Someone sent EduShyster a copy of a pamphlet about how to put a positive message on privately managed charter schools.
The message is, of course, upbeat and positive. But it is not honest.
There is no confronting the number of charter schools that are low-performing or the number that close.
Nothing is said about charter schools that are run for-profit, squeezing out dollars from the classroom to pay off investors.
Nothing is said about the ineffectual virtual charter schools that make a lot of money but whose students have a high attrition rate, low scores, and a low graduation rate.
Nothing is said about the charters that get high scores by excluding students who are English language learners or have disabilities or misbehave.
And there is absolute silence about the charter schools that are corrupt and that have been closed because of embezzlement, conflicts of interest, and self-dealing. Nor will the reader learn about the states where private corporations are exempt from the laws banning conflicts of interest and nepotism.
It is possible to write a book about the good things charters can do by serving children who are ill-served in public schools, but those schools must be balanced against the charters that exist to get public money without public accountability.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Tax money for education doesn’t belong to the school system; it belongs to the students.”
Actually, it belongs to the community.
LikeLike
Exactly. It’s a voucher frame. It’s no different than the language used to promote vouchers.
I listened to an interview with President Obama recently and the only reason he gave for not supporting vouchers is they don’t “work”.
He didn’t have any defense of public schools as a common good or community institution.
This is a profound difference between the two approaches. It’s huge. It can’t be waved away or papered over or obscured with clever marketing. He doesn’t value the “public” part of public schools. I don’t know how one reaches middle ground on that. Either you do or you don’t. I could not disagree more with him.
LikeLike
Sometimes the community chooses to give the tax money to the individual to choose what is best for the individual. This happens with Pell grants, with the earned income tax credit, and to a more limited extent the SNAP program.
LikeLike
The proliferation of charter schools, which are of course taxpayer funded, is the method the globalists are using to eliminate local control. Charter schools are not accountable to parents or taxpayers. It is taxation without representation. It is the fight this country was founded on. We cannot accept it.
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
Are earned income tax credits also taxation without representation? After all that program gives poor household cash that they can spend on any way they see fit.
LikeLike
Let the marketing begin.
LikeLike
I found it very interesting that “school choice” was not a recommended message. I guess the person in my area who tried (and failed) this year to get approval for a charter school did not have a copy of this pamphlet.
LikeLike
Went to listen to a statehouse candidate Tuesday night. I’d describe him as a conservative Democrat. His number one issue was public ed. He’s opposed to over-testing, commercialization and privatization of public schools.
I just thought it was interesting that it’s now reached rural Ohio. It’s never been a top tier issue here before, privatization.
Really encouraging.
LikeLike
Chiara,
What’s his name? What are his chances of winning and what is his opponent’s position? Thanks.
It was reported that state politician, Beagle, currently in a race against Dee Gillis, spent $900,000 in his last election. With that kind of access to money, the opposition’s success relies on grass roots efforts to turn our voters and on small donations from lots of people.
LikeLike
The popular website, Plunderbund, which focuses on Ohio, referenced Diane Ravitch’s blog, in a July 24 article, “Kasich Praises Ed. Dept…”
Again, I join the chorus of those who appreciate the work Dr. Ravitch does.
LikeLike
That was clever, wasn’t it, how the DOE inserted themselves in the furor over corruption and promised to start regulating charter schools?
They effectively shut down any moves toward regulation in the legislature.
“We got this! No need for any additional regulation!”
Pure politics. They gave the charter industry cover. Rushed to the rescue.
It’s appalling to watch it happen. It’s complete regulatory capture.
LikeLike
I urge everyone who is for a “better education for all” to download the pdf file of the charter talking points pamphlet.
One general comment: among the general public, I am sure that there are some charter supporters who will acknowledge the pr aspect of this pamphlet but will add “you wouldn’t print these kinds of assertions and not be able to back them up” if one raises any objection to its rhetorical claims of success.
😕
I highlight a few of my “favorite” sections.
