Congress is considering new charter legislation, awarding more money to the charter sector, which will operate with minimal accountability or transparency.
The bill has already passed the House of Representatives with a bipartisan majority and now moves to the Senate.
Make no mistake: on the 60th anniversary of the Brown decision, Congress is set to expand a dual school system. One sector, privately managed, may choose its students, exclude those who might pull down its test scores, and kick out those it doesn’t want. The other sector–the public schools–must take in all students, even those kicked out by the charters.
One sector–the charter sector–may enroll no students with profound disabilities, while the public schools are required by federal law to accept them all. The charter sector may accept only half as many English language learners, while the public schools are required to accept them all. Some charter schools push out children who are behavior problems, the public schools must take them all.
This is a dual school system, one bound by laws, the other deregulated. One free to select the “winners, ” the other bound to accept all.
Will federally-funded charters be allowed to operate for profit, as many charters do? Will they pay their executives exorbitant salaries, of more than $400,000, as some charters do? Will they be exempt from nepotism laws, as many charters are? Will charter leaders be allowed to hire their relatives or give them contracts? Will they be exempt from conflict of interest and self-dealing laws, as they are in some states? Will members of the board be permitted to win profitable contracts from the board?
The growth of the charter sector has been driven by a strange coalition. Charters are supported by wealthy hedge fund managers who give generously to individual charters and to charter chains; they fund political candidates who support charters. Charters are supported enthusiastically by the Obama administration, which endorses the privatization of public schools. Charters are a favorite of conservative groups like ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) and rightwing governors. Charters receive millions from some of the nation’s wealthiest foundations, including the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.
This odd coalition doesn’t seem to care that it is reversing the Brown decision of 1954. The fact that charters are highly segregated does not trouble them. The fact that charters undermine public education, an institution that is basic to our democracy, does not trouble them.
The federal courts bore the historic burden of dismantling the long-established institution of legally-enforced racial segregation. Sadly, as new justices were appointed, the federal courts abandoned that role. The U.S. Department of Education too abandoned its once strong dedication to eliminating segregation and ignored its return. Both parties lost interest in integration. Imagine if the Obama administration had dedicated its $5 billion in Race to the Top funds as rewards for districts that increased racial integration. Instead, it initiated a pursuit of higher test scores, and dismissed segregation as yesterday’s issue.
Once there was a dream that American children could live and learn together. That was Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. The charter movement says that dream is over, if it ever existed, and that the democratic dream of equal educational opportunity for all in common schools controlled by local communities is history, a relic of the past, replaced by the 21st century reality of a dual school system, separate and unequal.
Should we acquiesce in a social arrangement that we know is wrong? Should we celebrate the official approval of segregated schools? Should we hail Congress for bending to the new realities of segregation and academic apartheid? Should we cheer Congressional support for privately-managed schools that get public funds but are not subject to the same requirements of accountability and transparency as public schools?
The 60th anniversary of the Brown decision is a time to recall how far short we have fallen from our ideals. And a time to plan for the day when we can reclaim them and build the America we want for our children and grandchildren.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The suburbs created a dual school system long before charters. Elite magnet schools with admissions tests created a dual school system long before charters.
When some of us tried to create alternatives within district public schools 40 years ago, we were accused of trying to create a dual school system.
Here’s a response to this “dual school system” criticism from an African American who has spent more than 60 years fighting for opportunity and equity:
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/joe-nathan/long-time-civil-rights-activist-challenges-charter-schoolsegregation-charges
Magnet school are part of the public systems, not “competition” for them. There is a difference.
LG – this is a fascinating and consistent response. Apparently it’s ok for some people to screen out kids with disabilities if the school is part of a school system.
One of the reasons that more and more youngsters are attending charters is that their families disagree what’s happening in local district schools.
That’s also why more families are seeking options within districts – and some districts widely are listening.
