Jonathan Alter is an insightful writer about politics but knows little about education. He doesn’t like public education. Unfortunately, he thinks he is an education expert. He had a starring role in “Waiting for ‘Superman,'” where he looked solemnly into the camera and said, “We know what works. Accountability works.” Right. Like No Child Left Behind was a huge success.
Alter adores charters. Recently he wrote an article for the Daily Beast about why liberals should love charters. He doesn’t like me because I don’t love charters. A few years ago, he got very angry at me when I wrote about schools–both charter and public–that claimed to have produced miraculous score increases. Alter and I debated on David Sirota’s radio show in Denver, and Alter made clear that he believes any claim that a charter school made about test scores and graduation rates, no matter how outlandish. I guess I should thank Alter for giving me some good laughs, like the time he compared me to Whittaker Chambers, the ex-Communist who turned against Alger Hiss (Chambers had moved from left to right, while I had moved, in Alter’s words, from right to left, which he thought was a very bad thing for me to do) or the time he interviewed Bill Gates and called me Gates’ “chief adversary.” That still makes me laugh. I loved that and wrote a reply to Gates’ questions in the Alter interview.
Mercedes Schneider responded to Alter and walked him through the facts about charters, and their lack of accountability and oversight. She schools him about the New Orleans “miracle.” She calls her post “Why Liberals Should Think Twice About ‘Learning to Love Charters.'” Alter, she notes, is oblivious to charter mismanagement and scandals, apparently never having heard of them. He knows nothing of the politicians and entrepreneurs who open charters to make a fast buck.
She writes:
In his piece, Alter repeats the misleading statement “charters are public schools.” However, charter schools take public money without being held accountable to the public for that money. That contributes to the charter school scandal and turnover, which Alter refuses to address, instead insisting that the fact that traditional public schools in general outperform charter schools “is not especially relevant” because those “underperforming charters” run by “inexperienced groups” just need closing.
Keep the charter churn going. Never mind how it affects children and communities.
Never mind that 80 percent of charter schools can’t cut it. Alter chooses to pick his own cherries once again and focus on “the top quintile” of charter schools that tend to be charter chains. Since according to Alter this top 20 percent of charters beats traditional public schools (even though such is really “irrelevant”), it justifies the whole under-regulated, scandal-ridden charter venture.
One of her best lines (classic-Mercedes):
Alter thinks it is better for the wealthy to make it possible for the inept to fund their own schools than to buy yachts.
If the Waltons wanted to truly improve public education, they would invest in yachts.
Peter Greene says that he might be convinced to love charters, but they would have to make some very important changes.
He writes:
I’m not categorically opposed to them on principle. My aunt ran a “free school” in Connecticut decades ago, and it was pretty cool. I have a friend whose son has been seriously assisted by cyber school, and I know a few other similar stories. I think it’s possible that charter schools could be an okay thing. But the charter systems we have now in this country are so very, very terrible I can’t even like them a little, let alone love them.
So when will I love charter schools?
I will love them when they’re fully accountable.
Public schools have to account for every dollar spent, every student who falls under their jurisdiction. Charter schools are only “public” when it’s time to be paid. The rest of the time they are non-transparent and non-accountable. We have charter scandals over and over and over and over again in which somebody just makes off with a pile of money, or isn’t really providing services they claim to be, or doesn’t really have a plan in place. This is bananas!
We’re learning that in the New Orleans Wide World O’Charters, nobody is accountable for the students. A school can purge a child from its records by essentially saying, “Yeah, she went somewhere” without even having to confirm what happened to the student. In New Orleans, there are thousands of students missing– school authorities literally do not know where those children are.
Charter schools will be accountable when they are just as transparent and just as accountable as public schools. Financial records completely open to the public. All meetings of governing bodies completely open to the public. And run by people who must answer to the public and whose first responsibility is not to the nominal owners of the school, but to the actual owners of the school– the people who pay the bills and fund the charter– the taxpayers.
I will love them when education is their primary mission
Private industry is plagued with a disease in this country, a disease that has convinced business leaders that the purpose of their widget company is not to make widgets, but to make good ROI for investors. This has led to all manner of stupid, destructive behavior, as well as a glut of really lousy widgets.