😒
P. 3: In a box called “Defining Charter Schools”:
“Charter schools are unique public schools that are allowed the freedom to be more innovative while being held accountable for advancing student achievement. Because they are public schools, they are open to all children, do not charge tuition, and do not have special entrance requirements.”
Oh my. Realities like “midyear dump” and “your child is not a good fit here” and “fill out your application at the country club” and “100% graduation rates” and “padded rooms” come unbidden to my mind. Or bidden. Take your “choice.”
P. 4: under “Charter Schools are More Responsive and Innovative” we find: “Charter schools can be more responsive and create an environment tailored to the needs of individual students, while still being held accountable for student learning.”
Er, “can be” more responsive, not “ARE” more responsive. Clever, clever, clever…
P. 5: under a general section entitled “Language That Can Produce A Negative Reaction” the first subsection is about “Perceived Attacks On or Negative Comparisons to District Schools” we are informed:
“Although many feel that our traditional public schools are failing, most still care strongly for these schools and would like to see them fixed, rather than done away with.”
The answer to that? “Note: this does not mean that we shouldn’t use real data or statistics about district schools to illustrate the need for high-quality public school options. But we shouldn’t simply bash the whole system.”
Oh dear… Perhaps when you massage and torture numbers&stats re public schools then people feel free (maybe even compelled) to scrutinize the numbers&stats re charter schools? If you have something to hide best not to call attention to your own performance. Yeah, good point…
Next on the same page follows a section called “Closing Schools” that informs us:
“The public (both regular voters/parents and opinion leaders/policymakers) has a strong attachment to the idea of traditional public schools; therefore many are against closing even the worst performing public schools.”
Immediately followed by “These views have consequences for how we describe charter school accountability. We often highlight as a positive feature of charter schools that they can be closed down if they don’t perform well. This isn’t a good message for us with the general public. People want to see schools fixed, not closed.”
So the lesson they take away from this? “Note: This doesn’t mean we should change our approach to closing schools, it just means it isn’t something we should highlight in our public messaging.”
Let the cat out of the bag. A bit of language giveaway here… You see, since charter schools are increasingly the result of closing public schools, best not to draw attention to those closures because then people will think “charters = closures = bad” — am I on message here? [For the CCSS ‘closet’ readers: a ‘charterite/privatizer’ joke]
Folks, read the entire piece. It’s spin spin spin—and I don’t mean that bike exercise that’s all the rage now.
In this case, even a very old and very dead and very Greek guy would exempt them from this sage observation:
“Words empty as the wind are best left unsaid.” [Homer]
Those words needed to be said. Printed. Circulated widely and forever on the www.
Of course, then the charterites/voucherites/privatizers will repent of never having taken that class on ancient Greece. Why? Because it wasn’t on the CCSS and its associated standardized test; they might have read something useful by another very old and very dead and very Greek guy:
“I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.” [Xenocrates]
Old dead Greek guys. Where oh where would we be without ‘em?
😎
LikeLike
I certainly agree with Krazy that there are no guarantees that choice schools will provide a better match between students and schools, but I think they offer the best opportunities to achieve those matches. The Walton Rural Life Center Charter school provides a different (and apparently more popular) education than it did when it was simply a district school in danger of closing due to low enrollment. Choice schools can be Montessori schools, can be Waldorf Schools, can be progressive schools, can be language immersion schools, etc. Traditional zoned schools can not differentiate themselves from the other schools in the district because students are not allowed to choose schools based on their approach to education.
I am curious about your claim that charter school advocates have never taken a course in Greek history. Is there any actual evidence of this? I would certainly find it surprising given that there are a number of charter schools that advocate a classical education. The Fredrick Classical Charter School has all of their students learn both Greek and Latin, for example, while Parnassus has all students study Latin beginning in the third grade.