Joe Nathan, you seem to have a philosophy:
Two Wrongs Always Make a Right
No – my philosophy is let’s help parents and educators create more public schools that help children achieve their potential. And, as you know, our 3 children all attended and graduated from urban, integrated non-admissions tests public schools. A
Joe: In every state the policies/laws get mediated differently; I will stand by the magnets created in Houston that my 4 grandchildren attended and there was choice… I will attest to the fact that my colleague Ron Sczypkowski wrote an excellent report on the magnet schools in New York ( I will send you the reference)…. In New Hampshire the Governor Sununu wanted to create a “showcase” school for “gifted” when he was retiring and that was a completely different intent; the local control of the issues defeated his extreme desire to build himself a tribute. I saved the NH report to show the data gathered from the committees, the survey responses, and would be willing to send you a copy. So , in principle, you may be correct and I cite the examples to show you that it gets “mediated” through the workings inner-state and many times the intentions of the original purpose get sidetracked. That is what we are seeing today in massive quantity (nothing like these examples I have cited above) . Please give me an address where I can mail the NH study. Also, the New York study is in ERIC but i will send you the reference. Ron was also instrumental in the very first technology programs in New York and the program and practice file using technology for improving staff development more uniformly across the different states.
Jean S. (Massachusetts) Jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Jean, you can send the report to joe@centerforschoolchange.
Of course Massachusetts is home to one of the nation’s first elite magnet schools – Boston Latin.
And Houston which you mentioned, has a number of magnet schools that screen out students via admissions tests.
Your words should be coming from the lips of Obama,Duncan, and every member of Congress. Eloquence and anger. Authentic, informed, and warranted. The most cynical aspect of the campaign against public education is rhetoric that asserts these uncivil reforms are justified– because education is the civil rights issue of our time. It is, but for none of the reasons or policies advanced by this administration. This is not a time to mince words but to speak clearly about the fraud. You are teaching many of us how to do that.
A lot of context involved: I just ask that we look at similarities and differences. As grandparents and parents I thought the Houston magnet (at the time the student attended — they are now 50 to 60 years old ) was an idealized view from the HOME desiring choices. I should add that the 3 boys did much better than the lone female on the short time line (but now that they are older things evened out and she finished college closer to 30… so we can’t lump graduation rates together and spit out figures from computers about graduation rates… there is even a study now showing that distance from the college in MA as compared to TX affects graduation rate). This is not the place for a long discussion but I think the supreme court is making statements about “diversity” and that is above my pay grade (other than to say I have opinions that don’t need to be expressed here). I have recently been trying to get up to date on the SREE conference that indicates how we would be better decision makers if we had some additional forms of research (again this is not the place to cite the SREE conference papers such as the keynote in health /human services).
thanks, Laura, it is the fraud that I am concerned about whether it is called a “special education” school, or a “magnet” or a “charter” because the loopholes exist and the money making schemes find the loopholes to drain off public funds into feathering the nests of a few. Massachusetts legislators thought they had closed up the loopholes in the “special education” effort but they have no idea that the same thing can happen with a “charter” (if it is created as I believe is happening in FL ). Another example is the “mayor’s ” schools in Rhode Island which I see could be distorting the purpose and intention of public education . I don’t want to see “rapacity” everywhere but it is good that we can share across the states what is happening and Diane’s perspective on the important issues is so valuable.
this came through on the Disability Scoop newsletter yesterday: seems like a “friendly letter” in the “gentlemen mode” is not really oversight????
quote: Feds Warn Charters On Special Education
By SHAUN HEASLEY
May 15, 2014
In a “Dear Colleague” letter issued Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education said that charters have the same obligations as regular public schools to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in addition to other federal civil rights laws. Such responsibilities are the same whether or not charters receive federal funding, the Education Department guidance indicates…..Charters must also provide related services to students with disabilities and guarantee that such children have “equal opportunity” to participate in extracurricular activities, the guidance said. Every student with a disability enrolled in a public school, including a public charter school, must be provided FAPE — that is, regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet his or her individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met,” wrote Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, in the letter.
Parents with disabilities must also be accommodated by charters if they need a sign-language interpreter or materials written in Braille, for example, in order to communicate with school officials, Lhamon said.
Beyond civil rights laws, charters have obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, federal officials said. Lhamon indicated that her office is working with the Department of Education’s OSER to develop guidance addressing the rights of students with disabilities. …A 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office found that children with disabilities accounted for 8 percent of those enrolled in charters compared to 11 percent of students in public schools.”
can be found at disability scoop blog
reblogged here through their newsletter/email
Jean – are you also urging that people warn magnet schools that explicitly use standardized tests to screen out many students with disabilities?