Modern charters all too often export that bad business attitude over to the world of education, with everyone from hedge fundies to pop stars getting into charter schools because someone told them it’s a great investment. If financial returns are located anywhere in your success metric for your charter school, just get the hell out. Because all that can mean is that you will view every student and staff member as a drain that is taking money away from you. You’ll want to select students based primarily on how they can help you achieve your financial goals (by looking good on paper and not costing much). I can’t think of a much worse attitude to bring into a school.

I always chuckle at what people in the reform group have to say about you. They make comparison to lobbyists and big money. There are suddenly “Ravitch camps” and “Ravitch patsies” My reply is always “You know she’s just a historian with a blog, right?” trying to compare moneyed interests and billionaire foundations to a professor with a pen is laughable. Though it is interesting to see a ragtag group of bloggers, parents and teachers to be compared to such lucrative and resources.
LikeLike
Dat Guy: the rheephormistas are just projecting their own thoughts, feelings and rheealities unto the rest of us.
For example, a while ago there was a brief dustup on this blog when a couple of the shills and trolls that bray on this blog took umbrage at the criticism of the size of the staffs at Michelle Rhee’s and Wendy Kopp’s [et al.) job employment agencies for adults.
Yeah, they pouted and sneered—what about the owner of this blog?!?!?!
Staff of one. Herself. Even the rheephormsters found this line of jeering so self-wounding that they issued a cease-and-desist order on themselves for that variant of dissing.
But not to fear. I remember when all those in favor of a “better education for all” were mere “Ravitchbots.” Jonathan Alter has upgraded us to “acolytes” of the owner of this blog. Although I’m not sure I should be glad for the change in status…
Maybe someday, in line with Peter Cunningham’s call for civil dialogue, we will be allowed to assume some semblance of humanity, fulfilling our roles as hewers of wood and drawers of water for a higher type of humanity aka the geniuses that mandate, enforce, benefit from, and advocate for self-styled “education reform.”
Want to know just what that more perfect sort of “education leader” looks like? Think of John Deasy. The latest string of article from the LATIMES—that was all in for this supernova of rheephorm—are now recounting everything that the newspaper missed for 3 1/2 years during the Deasy interregnum like iPads and MISIS and football fields and food contracts and settlement of legal cases that have turned sour—
And unfortunately I don’t think we’ve heard the end of it. But it’s a classic rheephorm twofer: put a rheephormster in charge of a large public school district, let him be the proverbial bull in the china shop, then blame the ensuing predictable train wrecks on public schools and their advocates.
But not to worry: like on Bizarro World, for the leaders of the “new civil rights movement of our time” failure is success, hypocrisy is straight talking, and $tudent $ucce$$ is oh so sweet.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
Thanks, Dat Guy. It really bothers the “reformers” that they have to contend with “a professor with a pen.” No big dollars. No small ones either. Just a blog and an earnest search, with the help of many readers, for what is best for all children, how to make education better for all, not how to privatize it. Their mud-slinging seems to boomerang.
LikeLike
What a brilliant essay! I’m going to send this to all my friends who don’t understand why I’m so concerned about the fate of public education and the charter school scam. This post brings to mind a quote I recently read in an old Isaiah Berlin essay titled “General Education”: “But if men are to be enabled to control their lives in the light of knowledge of what it is that they are dealing with, and not simply to regard disturbing changes of this kind with mere bewilderment, or fatalistic resignation, or fanaticism, or the disdain of the elect, or a self-destructive desire to surrender to the irresistible, it is desirable that the young, in particular, should be furnished with weapons against such helplessness.” It seems to me that your advocacy would have pleased Berlin. Thank so much!
LikeLike
“Never mind that 80 percent of charter schools can’t cut it.”
What is the source for this claim? If it is a CREDO study, I don’t think it’s accurate to describe a school that is performing as well as a district school as not cutting it.
LikeLike
Well, yes, because their own claims were that they’d be better (and cheaper). If they’re not better, why have two separate systems?
LikeLike
Are you a parent with concerns for your own child? I am not a big supporter of Charters, but I sure understand a parent’s desire be more involved in picking their child’s school.
