrote, “I support vouchers.” it was an error. I don’t.
Property taxes fund education in my state and those taxes went up here, so my landlord passed that along to me and increased my rent by $500. Yes, that is per month and huge to me. I have no children in the public schools, but with that kind of tax bill, I think I should have a at least SOME say in education and “voice in making the rules.”
I’m a veteran career educator and I know a lot more about education than the politicians and business people who are calling all the shots here. However, in my mayoral controlled school district, with its mayoral appointed school board and mayoral appointed superintendent, just like all of the mayor’s appointments, the City Council and the state just rubber stamp whatever the mayor wants. It’s effectively a dictatorship and no one listens to the people. Watching the people vent at school board meetings is a sad joke, because you can tell that the Board doesn’t want to hear them. This has been going on for decades. At this point, I really wish I could afford to move to another country.
In most states the majority of public school expenses are born by the taxpayers in the state. If memory serves, Illinois has the lowest percentage, and in some states it is completely funded through state based revenue.
In Illinois, our schools are funded mostly through real estate taxes not income taxes, so most of our funding does come from the local tax dollars. The state provides limited additional funding based on the (in)ability of the local community to fund their schools.
Illinois has the largest proportion of local funding of all the states. Perhaps that is why the contrast between New Trier and the other schools families are allowed to attend is so clear.
Yup. It’s one very big reason. Of course, Illinois also has a reputation for being one of the most corrupt states. Politicians, big money, and power…
TE: I don’t see anything indicating that 2old2Tch said s/he supports vouchers. I believe that is your one track mind.
Cosmic,
The original comment in this thread is “They tell us how to spend OUR money to do what THEY think is best for our children.” The only way to avoid this problem is for US to spend OUR money as we see fit, that is through a voucher system. I don’t see any alternative.
TE: Again, that is your singular agenda. Voice means vouchers to you. Vouchers mean the destruction of public education to me. We are seeing the starving of public schools and school closings to make way for charters. Vouchers would just seal the privatization deal more quickly.
I am not arguing in favor of vouchers. I am only pointing out that the only way to avoid having Having “them” decide how to spend “our” money is for us to decide how to spend our money, that is for a voucher system. Can you come up with another system where “they” don’t decide how to spend “our” money? I would think that any alternative would involve an odd notion of personal identity.
Democracy. It’s messy, and sometimes you don’t get what you want. Vouchers are a cop-out.
It may be a cop-out, but it is the only way to keep “them” from deciding how to spend “our” money.
If that is the case than only people with true classroom and administrative experience should have a say in educational policy. Maybe she put her son in a private school because the reformers have ruined public education.
Anyone has the right to advocate for public education and it is up to the people to work together for the best solutions. Regardless of where one’s own children attend school (or even if someone has a child), public education is critical for a successful society. It is in everyone’s interest that all children receive a quality education.
As a parent of a child in a neighborhood public school, I just want our advocates to address the true issues and not just blame the teachers or abuse standardized testing.
My gut tells me the solutions are inside the classroom as much as outside the classroom so in the end “education reform” is really a reform of how we choose to live our lives and function as a society.
When you wrote, “Anyone has the right to advocate for public education and it is up to the people to work together for the best solutions, ” I think a lot of folks would agree. I sure would.
Has anyone heard of retribution. I have seen way too much of it over more than 20 years. And by the way we all pay for public schools and it is in all of our best interests to make sure they operate properly. She and her child were at risk staying in the public school system. People ask me all the time “Who do you work for?” I say “You cannot do what I do and be in the system, you will be wiped out and your family also.”
So George, do you have kids and if so, where do they attend school?
I’ve never in one day read so many rationalizations for people to send children to private schools from people who say they are advocates for public schools.
Will today be the end of criticizing others who send their kids to private schools, but are working to improve public schools? That would be fine with me.
All four of my children attending progressive public schools in a high socio-economic community. They would today; I couldn’t afford any other choice and would be opposed to a charter school opening that took resources away from the public schools. There are are several religious schools and private schools in the area. If all of a sudden we were required to provide (space and) funding for a charter school, the quality of the public schools would suffer. I would especially resent having a school in which I had no voice. There is nothing public about a school that is not accountable to the community/communities from which they are draining public funds.
More than 40 state legislatures have decided that there are different forms of accountability. Chartering also empowers educators. Those are some of the reasons they have decided to create charters.