Magnet schools are a kind of specialized school within the public system that is a side of the “alternative-education” coin that is similar to what charters originally were intended to be.
Magnets do not take funding from private interests for their everyday operations and they are part and parcel of the public system in accountability and oversight. Charters do not play by these same rules, therefore the tired argument that “magnets segregate the population the same as charters” is invalid.
Instead of saying, “Whoa! Charters should not segregate the public,” charter advocates instead say, ” Well magnets do it, so why can’t we?” Not only is that invalid as an argument, it’s a deflection of the issue.
By citing magnet schools’ populations as segregated, it’s as if charter advocates are admitting that charters segregate, too. Well now we know! We’ve heard it from the horse’s mouth: Charter schools segregate the population!
Magnets serve a select group of the population, but these schools are locally controlled by the public that funds them. They share resources with the system and are beholden to the taxpayer base. Charters are not controlled by the public–therefore THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC SCHOOLS and should not be awarded public funding. Yet, charter proponents continually fall back on the “magnets are charters argument” to defend segregating on the public dime.
Public funding should be appropriated to schools run by the public, not to schools run by corporations and special-interest organizations. It blows my mind how this simple point is lost on policy-makers and private education advocates alike.
When will charter-advocates start speaking the truth about charters and public transparency? My guess? Never, as long as there is money to be made and politicians to support this industry.
District public schools including magnets constantly receive corporate contributions.
I certainly agree with this viewpoint about the original intention the way you LG described it here. Joe has over-generalized a bit about the New York Boces…. they were often set up first as “Media” function for distribution of audiovisual in some locations; then they became “multi-purpose” and would hire centrally for a few districts to share the specialties in technolgoy , and after Chapter 766 they became shared settings for special education students that were of lower numbers in school district and the schools from different towns shared specialists and even classrooms across districts to create programs for limited populations by transporting the children across town lines. Masschusetts “nearly went broke” sending some students to Pennsylvania and the state decided to bring the student back by offering appropriate programs.
It was in the 90s that entrepreneur saw a way to “franchise” this with a computer and buy up buildings to “rent ” back to the schools through federal/state/local dollars and this is when the original purpose and intent was diverted. I don’t know if that happened anywhere else but it happened in Massachusetts. Rapacity anywhere needs to be pointed out… but I don’t want to generalize from this experience with Massachusetts to say that “all Boces” or “all ” … etc. etc. etc. I would request that we be better at oversight whether it’s BP in the Gulf or John Barranco setting up a “special education” program in Massachusetts. So I just want to go back to Diane’s comment where have the regulators been for 20 years?
Magnet schools are a kind of specialized school within the public system that is a side of the “alternative-education” coin that is similar to what charters originally were intended to be.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
Joe: I come from the 60s era of innovation; the halcyon days and I had great respect for the Commissioner of Education in MASS (ANRIG). He was known to state there “will not be even the appearance of conflict” in what we are undertaking. Times have changed. I also attended many meetings with Commissioner Mark Shed of CT and Commissioner Gordon Ambach of New York to build a technology program in New England (I recently went to the NY state university library to review the personal correspondence that Ambach kept in this regard) and the intentions for technology as it was first being implemented (before the business corporations and lawyers took over ) I don’t have the same respect for today’s generation of leadership in education — please note my reference to Governor Sununu’s desire for a “showcase” school for the gifted using technology — he wanted to be one of the first of the states to up a technology school ; I saved that report. I would point out the many times that the intent or the purpose of the federal laws are known to have deviated. Have you ever read Diane’s book “The Troubled Crusade”? I read it when it was first printed and gave copies to the principals that I was working with at that time. In an amendment to my previous communication to you I wanted to note that the way policy got mediated in Houston (magnet) was different from other locations because of the unique attributes and we need to look at the similarities and differences…. Houston was never Boston for example.
“District public schools including magnets constantly receive corporate contributions.”