LikeLike
A parent’s desire and the government’s responsibility are two different things. Sure, different parents want all kinds of different things for their kids. It’s the government’s responsibility to provide equal education to all children – not an ala carte menu selection. If you want what the government isn’t providing, you can either argue for your choices to be offered or you can pay for your own alternatives. Since your choice is religion in school – something the government can’t provide – then choice 2 is your option.
LikeLike
Dienne
Those who voted to establish public education systems in each state voted for loosely Protestant Christian public schools. The goal was to insure that all children had access to a good education. No one was “required” to attend a government school, they just had to go to school somewhere. The public’s primary interest was the accessibility of education (which made free schools available), and its secondary concern was that children receive an education that promoted good citizenship (thus the public’s quasi Protestant schools were supported and Catholic and other “sectarian” schools were not).
Over time, not only did the public schools secularize (for many good and bad reasons), but we have hopefully learned not to be prejudice against Catholics and other faiths. We should have learned that private “sectarian” schools can also produce good citizens. Thus, though the public’s two responsibilities of funding education and providing money for civically strong schools remain, it should be apparent that religious schools can also be civically strong as a resource to meet the public’s educational concerns. In other words, public money should be made available for a child to attend a civically strong religious school. >
LikeLike
Religious schools can be whatever they want to be, except government funded. The government cannot teach religion.
LikeLike
The focus on the “top quintile” is Alter. As for CREDO, it excludes from its charter-traditional public matching any traditional public school that sends fewer than 5 students to charters. So, CREDO comparisons of charters to traditional public schools is biased.
LikeLike
Why should New York City charter schools, which serve a student population that is almost entirely black and Hispanic and close to 80% FRPL-eligible (and whose zoned schools are even more hypersegregated than that), be compared to zoned schools like PS 321 or PS 234, which the typical NYC charter school student has literally no chance of attending?
The CREDO rationale for comparing charters only with so-called “feeder” schools is completely defensible, as judged both by methodology and plain old common sensed.
LikeLike
It’s really absurd to equate charters condition in NYC with New Orleans while these two cities are in so many ways different–in terms of population, city size, GDP, inflation, etc.
If you are in a big city like NYC, it’s so easy for reformers like Eva to create plenty of charters like sleeper cells within the same school district areas–or even within a couple of blocks–to bring many students to their side. Yep, grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. And kick those out and bring in new comers anytime they want. It’s so hard to tell when hundreds(or thousands?) of students switch schools because, in NYC, “cells” are typically made within or in-between school districts areas. It’s not the same situation in which the entire body of public school system was gone–due to national disaster, bankruptcy, or mayor’s bad business decision.
On whichever socio-economic condition the cells are made, it will surely give CREDO a lot of ground for cook-up and/or cherry-pick data.
I don’t understand what you mean by “feeder” schools. Sound like synonym with “charters” to me.
LikeLike
Hi, Ken,
I agree that one should be cautious when comparing charter (or any school’s) performance across different cities or states, but the CREDO studies don’t do that.
A “feeder” school as defined by CREDO is a traditional district school that loses more than 5 of the students living in its catchment area to charter schools located nearby. CREDO then virtually matches charter students with demographically similar students attending the feeder schools, and compares their results on state assessments.
If you are interested in learning more, I would recommend reading CREDO’s responses to critiques of their methodologies that can be found here: http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/
LikeLike
I agree. Although it is moving the goal posts, since the whole justification for the schools was “better”, or that’s how it was sold to the public.
If we’re moving to “choice” as the real objective, there should probably be some recognition of that because obviously we’re then on our way to Jonathan Alter discovering what he really supports is a voucher system. Once “better” is gone then it’s off to the races, which is actually what’s happening.
LikeLike
Tim, I noticed that just over a year ago, in August 2014 you were very outspoken about making sure that the results of the so-called “successful” charter schools in NYC were not the result of creaming or extremely high attrition rates. You, and Robert Pondiscio, called for a real investigation to see what REALLY works in those successful charter schools. And why charters like Kipp can’t even come close to those results.
