For years, charter advocates have insisted that charters enroll exactly the same kids as public schools and get better results.
Daniel S. Katz writes that Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute broke the golden rule of education “reform”: he told the truth about charters, he talked about the rules of the club.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
While I am sure some viewers have seen the movie version, the title of Daniel Katz’s blog posting is based on a line in Chuck Palahniuk’s novel FIGHT CLUB:
“The first rule of fight club is, you don’t talk about fight club.”
The last two paragraphs of the piece accessed by the link in today’s blog:
[start quote]
Thanks, however, to Michael Petrilli, they can no longer claim that they really care about helping all of America’s students. At best, they just want to help a handful of the neediest whose successes will make them look good. At worst, they are cynically manipulating the problems of educating in communities with inter-generational poverty to run up a new investment bubble until they lose interest, cash in, and run off to ruin something else — maybe our public water works.
So, thank you, Mr. Petrilli for your honesty.
[end quote]
I agree. It goes right along with Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute on what CCSS is really—not RHEEally—all about:
[start quote]
And that brings us back to the Common Core. If the standards are better than those that many states had in place, swell. If more common reading and math standards make things easier for material developers and kids who move across states, that’s fine. But I don’t think that stuff amounts to all that much.
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end quote]
For more context and useful info—
Link: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
I’m not sure what kind of reward these guys deserve, but it ought to be something. After all, it’s not often that the self-proclaimed “education reformers” abandon their bedrock Marxist principles:
“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
Groucho must be feeling pretty lonely by now…
But then again, perhaps Petrilli and Hess can take solace in the rest of us taking up the following Marxian axiom:
“If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you.”
😎
Groucho wanted us to laugh and never took himself too seriously, these clowns fail on that count and divide our joy while multiplying our misery. Will Rogers never met these guys.
People might be interested to know that Mr. Petrilli has doubled down with some AM radio worthy psychoanalyzing of why discipline is too important to be left to liberals:
http://edexcellence.net/articles/school-discipline-too-important-to-leave-to-liberals
Goodness.
before Petrilli became president, I placed comments on the Education Next site so they banned me. At the occasion of the Boston Marathon they chose to use that as a reason to blame schools and teachers. They also published an article with the lovely title “Principal Pension Payoff” and I wrote and objected to that title/headline. After about 6 of my comments they banned me.
And did they try to refute those vicious facts you presented?
Great summary of charter “excellence”. Thanks!
Wrote a post on this (http://waynegersen.com/2014/12/16/charter-logic-exposed/) that emphasized that the primary reason for-profit charters “feature” tough discipline is to keep costs low and profits high. It’s a lot easier to operate a school where “anti-social” behavior is unacceptable and there is no requirement to address it. “Reformers” want to “run schools like a business” and getting rid of cancerous disruptive students is good for the bottom line!
as I was trained in special education, I supported the closing of institutional (state schools) and placement of special needs students closer to their homes; Massachusetts had spent a lot of budget sending students out of state to Pennsylvania. However, the schools were not provided with the necessary resources, the community agencies providing mental health services etc, the required training in “clinical judgment” for teachers to be able to manage and cope with the students with identified DSM-II DSM-IV disorders and then the Great Recession. In order to reduce/restrict budgets services were denied … the schools stopped accessing the medical reports from neurologists etc . because “we can only do educational things here” (as I was informed at one IEP meeting.” The goals were commendable and lofty and we were idealistic about what we could accomplish. Retrenching in the schools then proceeded with more of the applied behavioral analysis and “behavior modification” which then become one size fits all. There is an old New England expression that I actually heard first from Evelyn Deno (mom of the current Deno researchers) : “we can grow strawberries in March but at some expense”. There are not too many stating these concerns today — if you know of any I would like to hear. One is Kaufman at U. Virginia (I think Charlottesvile) and Naomi Zgmond in Pittsburg. The recent report on the Sandy Hook school touches on some of these variables re: psychological development of individual students with IEPS. Another hopeful component is the Boston school under mandate by the court to provide resources for ELL students and they do not need an IEP to do so; they do not need to be defined as “different” by any diagnosis in order to access resources. The IEP became a tool for rationing (which I did not envision ) and that is a major issue.
Fordham has tried to sound like a voice of reason in Ohio. Now they sound more like talk radio. As if I said governing, education, thinking, compasion, health care, science and humanity should not be left to conservatives. But I would never say that. Petrilli does reveal a negative, punitive, angry view many have towards teachers and education. Rather than a focus on preventing problems, Petrilli suggests a fire and brimstone, retributive approach.
retributive vs distributive, an important dichotomy
Here’s a different sales pitch for charters. In the Toledo Blade last week, probably timed for the release of the report with charters scoring lower than public schools:
“By choosing a smaller learning community, students can focus on developing their interests in areas such as technology, fitness, and the arts, which can prepare them well for college, a career, and life.