Joe: If “contributions” are in the form of grants, then yes…any and all schools accept grants. If a public school accepts a grant, it does not mean that the contributors have influence on the curriculum, choice of teachers, hiring of administration personnel, and appropriation of funding. It means the contributors have supported an extra project, event, or resource that enriches the experience for students. Grants are purposefully given to support “a” program, which is a kind of a no-strings special interest contribution. In order to satisfy the grant, there are specific guidelines set up in the grant structure that must be followed. However these programs are not part of the standard, publicly-run programming. There is no “tit for tat” with these types of contributions. I received a grant this year for equipment that will enhance my curriculum, but I certainly can teach the curriculum without it.
The fundamental difference between magnet and charter is in who runs the school and how. If the public runs it, it is a public school. If a politically appointed board runs it, why should taxpayers fund it? There is no local control.
Since you use the argument that magnets segregate the population, do you admit that charters segregate the population? Yes or no?
I didn’t say magnets segregate students. I said there is a huge difference between forcing students to attend an inferior school and giving them options.
I do oppose allowing public k-12 schools to use standardized tests to determine which students can attend – whether they are district or charter. But to my knowledge, only Louisiana’s charter law permits the use of admissions tests in charters – whereas magnet schools all over the nation use admissions tests.
Since I answered your question, LG, I’ll ask you one – do you have children and if so where they attend school?
“I didn’t say magnets segregate students.”
Semantics. You stated that magnets create a dual system, but actually they do not. They provide services for specialized instruction within the confines of the public system. So let me rephrase the question then: Do you admit that charters create a dual system? Yes or no?
And for the record, no I do not yet have children. We are avidly working on that. I was raised in a middle class city in a coal-mining town and attended public schools like my brothers in the 1980s. My oldest brother went on to a full scholarship in college and then, after grad school, he was instrumental in developing a broadcast constant for HD TV. My district provided a gifted program for him within its system. It served him without serving private, charter interests. No need for a dual system when you can provide instruction for the gifted and talented students and still share resources, staff, and facilities all run by those elected by the people, not some appointed board of trustees who are handing out the money so you do what they say.
Let’s define dual system. Here’s one definition some kids are allowed to enter a school because they can pass a test – others who can’t pass a test aren’t allowed in. Sounds like a dual system to me.
Some magnets receive more $ per pupil either from local, federal of foundation sources than do neighborhood sources – another reason that some urban families are angry with magnets and sought out charters.
“Let’s define dual system. Here’s one definition some kids are allowed to enter a school because they can pass a test – others who can’t pass a test aren’t allowed in. Sounds like a dual system to me.”
Are they denied an education from the same district in which this school exists? If you had a magnet dance school and students who really had no affinity for dance wanted to get in but could not, would they be denied an education elsewhere in the district? The answer is no. The funding for the students to attend a district school is still in the system. The accountability and oversight is still within the purview of the public. That is a single system with alternatives.
If students are denied positions in a charter school, they will not be educated by that system. There simply is no place for them, and money that followed them does not necessarily go back to the public system from which it was taken. The charter does not work on initiatives with the public school, nor does it have an elected school board of representatives from the public calling the shots. The charter school is for those few students who will guarantee “success” and the public school is for the rest. THAT is a dual system.
quoting from LG on magnet schools : “They provide services for specialized instruction within the confines of the public system.”
And, this is exactly how vocational/technical schools were viewed over the decades in Massachusetts; a student would take a qualifying test to go to the vocational/technical school and would remain in the general education population of the high school if not accepted into the vocational /technical school. Now that these have all been designated “technology” schools there may be something different happening but I am stating what was accepted practice for the 50 years I worked in public education .
Jean, very few charters could pass those tests for enrollment of children with disabilities. Many take children with the mildest disabilities and completely exclude those with serious needs. Where has the federal government been these past 20 years? Read this on the GAO report: http://shankerblog.org/?p=6107
Some charters and some “district” public schools, or some schools established by districts have been established to serve youngsters with various forms of disability. These schools have been established because there are some district schools that don’t want to work with these youngsters.
New York state, where some of you live, is one of the states where schools for kids with disabilities have been established by individual districts. They are offered through organizations in New York called BOCES (Board of Cooperative Services)
http://www.boces.org/wps/portal/BOCESofNYS
There are many district public schools in New York that encourage youngsters to attend the schools established via BOCES. Similar efforts in many other states.