Guess what? It’s been a year and nothing. All the millions going to charter schools and their promoters like Jonathan Alter saying we need more, and no one — and I mean no one– is curious about why certain charter schools have truly miraculous results and why Kipp and other charter schools are – compared to those charters — failures.
Why isn’t Alter curious about why other charter schools can’t do the job that the one truly successful chain is doing? Why so adamant about adding MORE charter schools when he should be promoting simply changing the charter schools that exist into models of the one charter school that works?
And it’s sad that no one — after a year — is bothering to look closely at the results. But I hear there is a very expensively produced video that we can watch that is produced with the education dollars that will teach Kipp and other charter schools how to be much, much better than they are.
LikeLike
Off-topic Success Academy monomania strikes again!
I don’t recall what it was that I wrote about Success Academy in August 2014, only that it must have been unqualified support for whatever it was that they were doing.
But I do recall that not long after August 2014, the city comptroller began an audit of Success and three other charter schools. One would assume that audit ought to be wrapping up soon, and if it had uncovered a worst-case scenario — rampant counseling-out or violations of state education law — we would have heard something about it by now. But keep your fingers crossed!
I think that it makes about as much sense to insist that every charter school perform as well as or model itself after the highest-performing charter as it would to insist that every district school perform as well as or model itself after Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (VA). What matters is whether the kids who attend charter schools in New York City are doing better than they would if they were attending the traditional district school assigned to them on the basis of their street address. The research suggests that charters are doing exactly that: http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/
LikeLike
Thomas Jefferson High School makes no claims that its “special sauce” makes its students top performers on the SATs. Apparently, you are fine with some charter schools (BASIS comes to mind, as well as your favorite charter school chain) competing for the top students against public schools — it’s a “lottery” but the school makes it very clear before enrolling that your kid better “fit”. And of course, the very high attrition rates at BASIS and your other favorite charter chain show how many very misguided parents mistakenly believed their child fit and the charter school showed them how very wrong they were.
If that’s what you want, Tim, then OWN IT. Stop pretending charter schools are there to help all the at-risk kids in failing public schools.
But I do appreciate you finally being at least a little bit more honest about what you think charter schools should be.
LikeLike
Tim,
Why authorize charter schools that are no better than the existing public schools? If they aren’t better, they should close. Unless they are serving children with high needs, which too few are.
LikeLike
One reason a parent might prefer a charter school to a traditional public school in New York City might be that the bureaucracy required to run a school district with 1.1 million students is not responsive to an individual student’s need.
LikeLike
One reason a parent might prefer a charter school to a traditional public school is that their child’s need is better met when all those difficult kids are not there to take any teachers’ time away from the rest of the very well-behaved students.
What’s sad is that we don’t have an honest discussion about this — although parents who support charters freely admit this in conversations.
If that is supposed to be the new model, then public schools should just establish their own side by side models in every failing public school. One side has the “good” kids (kept entirely separately) and one has the “bad” kids. And the bad kids are left to rot because the charter folks have taught us that they just don’t matter if they can’t do what is asked. So why spend a penny more on their education?
And why not fire every teacher who thinks those kids are worthwhile, even if they will never be “scholars”? After all, those misguided teachers are just stealing public money while not doing their job. At least, that’s what I am learning from the pro-charter folks on here.
LikeLike
I’m not a big fan of Charters, so I have a hard time defending them. However, I think many of them are trying to show “tough love.” Many kids continue to fail in school because they are allowed to! Some charters make the standards high and successfully challenge kids to come up to the bar. It gives them new confidence, self-esteem and a new vision for life. Sure, those who don’t make the challenge are left where they were… and that is a sad thing. This is why I like religious schools, they (potentially) have deeper resources of compassion than the average public school (charter or traditional)… and kids failing for whatever reason need LOTS of compassion.
>
LikeLike
I love how the ed reform “movement” just blithely skim over the vast ed reform debacle in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania by saying “New Orleans” over and over with this “a few bad apples” defense.
He’s saying “there are some good charter schools” which public school supporters could also say. I have no idea why this is an argument for privatizing the whole system.
