Peter Greene writes about the reformers’ panicked reaction to Hillary’s factually correct statement about privately managed charter schools.
She dared to say:
“I don’t want to say every one – but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them.”
This is is a matter of fact, not opinion. The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report chiding charter schools for their low numbers of English language learners. The report said that charters enroll only 8% of ELLs, compared to 11% nationally. However, in urban districts, ELLs are typically well above 11%. And as Peter points out, citing EduShyster, some of Boston’s high-performing charters have no ELLs, nada, zip, zero.
In city after city, charters have been sued for excluding students with disabilities. The GAO found the same gap that existed for ELLs. And again the actual gap was understated because charters were compared to the national average, not their own district. In addition, charters prefer the mildest disabilities and leave the most severely disabled students to the public schools. In Minneapolis, a public school was handed over to a Gulen charter, which promptly excluded 40 students with autism.
The Washington Post editorial board, one of the nation’s most persistent supporters of charters, cited “evidence” from the Center for Education Reform, whose organizational raison d’etre is promoting charters and vouchers.
Reformers may be willing to abandon some of their failed policies, but not charters. They are the Holy Grail, the sacred cow, the replacement for public education. They are the linchpin of privatization.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, thank you for such a clear closing paragraph:
Reformers may be willing to abandon some of their failed policies, but not charters. They are the Holy Grail, the sacred cow, the replacement for public education. They are the linchpin of privatization.
It really hit me hard. This is a great insight–not only are charters a source of profit, but they do the essential work of splintering communities, so they will lack the ability to stand together and stand up for themselves. And why is this essential, why is it so valuable to reformers?
It brings to mind a term used during the Civil War, WWI and WW II– when one of the worst things you could call someone was a war profiteer. These supporters of charter schools are poverty-profiteers, splintering neighborhoods so they can buy up property for next to nothing, without resistance from a unified community, and profit when gentrification takes place. Degrading neighborhoods with many residents with low wages is essential to their business plan.
It was a freak out. I hope Clinton learned her lesson. Even mild criticism of charter schools WILL NOT be tolerated.
It’s such a narrow prism, too. There was absolutely no discussion of Clinton’s views on public schools. None.
It’s the same narrow prism with the new Louisiana governor. The whole discussion was about charters and vouchers. Any positions he has on public schools were completely ignored. In fact, it looks to me like the new Louisiana governor (partly) ran restoring funding to public education. That wasn’t even mentioned.
When they said they wanted politicians to talk about “public education” I guess they really meant “charter schools and vouchers”. Oh, and testing! Let’s not forget that! They have to be pro-testing.
Why would they want to talk about public schools, when charters are where there’s a pot of gold? Their interests are monetary!
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is still out promoting the idea that the problems with the US economy are due to deficiencies in the US workforce.
“I can’t tell you how many CEOs I’ve met who say they can’t find young people with the skills they’re looking for.
So my request and my challenge is: We have lots of what I call phony debates about silly stuff. Could CEOs lend their considerable voice to, “Do we need high standards or not? Do we want to continue to reduce the dropout rate or not? Do we want to make sure our high-school graduates are truly college-ready? Do we want to lead the world in college-completion rates or not?”
The Obama Administration believes CEO’s don’t have ENOUGH influence in DC. They spout this stuff seriously. What we need are more private sector CEO’s directing politicians. In what world is this reality? Is there anyone in the country who believes that wealthy and powerful people have TOO LITTLE influence on policy, outside Arne Duncan?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/arne-duncan-pinpoints-where-schools-fail-1448302773?tesla=y&alg=y
You know whats hilarious? I know PLENTY of twenty-somethings with degrees. Useless degrees because there are no jobs for them. There may be jobs for the kids from wealthy families with connections, but for regular kids who graduated from state colleges, no jobs for them. How about the graduates from County colleges? No jobs for them. I work with some very wealthy people – they wouldn’t help me help my kid via introduction if their lives depended on it – meanwhile, they fall all over themselves to help each other. The silver spoons help the silver spoons. The rest of us are up to our own devices. Now, take the teaching profession–TFA sure has. TFA is taking jobs away from the “regular,” in its opinion “low life” class. And there you have it. Wendy routinely said teachers are stupid, and TFA is the best of the best. Eff her.
There is not a shortage of qualified, trained, college-educated and degreed people – there is a shortage of pedigree. Pedigree opens doors. There are the haves, and the have nots. The haves are bound and determined to keep the have nots as have nots.
Jobs are disappearing, salaries are remaining flat for those at the bottom. THIS is the reality of the world we live in now. There is a huge divide between the people at the top and the people at the bottom…and I’m not even rock bottom and the divide is huge. I do more for less, and less, and less.
There is no shortage of talent–that is self-serving rhetoric from the edubullies.
Well-said, Donna. Lewis Lapham wrote a book decades ago about the wealthy. One thing I still remember after all these years is his discussion of what happens when a rich person loses all his wealth. Do his/her wealthy friends rally round to support their friend in need? Hell no, they abandon the person faster than a dog shaking the rain of its coat. The reason, per Lapham: wealthy people don’t want to associate with the lessers. In addition, the wealthy gain some satisfaction knowing that their slice of the pie has just gotten a bit fatter with the elimination of another wealthy person.
Their unbridled greed is now compelling them to steal as much as they can from the commons – hence the rise of charters. These sociopathicm “useless eaters” won’t stop until they are forced to. Duncan, Obama and FOB’s are all part of this class.
Well, Clinton has since walked back her charter criticisms to reassure her donors that she actually “did not have relations with that woman — Ms. Reality.”
Her charter criticisms were clueless anyway, as far as my state goes. Charters don’t “cherrypick” in Ohio.
Instead they “flood” markets with charters and just let the “free market” take care of the rest.
This whole charter debate revolves around the assumption that charter schools are superior to public schools. That simply isn’t true in huge swathes of the country.
A former state chair for TFA, who currently works for a crowd-sourcing type of entity, providing schools with supplies, from donors, wrote a defense, in a Fall 2015 publication, “We exclusively serve public schools.” Since the Ohio Supreme court ruled that charter school assets belong to operators, not schools, the statement is tantamount to saying a corporation like G.E., that makes aircraft engines for the Air Force, is part of the public sector. But as usual, the media, irresponsibly, prints the reformer’s talking points, with apparently, no truth-editing in their gray matter.
Likewise, all ELLs are not the same. Advanced students are the most ready to learn in English. Students make it to the advanced level usually after three or more years of concentrated study. The biggest challenge is for the beginners, particularly if they are older SIFE (students lacking formal education). Some of these students will age out of public school and will have to get a GED in order to get a diploma. Where the students come from makes a big difference as well. Generally, many Asians and central Europeans from Poland or even Russia tend to have a solid background in L 1 (first language) and academics. The students from central America and the Afro-Caribbean areas tend to have a lot less formal education so it takes them longer to catch up. One of the reasons I moved from high school to elementary ESL is that I felt I could have more impact with these students because they had time on their side. My guess is that the charters tend to take the advanced students and those with solid academic backgrounds, and leave the rest to the public schools.
Hillary talks the talk, but walks with Wall Street. Don’t get excited over this story.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Hillary sways with the wind. I pray to God she isn’t the ticket. We don’t need more Clintons, or Bushes either.