Joe:
my context was Disability Scoop newsletter citing the person named here: “Catherine E. Lhamon, assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education” who is addressing the correspondence to the charter schools.
Massachusetts was the first to prepare Chapter 766 which became IDEA eventually and I don’t want to see the state of MA going backwards under Governor Patrick and Mitchell Chester. I would also like to point out that Boston is under Court Mandate to provide appropriate resources and services to ELL students and I can send you the letter of agreement as to what the schools agree to do in that regard. I see a slight difference; for special education one needs to have an IEP ; for the ELL students in the court mandated program there is no need to classify the student as “different” before the resources are allocated.
Perhaps you could write to Ms. Lhamon and also get her opinion? However, I do note that there are many who have criticized Holder for pointing out that we treat minority students more harshly in the schools and they are disproportionately more likely to be in the court system/prison pipeline. It is these major issues that I care about having been on the ground at the time Chapter 766 was being prepared under Commissioner Greg Anrig.
Joe: It was also a “BOCES” type arrangement in Massachusetts (again things get mediated differently in each state) where an entrepreneur CEO diverted over 30 million dollars from special education funds. It was not addressed until Suzanne Bump auditor traced the funds and only Joe DiMasi went to jail (and I guess one other guy named Mcdonough google Boston Globe for details and one superintendent received a $5,000 ethics fine)… It is at this point i became more active in pointing out : These are human systems and subject to all of the flaws that come with human nature ; wherever they exist I would like the Suzanne Bump auditors to find them . For the BOCES descriptions in different states talk to Bob Stevens who helped set up RESA/BOCES type arrangements in different states working with AASA and commissioners…. as Mark Shed was known to say “the devil is in the details” when it comes to implementing the procedures…. let me know if you want the ERIC references ; I talked with the people at Bob Stephens office last fall when they sponsored a conference so he has not retired yet.
Joe: I am quoting you here: “These schools have been established because there are some district schools that don’t want to work with these youngsters.” The sentence is troublesome for a couple of reasons … you indicate “These schools have been established” meaning that is the purpose??? then you say that some don’t want to work with special education???? That violates the purpose and intent of the special education laws that were passed in Chapter 766…. so you are saying that it is ok just not want to work with “these youngsters”? Are you implying that teachers and principals are doing this? I don’t think that is the case in all of the schools that I am aware of and the colleagues that I know. So did you want to revise the sentence? If you look at my previous post on BOCES programs emerged a little differently than your sentence implies. And, the other example I provided was the ELL students in Boston where there is now a court mandate to provide resources programs and services for the ELL students … principals and teachers can’t just “establish schools because they don’t want to work with these youngsters (ELL)? So who do you believe is doing this, it is certainly not the local school committees ….
Over the last 40 years I’ve worked with alternative school educators and students all over the country, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Mass, Minnesota, and NY. In every case, students have described how some educators made it clear that they did not want them in “their” public school. Youngsters were in some cases expelled and in some cases encouraged to leave traditional schools.
Alternative school educators have made it clear that they’ve worked with students who have been pushed out of traditional public schools.
In each of the states listed above, alternative schools have been established by individual districts or groups of districts to work with kids that traditional schools don’t want. This predates the charter movement.
Some of the best charter schools have been established by traditional district school educators not happy with the way some districts treated these youngsters.
Joe: quote: “alternative schools have been established by individual districts or groups of districts to work with kids that traditional schools don’t want. This predates the charter movement.”
From my understanding of alternative schools in Massachusetts they are still within the “public” school systems and governance structure but those are the same governmental structures that establish and operate the “traditional schools ” (your label). By alternative schools I am thinking of the one in Malden that is operated that crosses city/township lines and brings student together and the governance structure may be a “collaborative” with limited oversight from State and no direct accountability to local school board. This is that fuzzy governance structure called “collaborative” that has a board that is frequently established separate from the local school committees and this is exactly where Mass got in trouble because John Barranco was President /CEO of the “collaborative” and he hand picked his friends to be on the board to raise his salary to $500,000 a year and his teacher retirement to the highest in the state. So using the word alternative for Massachusetts can get into some fuzzy concepts — and then it relates directly to the comment earlier that there is “pirating” of funds…. using a governance structure separate from the established local school committees accountability, and then siphoning off the public funds. This is the issue I see whether it is called “alternative” or “Charter” or “Special” and I don’t think the legislature has closed all the loopholes.