Moreover, (and I opposed this), many school districts have magnets that are allowed to pick and choose students on the basis of test scores. I strongly oppose allowing some public elem and secondary schools to use test scores to determine which students to admit.
The creation of charter schools has not been shown to be a panacea for the shortcomings of public schools. You say that many teachers have been empowered by being charter school educators. Apparently, more have found themselves abused and exhausted. The attrition rate for teachers in charter schools can rival that of students. Obviously, I am painting with a broad brush. I am not really focused on the success of a select few charter schools; I am focused on what appears to be a rather insidious attack on the public school system by a philosophy that holds teachers in contempt, views students as products (at best), and sees education as the next great money-maker for corporate raiders.
The charter movement was founded in Minnesota by a variety of people including former district public school educators who have great respect for many educators.
Moreover, some of the charters that have been created around the country have been done so by teachers frustrated with the existing system.
Opponents of chartering have done a great job in some states of forcing compromises in legislation so that, for example, charters
a. Must pay for buildings out of the per pupil dollars, rather than through separate funds, as happens in many states.
b. Receive less per pupil than traditional district schools
Although one would not know it by reading many posts here, the majority of charters around the country are not affiliated with a non profit or a for-profit education management or charter management group.
I readily acknowledge there are some charters that have done a lousy job. And there are some charters where people have mis-spent pubilc dollars.
And just to be clear, our organization works closely with district public schools too (at their request). I think we should be honoring and promoting excellent public schools and educators whether district or charter.
Joe, you are defending charters on a blog that is concerned with protecting public education. Like it or not, charter schools have been used to destroy public schools. As I said before, my focus and the focus of this blog is not the merits of charter schools. The focus is on the future of public education and the teaching profession. I am pleased as punch for you if Minneapolis and St. Paul have embraced the charter school movement and found a way to have charters enhance rather than weaken public schools. You only have to have read this blog to know that that is not the experience of many people. However, it is still only a piece of the discussion here. Engage with us on how to prevent the de-professionalization of teaching. Join us in discussions about the destructiveness of high stakes testing. Give us your opinion of CCSS.
For many of us, charters are a part of public education – and not just in Minneapolis/St. Paul. For many charters are a way to empower educators. In fact, charters in a number of states have given public school teachers the chance to create public schools that THEY (the teachers) run. Here’s a recent column about a book endorsed by folks like Linda Darling Hammond, Deborah Meier, the president of the NEA and others that discusses teacher run schools, whether district or charter.
http://hometownsource.com/2013/03/06/a-book-about-trusting-teachers-draws-praise-from-educators-and-activists/
I find that rather contradictory, Joe, considering how many charter schools cream students and counsel out kids who don’t meet their criteria, even though they are supposed to take everyone.
Do you support Honors and AP courses for gifted students? I do, and I also I support schools for children who are gifted, because I have taught many gifted students and know that a lot of them benefit most when appropriately challenged and have opportunities to learn with peers.
Creaming is the essence of honors and AP courses, so I assume you see the value in them for the students who are selected.
The fall of his senior year in high school, my son took a mix of classes provided by his public high school, our local university, and a virtual class run by K12. Would you have denied him those opportunities?
Not at all. In fact, we’re working with our state dept of education to create more such options for district & charter students throughout the state.
Yes, I’m a big fan of AP and IB options – but I think they ought to be open to any youngster who wants to enroll. Youngsters often are capable of far more than some people think they can do. I’m delighted that some AP and IB teachers strongly encourage a vast array of students to try these classes.
But as you know, whether students earn college credit depends on how well they do on the final AP or IB exam. In what other class offered in high school is high school credit determine just by how well students do on one final exam?
So I’m also fan of other “college in the schools” courses where a student’s credit is determined not just by how well she/he does on one day and one test.
If fact, I was at a parent mtg this evening with a large # of low income, spanish speaking families where we (a bilingual Spanish/English staff member of the Center for School Change) where we were discussing these issues.
Although it wasn’t always the case, we have a lot of traditional neighborhood schools in my area now with IB programs. I think that’s unfortunate, because they were added at the expense of vocational programs, many of which were very appealing to some students but they were eliminated. I believe that is a disservice to students who would prefer to pursue trades.
There’s a lot of research about the value of well designed, applied, career technical courses. It’s sad that decisions have been made to reduce or eliminate these programs in some places.
You should move out to the plains. There are eight high schools that offer IB programs in my state, probably because the median size high school is a little under 250 students.
