Carol Burris, the executive director of the Network for Public Education, writes here about the ruinous, failed policy of closing schools because of their test scores.
This odious, undemocratic practice started with No Child Left Behind, where it was adopted as a sanction for “failing schools.” Any school that couldn’t raise test scores for five years in a row was labeled a failing school, without regard to its needs and struggles. No matter how loudly the community protested, the school was closed.
Race to the Top continued this practice, even though there was no record of success. Frequently, the school closures cleared the way for charters, which didn’t enroll the children with disabilities and the English language learners. Those children were shunted off to another “failing school.”
Nothing so fully epitomizes the failure of corporate reform as closing schools instead of helping them improve.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Has anyone done any research into the term “corporate research” or know how it came into usage?
Hold it… You forgot to mention the enormous amounts of money the government pumps into these schools at each level! It was never a matter of “Still bad scores? Shut ‘m down!” Millions of dollars in extra funding is made available to these schools. All sorts of interventions were made available! I know that, because I work in a District that has some SINA schools, and know how much extra money goes into those buildings.
Except the uses of that money were extremely strictly dictated – usually to extra tutoring services with dubious success – not to hiring more teachers, renovating classrooms, buying time to design quality curriculum – usually it went to outside consultants whose only obligation was to produce something and collect their paycheck.
What is a SINA school?
TIA!
Great, that she is speaking out!
The one and ONLY reason for the agenda to close the public schools is to open the for profit charters in their place. The end.
I just spent about an hour following links that led me to reports on the Dyett hunger strike. If you read a little about the process and proposal that the community activists have put forth, you understand their refusal to back down. There is no doubt that the plan for a high school with a focus on green technology and global leadership has been thoroughly vetted and is supported by reputable organizations. The other proposals leave much to be desired. It is obvious that the motivation behind Emanuel’s and the school board’s refusal to consider the community plan is totally political. If they were thinking about the kids and the community, they would be backing it.