Joe: Poverty Research Center Brief # 6 has good description of Magnet Schools and research. http://www.prrac.org The Ron Szcypkowski reference is there also but there are many more updated references at PRRAC.org. I’ll send the other references to the email you provided. It’s very helpful to have these discussions and I thank you for the opportunity.
There are some terrific magnet public schools open to all.
However, The charter public school movement has been aided in its growth by outrageous admissions policies of some magnets.
Moreover, one of the major reasons that Milwaukee has a voucher program (which I oppose) is that many inner city African Americans were not able to get their children into urban magnets that received additional funding beyond what neighborhood schools received – but put a premium on drawing in suburban white kids. The grandmother of some of these kids, Polly Williams, a liberal African American member of the Wisconsin Legislature, joined with a Republican governor to create the Milwaukee voucher program.
Cross posted at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Will-Congress-Commemorate-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Decision_Laws_Majority_Money-140517-351.html#comment489495
with this comment
Going backwards as always in this country.
Does anyone know what is happening?
Is this a HEADLINE anywhere?
Nope!
100 years from now, people will look back at the days when America was a land of opportunity because it had a public school system that enabled it, and wonder why the people were sleepwalking while the schools were trashed.
The public school system with the suburbs as a key component promotes a lot of inequities. 100 years from now people will wonder why there was so much resistance to people having options in education – when the whole direction of American history has been to expand opportunity.
Joe Nathan, there you go again. If inequity exists nowhere, it should be forgiven everywhere.
Absolutely not – inequity is wrong. I’ve spent the last 5 months working mostly successful with a broad coalition of people of color, community members, students and others to expand information about our Post-Secondary Options law. This law allows high school 10th-12th graders to take courses of college for free – including tuition, books & lab fees.
This is another expansion of opportunity.
Expand opportunity within the system, instead of regulating, mandating, starving it of resources, then contracting “opportunity” out to political favorites. The option to home-school and/or form charters is not new. What is new is that the economic and social woes wrought by pirate capitalism enabled by politicians bought by pirate gold has created a growing population of underprivileged/challenging students and underfunded public schools trying to serve them. At the same time, the pirates and their politicians are being allowed to point the blame-finger at the very schools they plunder. Real teachers, real schools for all, empowered to privide opportunities and supports equitably. How many nuclear powered aircraft carriers, giant NSA spy facilities and domestic attack drones would it cost us? Worth every penny.
Dan has described the problem here: “What is new is that the economic and social woes wrought by pirate capitalism enabled by politicians bought by pirate gold has created a growing…..”
This is why I gave so many examples from the past and why it was such an egregious situation when 30 million was stolen from the public treasury to feather the nest of one entrepreneur for a “special education” school … google Boston Globe , John Barranco. Whether you call it “Special” , or “Charter” or any other name the pirate capitalism finds a loophole; after the horse is stolen the legislature tried to close up the barn door on the “special education ” schools but they didn’t do anything to fix the pirating of funds through charter schools and the Governor is going along with Duncan’s policies of lifting the cap/limit on charter schools. There was no oversight from the Mass Department of Education and, in the case of the “special education” school, the Commissioner said at a Board meeting “I heard rumors when I came to this state” meaning he accepted no accountability for any of the debacle.
Opportunity is economic opportunity. Economic opportunity requires jobs. Jobs come from an expanding economy. This administration’s economic decisions have worked in the opposite direction on every front, from over taxation of corporations, to over regulation, to unpredictably of economic policy, to efforts to raise energy costs, and to a thoroughly bad education policy as well.
A little bit MORE laissez faire would do wonders for opportunity.
Racial resegregation, thus, like income inequality, is a totally political Democrat red-herring to throw people off the trail of a true understanding of the real and fundamental failures of the Obama administration in economic policy, in fundamental government impartiality (I’m thinking of the IRS), and indeed in truthfulness (Benghazi, ACA, VA even).