LikeLike
What you don’t seem to get is that the re authorization of ESEA as in HR. 5 that already passed the House and S. 1094 that has not come to the floor yet will end any “differentiation” among charter schools. Once the federal funding travels with the student, in their backpack so to speak, the charter school receiving this student and this money will be obliged to teach the Common Core, collect the measurable data, implement the interventions for compliance and teach to the test. There won’t be any more great Montessori schools or schools wishing to have a classical education curriculum. And various districts and states may insist that they have thrown out the Common Core but if you look closely you will find the tests and curriculum conform to “college and career ready” whatever name they decide to change it to.
LikeLike
Dawn,
It seems to me that the CCSS and charter schools are two different issues, and one could easily be in favor of one and against the other.
That being said, could you point out the provision that ends differentiation between schools? The best set of highlights I could find were put together by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and it makes no mention of ending school differentiation. The link is here: http://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/Highlights%20of%20the%20Student%20Success%20Act.pdf
LikeLike
You are always defending these very rare and unique charter schools that are well run and loved by students and parents alike. Great, I would defend them too, if I knew of any. But you are being very dense about the fact that the new charter craze that has come into being since RTTT applications required states to lift the cap on the number of charters allowed in their state is an entirely different situation. These new schools are run by management companies for the purpose of making a profit at the expense of taxpayers and students. Stop defending them.
Right now, parents have school choice: public traditional neighborhood school, public charter school, private school or home school. They are all different.
After ESEA is re authorized, they will all be the same except for maybe very exclusive private schools that do not need to take any federal funding but also do not have to allow anyone to enroll who cannot pay. Charter schools in the past have not had to implement the Common Core. Once they are required to accept students with federal funds in their backpacks, they will have to teach to the test and implement the CC. H.R, 5 and S. 1094 will make Title I funds follow every child, not just “free and reduced school lunch” students. They are removing the poverty requirement. Also IDEA funds were previously only for “special education” students. In the future, every child will have an IEP and will be trapped in a continuous feedback loop of testing, intervention to achieve compliance, retesting, more intervention, etc.
The Common Core created national standards which allowed a national curriculum to be created by software companies pegging them to the standards, and the national tests (PARCC and SBA) generate the measurable data that will be used to keep everyone in compliance individually because every student is being tracked nation wide, even home schooled children. They will soon be tying Obamacare to education as well which will give the state access to get a foot in the door of the home schooled on the pretense of “health evaluations.” This is a sick and twisted system they are ultimately going for so stop defending it.
LikeLike
Dawn,
Why do you think the Charter schools I refer to are rare? I refer to the Community Roots Charter School because that is the only charter school I have set foot in. The Walton Rural Life Center Charter School was written up in my local paper. A frequent poster has relatives who attend the Lafayette charter school, a language immersion school. I also often point out that the Pennsylvania School For a The Deaf is also a charter school, complete with hedge fund managers on the board of trustees. You think these schools are not worth defending?
The majority of charter schools are stand alone schools, not part of any chain.
LikeLike
There’s a great video of a charter school parent engaging in an impromptu debate with pro-public school parents. Citizens of the World, the charter, was involved in a very contentious co-location battle with the parents of Stoner Avenue Elementary School, and with residents living near the Stoner Avenue public school campus that CWC had invaded.
Apparently, no one had given him this handbook on how to talk to non-charter folks, and how to bamboozle them into thinking charter forces are nice and harmless. At one point, he lets the cat out of the bag that CWC’s goal is not to coexist peacefully with Stoner—as was professed by CWC in all its media pronouncements—but to wipe Stoner off the face of the earth.
Get this?
He compares the charter’s planned conquest to a Darwinian process in nature, a la “survival of the fittest.” You see, there’s an old tree that deserves to die and disappear (that’s Stoner, the traditional public school). A new tree (CWC Charter) enters the ecosystem, then sends out a “strangler vine” to slowly surround and choke the old tree to death so the new tree alone can flourish.