Charter schools offer parents an alternative when traditional public schools simply aren’t a good fit for their children. Charters provide parents with opportunities to choose schools based on children’s individual needs, rather than assigning them to schools based on where they live and what families can afford.”
What I love about it is how it doesn’t matter how or what charters do, because promoters can just pick a different angle to sell them when one doesn’t pan out 🙂
I also think this editorial is interesting because it was placed in the Toledo paper. Toledo Public Schools enrollment is actually UP, not down, and ed reformers flooded the Toledo market with charter schools.
This pitch fits the Toledo market better 🙂
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Opinion/2014/12/07/Charter-schools-give-Ohio-s-urban-families-choice-opportunity.html#LmcEixmKf04rFxwY.99
Petrelli is President of the Thomas Fordham Institute the largest charter authorizer in Ohio with 11 charters recently authorized and known for much hot air about the need for charter oversight? The Fordham is funded by the about 32 foundations including Gates, Broad, Walton and boasts as current members of the board a ten-year veteran from the Gates Foundation and the infamous Rod Paige who called teachers “terrorists” and whose Texas miracle of improved test scores in Houston was a fiction, but one that got him into the position of US Secretary of Education.
This is to say that the Petrelli is the public face of the deep-pockets campaign to denigrate public education and undermine the work of teachers. The Gates Foundation has recently provided operating support for the Fordham. The Fordham functioned as money laundering cite for foundations, notably Gates, in financing the CCSS.
They’re going to be writing any new laws for Ohio charter schools, I guess:
“After a short presentation by Smarick, hear reactions from a panel discussion of Ohio-based charter school experts that includes President and CEO of the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools Dr. Darlene Chambers, Senate Education Chair Peggy Lehner, House Education Vice Chair Andy Brenner, and the United Schools Network’s Chief Learning Officer John Dues. A question and answer session will follow the panel. ”
There’s a fair and balanced panel, huh? Not a single voice for public schools. It’s as if public schools are completely unaffected by what they do.
I wrote an long email to one of the people on the Board; he wrote back that they don’t get involved in the work/authoring of articles ; you get the same respond when you write to the Boston TV station and protest that Daid Koch is on their Board “He doesn’t influence programming”….
Jean,
Of course those folks don’t “influence” anything, that’s why they’re not on the boards, eh!?!?!?!
Petrilli was also the sponsor of the “Reformiest State” contest in 2011. It was won by…(wait for it)…Tony Bennett of Indiana, teacher-hater extraordinaire, pants-on-fire winner, reformist porn star, and possible inmate-in-waiting.
If you have a low gag reflex, you can get the gruesome details at
http://indianapublicmedia.org/stateimpact/2011/08/02/indiana-vies-for-title-of-education-idol/
with video at
http://edexcellence.net/search?search_api_views_fulltext=Reformiest+2011&search_api_aggregation_1=&date-created-from%5Bdate%5D=&date-created-to%5Bdate%5D=&field_news_issue_topic=&field_article_issue_topic=&field_pub_issue_topic=&field_gadfly_issue_topic=
I left about 5 comments on Petrilli’s article at Fordham Institute and another article by Pondiscio on teaching vocabulary. There were good comments there by Ed Jones and a woman named “Deb”. A lot of well intentioned parents read those articles and it bothers me that they are mis-informed by Petrilli’s lack of experience and expertise ; I was pleased to see Ed and Deb writing comments to Mike Petrilli. Sometimes Carol Burris drops in a comment (but not on this article).
What we’re seeing here is the constant re-framing and re-shaping of the mission of charter schools. Macke Raymond did it. Petrilli is defending its behaviors by suggesting that it is intended for the academic haves. Yes, he is openly suggesting a segregated system based on ambition and ability. (There are those who will say that it’s the same as magnet schools and I would agree.)
Living where I do, Petrilli is actually describing what I’ve seen. We had a charter start this year in the neighboring school district. The charter canvassed apartment complexes that had a culture known for academic attainment. And avoided those with cultures that have been known to struggle more. It’s a pretty obvious strategy. Another in a community about 20 miles away is comprised of kids whose families attend the same megachurch. How did this happen? The school recruited the megachurch and then set up an admissions process that gave those parents a heightened awareness and edge. For example, online application windows were only open during specific hours and the school was not forthcoming about those hours of opportunity.