There is no longer any discrimination based on skin color. There is selection for competence and responsibility. MLK’s dream was that children would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. That has come about, but liberals NOW complain that character and competence is not a legitimate basis for college admissions and hiring.
Liberals are moving the goal posts back to economic equality after racial equality has been achieved. Economic equality NEVER will be achieved because differences in income are based on what a person knows and on his character.
Isn’t that undeniable?
Catherine Lhamon appeared last night on a roundtable with Gwen Iffil on the PBS Newshour. She gave an impassioned defense of what ought to happen in public schools. I was left wondering whether anyone up the chain of command in the DOE pays any attention to her. Part of her comments:
“My office, when we do our investigations now, we are finding too many places that are racially segregated, but we’re also finding too many places where we’re communicating a message of very little value to our kids, where we’re saying you’re not who we expect to see succeed in school, you are not who we’re going to deliver our resources to.
We’re not having equitable distribution of teachers. We’re not having equitable of high-rigor courses in our schools. We disproportionately discipline our students of color and push them out of school. We are sending a message about who is valuable and who is not in school, which is directly contrary to the Brown message, it is directly contrary to our federal promises, and it is directly contrary to the law.
So, that’s what we need to change.”
See: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/60-years-brown-v-board-school-segregation-isnt-yet-american-history/#transcript
NO ONE made any mention whatsoever of the role charter schools play in taking resources from public schools and re-segregating them. No one mentioned the appointment of Ted Mitchell as Undersecretary. No one mentioned Obama’s complicity with the forces of privatization. One panelist, Ron Brownstein, did observe:
“And the nature of the challenge is changing, because the demography is changing the challenge. This is the future work force. A majority of the K-12 system starting September nationwide, not only in the big cities, will be kids of color. This is the last class ever probably in U.S. history of K-12 students that will be majority white nationwide.”
So, maybe those on the right have been playing the long game. If a majority of our K-12 students are not white, let’s not spend tax dollars on public schools. Insidious, if it’s true.
Another panelist, Sheryll Cashin: said
“It’s true that you have a lot of large school districts with concentrated poverty in the center. But there are innovations out there. I go back to the Sheff example. Many of the suburbs surrounding Hartford have said, we will take a certain number of kids to come into our school. There are — there’s the METCO program in Boston. So there’s cross-district solutions.”
The METCO program was founded during the era of de facto segregation in Boston, and has acquired a positive image. However, several years ago its founder, Jean McQuire, was interviewed in the Boston Globe:
“McQuire says she opposes using income as a substitute for race because it would only reinforce stereotypes that Metco is trying to combat. “I’m not going to send a bus of poor kids to the suburbs,” McGuire said. ‘That’s cruel. There are enough people who think that all black kids are poor as it is.’ Most of the program’s families are middle-class; approximately a quarter are low-income, according to Metco.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/07/26/metco_fears_for_its_future/?page=full
So the truth is that for middle class black families, METCO allowed them to remain in the city without having to subject their kids to the tumultuous school system. It is an escape valve. Middle class whites with school age kids left the city in droves, as METCO was not available to them. 50 years on, we have a school population that is mostly minority (87%), mostly poor (78%) and has a large number of ELL (74%) and SPED (20%) kids.
The exit of middle class families means that those who are most able to pull the levers of political support for the schools have no dog in the fight. I compare it to the rise of the private buses Google supplies for its employees in San Francisco, or the use of Über cabs. There is little pressure on the municipality to improve services for all when the people who have the most social capital have removed themselves from the equation. Perhaps this is why the folks on the panel did not mention charters – they are seen by some as an escape from “under-resourced, failing schools”. (And I am sick to death of the use of the word under-resourced as a characteristic of public schools. They are under-resourced deliberately.)
Basic Black, a PBS program, produced by WGBH in Boston had a similar panel. Again , NO mention of charters. I began wondering whether I live in a parallel universe.
Actually, what we have here is a question of class. Other people’s children attend public schools that are underfunded. Motivated other people’s children can “choose” charters. People with means – those who make policy – live in communities with well funded public schools, and if that doesn’t work, there are always the privates.