I’ll argue the other side- he should embrace public schools. Many of them are doing a good job. I don’t understand why it is fine and great to have such zealous charter school advocates but public schools can’t have any advocates- that’s somehow “unfair” or “biased”.
I am also tired of political hacks setting this up as brave ed reformers versus labor unions. Because they are obsessed with labor unions does not mean public school parents are obsessed with labor unions. Leave me and my kid out of your anti-labor offensive. Stop using us.
LikeLike
Chiara: as usual, spot on!
To pick up on one thing you mention: the “don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good” argument is constantly recycled, under a myriad of guises, by the rheephormsters when they defend their seemingly endless chain of failures and fiascos. They also employ it to justify the slightest of success, such as minor test score increases.
But if anyone should even slightly allude to such an approach for public schools—that Rome wasn’t built in a day, that public schools are starved of resources, that education is hard work that is a marathon and not a sprint, etc.—they launch into their usual sneer, smear and jeer mode, accusing folks of justifying “factories of failure” and “dropout factories” and “grossly ineffective teachers” and “letting whole generations of students fail” and such.
It’s the essence of their playbook. Double think. Double talk. Double standards.
It’s as natural to them as turning to their foundational Marxist principles:
“The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
Groucho would be so so pleased.
😎
LikeLike
We have a political columnist who calls charters “the darlings” of politicians and she’s right. 93% of the kids in this state attend public schools, yet John Kasich’s entire focus is in on charters and vouchers. Charters aren’t even “low income” in Ohio. The best charter in my area is in a really wealthy district with excellent public schools.
LikeLike
Very well stated! As a native New Orleanian who lives in Ohio–with two children in public schools–I am constantly reminded by my friend in New Orleans about what a scam charter schools are. The corruption for which the state is famous is now just much more sophisticated. And sadly, it’s a lesson the charter school lobby in Ohio has learned quite well.
LikeLike
Alter’s piece is also typical because it forgets to mention public schools. If ed reformers are going to run government (and they are running government) they probably should remember that they sold ed reform to the public as improving public schools, not replacing public schools with their preferred system. How a “movement” that is supposedly about “public education” consistently either denigrates or ignores the schools that the vast majority of children of all income levels attend is beyond me, but they should probably think about why this entire discussion always revolves around vouchers and charters. Alter doesn’t work for me but I’m afraid I have to insist that public employees support public schools. That’s a bare- minimum job requirement.
LikeLike
As Newark mayor, Cory Booker wanted to make Newark the capital of charter schools. He didn’t call for making Newark schools as good as the public schools he attended in Harrington Park & Northern Valley Reg’l districts. His parents were both IBM execs, could afford affluent suburb.
LikeLike
I think it’s enormously generous he’ll consider letting us keep public schools “where they are performing well”. God, I hope mine makes the cut.
LikeLike
I’m disappointed in Jonathan Alter. He needs to rethink his position!
LikeLike
I fully agree. If the Charter movement is all about making money rather than giving children a rich meaningful education, we may be worse off for it. However, this says little about the value of school choice… we just have to do it right!
Alter also does well to point out the apparent depravity of many of our business leaders. However, they reflect some of the best and brightest of our public schools. Thus, one of my key concerns for school choice is that it allow children to attend private religious schools that have the potential to nurture higher values and morals than those to which secular public schools (including Charters) are limited to. Life is more than test scores or economic success, and religious schools have a whole lot more to say on this topic.
LikeLike
Well, Craig, if you actually support religious schools you should oppose ed reform, because those schools are bleeding too:
http://hechingerreport.org/challenged-by-charters-private-and-parochial-school-enrollments-fall/
It’s a dog eat dog world out there in this free market paradise – you better hire some lobbyists and get those vouchers going. The school who buys the most politicians wins. Good luck!
LikeLike
Yes, I have written about the decline of religious schools in the wake of “limited” school choice. Religious schools tend to be more holistic in their educational nurture, and especially in impoverished “communities”, children need this broad nurture. It is a shame to see many Catholic and other schools convert to Charters in an attempt to maintain some of their ministry to children. By secularizing, they lose some of their most valuable contributions to the public’s welfare. Though many parents prefer religious schools, “A tuition based school system is no match for a free school system”.