Joe, Funny your response to 2old2tch was to just try and sell charters even more. We don’t care if a few charters here and there are run by veteran teachers. Most are not, but either way, they are still siphoning off funds from public schools and contributing to the dismantling of public education across this country –which the majority the people here seek to preserve.
Nope, not interested in selling anything here – just in learning and sharing.
The logic here is terribly circular. If we follow Dewey’s line about giving every child what the best informed parent wants for their own child, it cuts both ways. Ironically, this thread sounds like an argument for vouchers.
What concerns me is the frustration levels we are feeling no matter what the differences or likenesses of opinion on any kind of schools. Divide and conqueor is a ploy meant to
overturn ones enemy. We are not enemies of each other but all trying to reach the same goal which is a better and level playing field for all children and their education.
I am an advocate for learning disabled children for the past almost forty years. I have
always wanted to have my children go to public school and experience the wonderful memories of past generations from immigrant families to those of us lucky enough to
have lived here for some time. Neighborhood schools with traditions and cheerleaders, kids that could work towards an education and still grow to understand social discipline and appropriate skills for life, make and create memories for a lifetime. This is part of the American Dream. But it was not to be.
A couple of my children, and many of the children I have advocated for through the years, were challenged in their learning and required other educational options.
All attended public school but met with triumph or disappointment. What there was were the opportunities under our laws to challenge what was not going well and finding argument and reason to change a teacher or classroom, program or school, etc. Those were the golden years and I had the resources and education for my own children and other families children to fight for a level education playing field. There is no one formula to fit all children and they are not fixed by age to be all mature or intelligent at the same time. They come with complications of economic backgrounds, environmental,
medical and mental challenges, on and on. Public schools have open enrollment
and strive to meet the educational needs of each of the children who enter their doors, but the laws, up to now, have given other options when needed.
Things have changed and attitudes, patience, and pockets are less generous. One of the last to receive their Civil Rights, the disabled, are now seeing the door close on them in ways no one was ready for or can accept. The numbers game became the reality and that included the too overwhelming reality that we can identify challenged learners from mild to severe. So the solution is to slam the door shut on identifying the greatest number the mild and moderate and call it Inclusion. Push through drop out, larger unprepared classes, and kiting the money for uses not intended for the child in educational need to pick up down budgets. This is back to the future! A numbers term becomes the standard and this kids don’t fit….Value Added! It is not them by the education reform movement. Charters are not a welcoming ground for these kids. Due process is a deadend for poor and disenfranchised and the middleclass. This has been a wholesale sellout of American ideals and a crushing of hard fought for laws of protection for many millions of our children.
There isn’t anything in life that can’t be improved on and there is no reason to reinvent
the wheel. Public schools are the extension of neighborhood living and maybe that is one of the goals of the reformers. Destroy that and cause communication and strength in numbers to be less of the a threat to the power players. Virtual schools can grab young and innocent undersophisticated minds and isolate people. This is a follow the money and power players and as far as I am concern, nothing to do with the children.
Remember, their children are safely and comfortably taken care of.
To date this is the rest of the story…..My children found appropriate educations in the varied schools they went to. The path was arduous and twisted but we experienced everything from graduations from a public high school, two private high schools, attendance at a parochial school,a state college and private college, a two year college for the arts. They are workers and we are lucky. The times were on our side but I
can not say that for these times and school days. Hang together my friends because
you are all good and caring people looking for solutions for the sake of the children and their futures. The reform movement may think they are saving the country but they are only trying to reshape and refine it in their own image as if it is best for all children and the country. I hope there is some way to save us from ourselves.
Of course, if the President of the United States, were required by law to enroll their children in the worst performing D.C. schools, there would be some impetus to fix education.
The point of the neo-liberal education “reform” business plan is to make public schools so intolerable that parents pull their kids out of the system, so that schools will be shut down and business people can then swoop in, setup shop in charters and rake in big bucks at the public coffers.
Thank goodness that people like Leonie recognize that this IS a business plan and that the status quo in major cities across America consists of a narrowed curriculum, over-crowded classrooms and incessant high-stakes testing, as mandated by politicians –not something that educators designed or ever wanted.
I’m grateful that Leonie continues to advocate for the kinds of public schools that parents and educators would like for their own children, not what politicians and business people have decided is good enough for other people’s kids, so that their business plan to undermine and privatize public education can remain in operation.
Many thanks to Leonie for her continued hard work in support of public education!