This is not to say that all charter schools engage in these practices. But we’ve heard so many stories of counseling out while refusing to backfill that it is cream-skimming in a different way. My neighbors sent their kids to a charter for two years. They showed me the “parent contract.” They had a high level of required engagement which is fine but only available to families that have the time and resources for that engagement. (I’ll note that the school required parents to work a minimum number of fundraisers for the school. Free labor!)
So, yes, charter schools are different. Petrilli appears to advocate this proudly. So if this is the case, can we stop comparing them to public schools especially when it comes to nonsense like test score comparisons?
I think ed reformers should be held to their original campaign promise. I don’t know how they sold it in NYC, but in Ohio they definitely didn’t sell it as “we’ll create a new system of magnet schools”.
They made a much bigger promise in this state. They said they would “improve public education”. That means they have to improve PUBLIC schools. They wouldn’t have gotten elected on “we’ll open some magnet schools for the better kids”.
They shouldn’t get away with moving the goalposts and declaring success. Public schools already had magnet programs and selective schools in areas where there’s a population to support that along with a system for the rest of the kids. That’s not “new” at all.
this was quite a lengthy discussion about 6 months back : ” (There are those who will say that it’s the same as magnet schools and I would agree.)” the discussion pertained to how they are NOT like magnet schools but they might have some features like magnet schools. At the time I stated that the best magnet school study was done by Ron Sczypkowski at MAGI in New York (I know I have misspelled his name). At that time New Hampshire was looking to set up a technology “school” for “gifted ” students under the then Governor Sununu (senior); they decided not to build a separate , “gated” school but to use distance learning more effectively. I have not followed their progress in NH in this regard. Ed Jones, who wrote to Mike Petrilli in a comment, is talking about his work in “alternative” schools and I found Ed’s comments helpful in this regard. It is important to compare the different models in terms of the goals/purposes and the budgets and the means of implementation. This is a substantial part of the dialogue that should be taking place with elected officials state by state and in the legislation that should be advanced in Washington (but has fallen behind because there has been no reauthorization of ESEA).
Szczypkowski, Ron., MAGI Educational Services., & University of the State of New York. (1991). New York State magnet school evaluation study: Final report. Larchmont, NY: MAGI Educational Services.
I know this is an older study but the process Ron recommends was used in evaluating choices in New Hampshire before setting up a “gifted” STEM school…. it is the model he uses for the democratic process to set the goal (it might only work inside a state or in a small state)???? The decisions were based on logical and reasonable viewpoints from experienced educators in the field and many who had the expertise in technology — it was not a hurried decision to buy iPods such as we have seen evidenced in the Los Angeles Repairs not iPods. Since that time at least two “technology bubbles” have gone through the schools with resources being drained from the student population to purchase technology/computers/software for the “most deserving” students who can attend STEM (current discussion of the 90 million dollar budget for STEM school in Boston)…. It is also relevant to what Ed Jones says about alternative schools. I would like to post Ed Jones’ comment here on alternative schools — the work he is doing . (P.S. Ron Szcypkowski worked directly with Greg Benson the administrator for technology in New York state department whose dad was also a seasoned educational administrator ; this was when the developments in New York relied upon professionals in their communities rather than the outside “turnaround” McKinsey firms that have so much contempt for our profession).
The reason to post an older study is to illustrate how charter schools are NOT like the concept of Magnet Schools — but I know each state is different and the rules and the process get played out differently in implementation.
“The Golden Rule of Reform”
The ed reformer’s golden rule
Is never “out” the charter school
Never talk about attrition
Or ’bout attendance precondition
And ne’r reveal the prep for test
But say your schools are “just the best”
Is anyone surprised. Cut scores, test scores, student data are all tools to justify the government’s position on public schools. It’s the new reality – education’s kryptonite – to destroy truth, justice, and the American way.
Petrilli in the NYT article seems to have let go of some of the ed-reform mantras, feeling free to advertise the charter choice using the very grounds of opponents (cherry-picking, exclusivity, ability to dump expensive-to-teach students back into district public schools.)
His timing is right. The claim that curriculum standardization improves ed results is losing ground with the current-K12-parent faction, in direct proportion to its implementation. So now it’s time to emphasize the ‘strict discipline’ angle: he can corral both poor urban/ rural district parents (whose chaotic classrooms reflect both low-SES neediness & the siphoning off of better students to charters)– & all those conservative oldsters w/knee-jerk tendency to blaim all school problems, real or perceived, on poor parenting [by the ‘lower classes’] & that great catch-all, ‘lack of discipline.’ He throws in just enough anti-union words to stir up the latter group’s conviction that [perceived] decline in public schooling began w/permissive ‘liberal’ influence of teachers’ unions & federal interference (i.e., creation of DOE).