>
LikeLike
I wonder what Bridget Anne Kelly’s Catholic high school has to say on this topic. They’d named her to their Hall of Fame before Bridgegate. She also attended a Catholic college.
LikeLike
My child is in public school and the families who want it also send their child to religious school either after school or on weekends. Mine included.
How INSULTING that you think that religious parents are sending their kids to public schools where some kind of anti-religion is taught.
And I think that the writings of Frank McCourt might display a bit of what happens when you are under the false belief that as long as you call yourself a “religious school”, you are more ethical than a public school or teaching better values.
Are you a supporter of all the Christian Schools down south that teach that if you don’t accept Jesus, you will burn in hell? And homosexuals are sinners and should not be welcome in church? And of course, white Christians are better than other races.
REAL religious folks understand that you can have a secular education and still be religious and ethical. Those people run a colleges like Georgetown. But the people like you, who think religion can only be taught side by side with math and reading, are the ones who run Liberty University.
LikeLike
NYC Parent I’m sorry if you feel insulted by my comment that public school presentations (by law) fail to support a traditional religious view of the world. But that doesn’t change what is true. Yes, Christians from all over the globe believe that those who reject God’s offer of love will be granted to forever be separated from him, and that all people who persist in sin are not welcome as Church members… but I have never heard anyone claim that Whites are better Christians than other races.
Why do we need religious schools? It is a matter of time and context. Schools spend more time teaching than parents have at home. Religious families can’t compete very well. Further, the most intelligent place to teach about God’s concern for mathematics is in math class – not in the evening getting ready for bed! For all those people that think God is relevant to math, art, science, history, athletics, etc., it makes little sense to separate the two.
Why not let parents pick their schools? Are they untrustworthy? Incompetent? Too ignorant? Will society fall apart more than it is now? The foundations of America were religious – people wove faith and life together into a meaningful whole. The separation of the two (culminated in the 1960’s) has undermined our nation’s moral and philosophic (and spiritual) foundations. Does this make sense?
>
LikeLike
Hasn’t this debate over who REALLY represents progressive education been a long time coming?
The Democrats and Hillary and Bernie are going to have to face it during the primaries and later the general election.
It WILL be an issue at the Philadelphia Convention.
Jonathan Alter here says Liberals Should Love Charters.
So much of the Education Wars in the party are the exact same ones played with the financial crisis that Neo-liberal policies sided with. We usually see the same backers of Wall Street and its “wisdom” are the very same wealthy supporters of Charters, Testing, Technology and vastly different pedagogies for urban school systems than the ones they offer their own children.
I again appeal to readers of Diane’s blog and others who share our point of view to aggressively reach out to leaders of the minority communities. We need their skills and knowledge and experiences to assist us in our battles. Let’s publicize what they already are doing for the cause and for kids. Since the children of color are the primary battleground (although of course not exclusively) in all these national education debates, we need their voices and talents in our corner.
We all recognize that these kids are the very faces/brains/hearts of what is at stake. They are not certainly not the children of the billionaires and hedge funders and politicians who support Jonathan Alter’s POV. These children ain’t the fortunate sons’, as John Fogerty would incite us to remember.
The Democratic Party has become too captive by the wealthy donors who make money at the expense of our kids while claiming to be their saviors. They perpetuate the two tier education system that needs to be exposed and demolished.
This debate is long overdue, so let’s prepare for it.
LikeLike
Kasich’s ed reform team finally released the emails related to the charter school rating school rating scandal, BTW. On Friday of Labor Day weekend.
The entire political apparatus in this state is captured by ed reform lobbyists. They’re running the place. Completely and utterly preoccupied with protecting and promoting charter schools:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ap/ohio/media-lawmakers-seek-records-in-ohio-charter-schoo/nnXky/
LikeLike
“Alter-nate Reality”
An Alter-nate reality
Where things are peachy-keen
Where common criminality
In charters is unseen
LikeLike
Thank you, Poet. Love your poetry.
LikeLike
I’m glad i can provide some small contribution.
but the real thanks belong to you and all the teachers and parents who are making a huge difference.
The retreat has been sounded and you have the reformsters on the run.
LikeLike