Needless to say, this bizarre biological analogy—as seen by all in the video—did not go over well with the Stoner parents or pro-public school residents nearby. After a brutal, year-long battle—and thanks to a paperwork blunder by CWC—the Stoner parents and nearby residents won, and CWC was sent packing.
Here’s a link to an anti-charter blog, run by a parent and nearby resident, that talks about this incident:
http://cwcmarvista-co-location-stoner-lausd.blogspot.com/search?q=strangler
Here’s a link to the video: (the “strangler vine” analogy kicks in about 03:34)
Here’s the top comment on YouTube:
“CWC is trying to ‘strangle’ the life out of a traditional public school that they perceive as dying? Stoner has an API of 811 (very exceptional for that demographic). The school is not dying unless you are actively trying to kill it. The arrogance of CWC and its parents is just disturbing. They think that by invading our neighborhood they are making it better. What does that say to the residents that have lived there over 30 years?”
LikeLike
I’ve got another truly nutty tidbit about CWC’s utterly tone-deaf attempts to communicate with the pro-public school residents near Stoner—some who are actual Stoner parents, others long-time citizen-taxpayers supportive of Stoner.
Apparently , the residents were upset about the traffic jams and illegal parking that created chaos during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-ups—driveways blocked, no parking for residents, etc. Residents then called parking enforcement, who, as per usual, we’re quite aggressive and successful in dumping hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars of fines on the CWC parents’ cars.
In a you-can’t-make-this-up scenario, CWC came up with the following solution: they sent residents packets of “karma tickets” (like Monopoly money) that mimicked L.A. Parking Enforcement Ticket text and graphics. In lieu of calling Parking Enforcement—which resulted in fines for CWC parents—the residents were to put these faux tickets on the windshields of the cars of the offending CWC parents…. and make the point that way
It’s like someone who has dogs that defecate all over a neighborhood, and instead of cleaning it up himself, sends all the neighbors plastic bags so they can do it instead.
Here’s an article from the blog about this—complete with a picture of a “karma ticket”.
http://cwcmarvista-co-location-stoner-lausd.blogspot.com/2014/07/flashback-cwc-karma-tickets.html
Adam Benitez, the parent/resident who runs this blog, calls attention to two tenets of CWC’s multi-cultural mission (“Citizens of the World:… get it?) …
1) being good citizens who respect and follow the law;
AND
2) showing respect for all cultures and religions;
and how these so-called “karma tickets” make of mockery of these tenets:
“Now, let’s talk about the karma tickets. Who would even think this was a good idea? CWC is, in essence, asking the local community to not report their citizen’s illegal and dangerous activities to the proper authorities, and instead asking the residents to police the CWC community ourselves by giving out culturally insensitive ‘karma’ tickets.
“Karma is a deeply held spiritual belief in many cultures and religions. For CWC to use it so flippantly shows a complete lack of understanding and respect for other cultures and spiritual beliefs. Karma is not just something you give to the barrista at Starbucks. It is a key concept in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism and many others religions.
“How entitled must one be to think that it is a good idea to co-opt a spiritual belief from another culture and use it inappropriately to insult the community they are claiming to want to be a part of?
“If CWC intended to calm the neighbors concerns, the letter and Karma tickets had the complete opposite effect. Instead of easing tensions, this just heated up on the whole situation and opened the neighbor’s eyes to what CWC was all about.”
LikeLike
You need to read the whole piece:
http://edushyster.com/?p=5366
The 2 columns of terminology is insane:
With “words you should use” in the left column— SAY THIS
and
the words that left column is substituting for— NOT THIS.
Here’s more from the piece:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Know when to change the subject —
Well that was easy. But just to be safe, you’ll want to print and laminate this essential *Say This/Not This* chart to carry with you as a constant reminder never to say *experiments* when what you really meant, of course, was *responsive to student needs.* Which means that our work is done—or it would be—*but there are still other concerns…*
PAMPHLET: “The number one concern that voters have about charters is the impact on neighborhood schools. People can explain, without any prompting, that having a better school come to the community will make people want to leave their district school. And they worry about what will happen to the teachers and the students who stay in the district school. Even though they want more charters, they worry about district schools. So, we must be sensitive to this concern. The best response we have to this concern at this time is to stay focused on students.”