Leonie Haimson seems genuine, knowledgeable, and strong. Class size matters. I love that concept. Before I learned of this blog I signed up at Students First. The only thing I’ve seen is a solicitation to buy Michelle Rhee’ s book. I’ve learned much here. I have had concerns about public school for years. But my concerns are ones of compassion, not opportunistic reform.
And hardly a word from them about Michelle Rhee’s choice to put one of her daughters in private school in Nashville, while still calling herself a “public school parent”. If it doesn’t harm her credibility in their eyes, why should this matter? I don’t have a problem with the choice you make, as long as you respect my right (and others) to also make a personal choice. And, isn’t that the same quality of education experience we want for all children, or have I misunderstood the rhetoric?
Maybe this was brought up in a previous comment, but 2 things to bear in mind…..
Gotham Schools went from a defender of public schools to being a mouthpiece for the reformers after is was bought by Murdoch.
According to the article, her son has special needs. Any NYC special ed teacher will tell you that the city has turned its back on these students. Many newspapers have reported how NYC is denying services or not using the funds correctly.
That said, it would have been better for Leonie to get ahead of this story and wrote on her blog explaining her choice the moment her son entered the new school. Now she is forced to defend her actions. And that’s the only thing that surprises me about this. Rhee on the other hand can say she is a parent school parent all she wants. But you can definitely see the knife she is wielding into the backs of each and every public school.
I really hope her son’s needs are met and wish the mayor and Klein did not turn their backs on the special ed students of NYC.
Gothamschools was “bought by Murdoch”?
Joe Nathan, and other “choice” advocates miss the point. I am a veteran public school teacher of decades, I am a product of a private, Christian K-12 school, a product of two private, Christian universities, I am a fearless supporter of teacher unions, and, wait for it, I am sending my kids to a private, Christian school.
But here’s the point. My position on public schools mirrors my position on private schools…in other words, I want public schools to be like private schools. I want them run very much alike, with a few distinctions. One important distinction is funding, especially teacher pay, as it will obviously take higher wages and more money for public schools to attract teachers and run schools.
On the other hand, Joe Nathan, and the other “choice” advocates, want one thing for public schools and a completely different venue for their own distinguished private schools. Although, I think Joe said his kids went to a public school (If I remember right), but either way, you get the point.
What makes things even worse, is that these reformers are purposely ruining public schools, by making them out to be more and more like a cheap brand of Asian education, where test scores rule and all else drools. Yet for their private schools of choice (even including some charters – for example in Detroit and other places – where they do not have to take the standardized tests), they should be run differently to suit their distinct needs.
The largest private school in my town is a Montessori school. There is also a Waldorf school and a progressive school. Which one of these private schools would you want to have traditional zoned schools most resemble?
ME, you way, ” I want public schools to be like private schools.” I don’t.
Unlike your children, our children attended public schools. As a school administrator and parent, I’ve had lots of experience with private schools here and around the country.
I want public schools that are open to all. (private schools often pick and choose their students).
Private schools can promote a religion (and many do). I want public schools that don’t promote a particular religion.
One of the things that fascinates me about this list serve is the number of people here who call themselves public schools advocates, but the public schools are not good enough for their own children.
I’m not going to lie in saying that I really wrestle with this. And while I support anyone who supports a public school system for all, I must say I see value in those who walk the walk that what is best for someone else’s child is also best for my child. And yet, I get I may change my mind as my children get older. But right now, because I’m a professional educator, I probably have the skill set to teach my children at home, I’ll keep fighting within the school system.
No doubt there are many that are doing much much more for the public school system than I am, I have to fight this on a smaller scale.
And I’m also a hypocrite in this “what’s best for. . . theory” I was at the Occupy in Washington D.C. and stayed the last night in the shelter that was set up for people there. I was a little cranky as I at least thought there would be a cot and would have looked hard for a hotel room had I not been afraid of going out at midnight. (I’m a small town girl.)
While there, attempting to sleep, another group came in to count money from there event next door. With no respect to me, they turned the lights on, and went about their business. They knew I was right there, and didn’t feel the need to hurry, talk quietly or better yet, move to a different place. I think I got a little and I mean little understanding of what someon who has no home must feel like in regards to how others treat them. It really helped me understand something I’ve not experienced.
And yet, I don’t know that I’ll sell my house to sleep on the floor of a shelter.
My point??? This is an area I disagree, but a shout out to those who are also fighting the system from within!!