Christine: I’m sorry I missed that program with Gwen and guests. Jeanne McGuire was on the Title III /Title IV state advisory board for many years and I hold her in high esteem. Thanks for the recap and I will try to catch the show on a rerun or get it on my computer. and, yes we still have extremes in the state with great inequities between and among the districts and the state funding formula does not help much in making up the differences…. quoting Christine: ” those who make policy – live in communities with well funded public schools, and if that doesn’t work, there are always the privates.”
One counter example does not exactly disprove your sweeping generalization, Diane, but resegregation by race is decidedly NOT the case at the county-wide consortium charter at which I volunteer. It is truly a public education, public-run (by the intermediate school district), charter.
It does have admissions tests because it is an IB school, both at the high school and at the middle school level, so there is stratification by academic ability, but that is not the same thing as segregation by race. In fact the school functions as a powerful force for racial INTEGRATION within its own walls because it draws students from the entire county, which does reflect the usual suburban real estate patterns by economic differentiation.
This school may just be a fortunate anomaly, however. It is a safe, happy, and academically succeeding school. Perhaps it is the exception that proves (i.e. tests) the rule about charters which you so eloquently condemn.
What’s the name of this county wide charter, Harlan? As noted, some of us strongly oppose admissions tests for any public school. There are many schools using IB that don’t use admissions tests.
If you are implying that I made it up, I did not.
No, I’m not implying you made it up. I’m asking because I am interested in which school it is. Is it Washtenaw International High School?
Yep
J. H. Underhill
HI, this is the firswt time I am writing to you. I feel the need to clarify some of the statements you made in this posting. While I do not, and can not speak for every Charter School in the country. I cna speak for my own school, in which I have been proudly teaching for 11 years now. A Charter School IS a public school…not a private organization looking to undermine anyone or anything else. We fall under all the same laws and regulations of any public school in the U.S.A. We have the same transparency and responsibilities of all regular public schools. It is illegal for us to discriminate…and we don’t. We have a high percentage of Special Education and 504 students and NEVER discriminate when we welcome new studetns into our schools. We do have class size limits (one of the benefits of a Charter School) so we cna’t allow unlimited new students into the school every year. Does that stink for the kids who can’t get in? Yes..but if we were so horrible, why do so many parents want to send their kids to us? We are not a profit making organization for private or corporate sponsors, and, quite frankly, I’m weary of people who attack us as if we are all bad. Even our own Union had the nerve to say that too many Charter Schools are failing our students…well to them and to you, I say, if the regular ublic Schools had not been failing our students for so many years there would be no need of Charter Schools in the first place! I cannot say that there are no “bad” educators who abuse their Charter Schools…but to make a blanket statement about ALL Charter Schools is akin to racism…judging all by the actions of a few. We care for our children in my school, and while no one is perfect, we try our best to give them the best education possible in our setting…and I have seen some of our former studetns succeed in a big way. I’ve also seen some who fail, and my heart goes out to them…but show me a school with a 100% average of every child succeeding, and I’ll show you santa Claus and the Easter Bunny doing a jig while the Tooth Fairy claps along. Please continue sharing here..but please don’tgeneralize,a dn please get all the facts before making definitive statements. Thank you for allowing me my time on the soap box. I’ve been typing furiously..so please forgive any typos…sometimes my fingers can’t keep up with my brain! 🙂
Fordham Institute is today defending their approach (using GATES money to promote “reform”): I put a comment on their blog : please stop using Massachusetts and taking credit for it and stop using Massachusetts to beat up other states; You say what you want to convince yourself that your ideology is supreme and you refuse to acknowledge the flaws in your thinking but then get defensive when people point them out. Massachusetts has been building accountability since Greg Anrig (former Commissioner) and using federal funds wisely rather than depriving schools of federal or state funds and this has been a constant battle. The innovations like Chapter 766/IDEA and health care that evolve are unique just as the innovations coming from Houston are their own (they had one of the largest R&D budgets/staff/department in the country almost as large as an entire state — but then I assume all those funds have been cut because politicos tell voters not to spend money on those things).
Reblogged this on TN BATs BlOG and commented:
Wow. I am so surprised by this move. NOT.