Mostly in response to jeanhaverhill:
Here’s a view from a NJ parent on funding for low-SES districts, known here as Abbott districts, after the 1985 ‘Abbott vs’ court decision that poor kids were getting a poor education due to comparative lack of funding.
You have to give the 1985 court a great deal of credit for recognizing that poor kids cost more to educate– that in fact the prominence in poor areas of SpEd designations [e.g., LD, other [mental] LD, ELL] derived directly from ghettoization of the poor.
Property [school] taxes have accelerated dizzyingly since then. The chunk wealthy districts hand over to the state for plumping up poor districts has grown to the point where today my own town pays 96% of its school budget out of pocket (4% from state).
I have been a NJ’an for only 22 yrs. My impression is, the state was already notable for racial segregation (exacerbated by inner-city riots of ’68)– most probably built on a history of classist segregation (even today, 19thc. distinctions of Catholic/Protestant, white/blue collar are evident from town lines). Each town/zone was already distinguished by average income. It would appear the ’85 Abbott decision has served to exacerbate the situation horrendously: emigrants to NJ choose their town according to whether they can pay anywhere from 5k to 25k per annum property taxes.
So where are we today? On the one hand we have a never-ending influx from nearby Wall St, whose denizens can pay it would seem a bottomless amount in property taxes for ‘good public schools’. On the other we have countless longtime residents– SJ conservatives– & aging NJ’ans, who tho’ of mostly-liberal bent, are on fixed income & faced with being pushed out of their homes by quickly-spiralling property taxes, which are all about educating all the states’ students.
Meanwhile we are nearly 5 yrs into the governorship of Chris Christie, who, tho he presents himself as a mainstream Republican– & maybe is, about 50%– his other 1/2 is pure teaparty. In those areas where the state foots nearly the entire ed bill (Newark, Camden, Paterson) he is already asserting school choice/ destruction of hi-cost [Abbott] public schools. In his favor are a number of ‘Abbott scandals’, wherein funds were misused. Both the sources I reference in the below para detail ways in which misuse of funds were made easy; it basically boils down to lack of local oversight.
The public debate has already been swayed by ‘studies’ that purport to show hi-$ tax support for Abbott districts has gleaned only middling results. (See http://newjersey.mercatus.org/has-abbott-worked/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/education/30abbott.html?pagewanted=all ) These studies are highly questionable: between 1985 Abbott decision & today, there are no comparative test results until NCLB testing starting in 2005. So we have nothing to prove that, e.g., results perhaps have grown from bottom to middle between 1985-2005. All we have are current (last 10 yrs) results showing Abbott school “results” (as measured by highly-questionable stdzd test measures) lag state averages by 20%. Perhaps that reflects huge growth since 1985, who knows?
The point is, ‘studies’ are in place with ‘evidence’ that Abbott expenditures have been for nought. This means we’re poised to delete such expenditures.
It should be noted (& was, in one of the cites) that municipal real estate taxes will most probably not be lowered as a result of foregone conclusions– that state funds will (or already have been) be drastically cut to Abbott-district schools [to wit, Newark, already in thrall to the policy of closing public schools in favor of cut-rate charters whose TFA teachers are housed in cut-rate local bldgs courtesy of Mark Zuckerberg].
Here’s another scary concept from Fordham and Petrilli – the “Education for Upward Mobility” conference:
“A core assumption of the education-reform movement is that excellent schools can be engines of upward mobility. But what kind of schools? And to what end?
In tandem with the release of several papers, this path-breaking conference will consider thorny questions, including: Is ‘college for all’ the right goal? (And what do we mean by ‘college’?) Do young people mostly need a strong foundation in academics? What can schools do to develop so-called ‘non-cognitive’ skills? Should technical education be a central part of the reform agenda? How about apprenticeships? What can we learn from the military’s success in working with disadvantaged youth?”
“A core assumption”, indeed! Perhaps there would be no need of a conference if one just examined that assumption, then?
And the next paragraph is in keeping, I think, with Petrilli’s stance in the NYT column of educational excellence for some – how about restricting some kids to voke ed and the military – based on their disadvantage, perhaps?
http://edexcellence.net/commentary/videos/videos-from-the-education-for-upward-mobility-conference
And remember that Joe Portnoy, videographer for the Fordham Foundation and of the execrable video of “The Gadfly Says” was recently hired at the DOE to help the messaging of CCSS.