In other words, change the subject…
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Let’s get negative
“Unprompted concern for the future of their soon-to-be shuttered neighborhood schools isn’t the only way that parents and voters are *off message.* The charter message testers also found that some of their fave charter cheers are turning off the very people that they must turn on.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Perceived Attacks on or Negative Comparisons to District Schools
“Although many feel that our traditional public schools are failing, most still care strongly for these schools and would like to see them fixed, rather than done away with.”
“Note: this does not mean that we shouldn’t use real data or statistics about district schools to illustrate the need for high-quality public school options. But we shouldn’t simply bash the whole system.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Closing Schools
PAMPHLET: “The public (both regular voters/parents and opinion leaders/policymakers) has a strong attachment to the idea of traditional public schools; therefore many are against closing even the worst performing public schools.
“These views have consequences for how we describe charter school accountability. We often highlight as a positive feature of charter schools that they can be closed down if they don’t perform well. This isn’t a good message for us with the general public. People want to see schools fixed, not closed.
“Note: this doesn’t mean we should change our approach to closing schools, it just means it isn’t something we should highlight in our public messaging.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Partnerships with Businesses and Foundations That Provide Additional Funding
“These arrangements are viewed through a cynical lens because many assume it opens a door for donors to push their particular agenda in the schools.
“Note: Again, this doesn’t mean charters shouldn’t accept charitable contributions, it just isn’t something we should highlight in our public messaging.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
References or Comparisons to *White, Higher-Income Students.*
“This information can provide a very important proof point for charter success to education reformers and policymakers.
“But broader audiences (voters and parents) particularly in less urban areas are turned off by the comparison and quick to push back.”
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Change we can believe in
Enough with the negativity already. Surely there are some positive messages regarding the kinds of changes that parents in particular would like to see in what’s left of their public schools. Actually, there are. *Encouraging greater parental involvement* was the top choice, followed by *reducing class size.* As for the least popular options? Only 29% of those polled believed that *limiting the power of teachers unions* held the key to improving public schools.
But that was still more popular than the least popular choice: *creating new PUBLIC schools so parents have more choices.* Did I mention that charter schools are public schools?
– – – – – – – – – – – –
——————————–
Also, the Commenters are equally astute:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Steven Reinke on July 22, 2014 at 1:38 pm said:
Page 14: “Remember to use this message only with audiences who are already familiar with charters and with policymakers.”
Translation: Withhold information that may be useful to parents making decisions.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Gloria M on July 24, 2014 at 1:06 pm said:
Those old-school charters — started by teachers who wanted the freedom to experiment with curriculum and scheduling — are often great. They are also few and far between in any large city, where ever-expanding CMOs “compete” for “market share.” As a citizen and taxpayer, I want any school I fund to be transparent about its budgeting, operations, curriculum, teaching methods, and outcomes. I expect any charter or neighborhood school in my district to work collaboratively with other schools in the district to best serve students’ needs.
To the extent that any charter school makes valuable innovations, these should be openly shared and neighborhood schools should be free to adopt them. District voters should have a say in who serves on the charter school board and where the school will be located.
By contrast, charter chains that “compete” using “proprietary” methods, and that are governed by appointed rather than elected boards, are following a private-enterprise model and should, IMO, be privately funded.
I do not care to have my tax dollars going to enterprises whose activities I can neither monitor nor control.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Kathode Ray Tube on July 22, 2014 at 4:16 pm said:
My favorite quote (p. 17): “Also, as you can see, most people simply don’t understand the connection between unions and student or school outcomes, so it’s just not a battle we should fight with audiences who aren’t already extremely well-informed and invested in education reform.”
Heck, why have a debate with stakeholders? We know more than they do.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
LikeLike