Peter Greene watched the discussion of education by the Democratic platform committee, and he was surprised by a good turn in the language used for charter schools.
The original platform language had squishy rhetoric about charter schools. Thanks to the behind-the-scenes work of Troy LaRivere (the elementary school principal who was pushed out of his school by the Chicago Public School leadership, most likely for his outspokenness against high-stakes testing and charter schools as well as his endorsement of Bernie Sanders in the primary); Chuck Pascal, a Sanders delegate from Pennsylvania (this blog helped to raise money to pay his way to Orlando for the platform meetings); and Christine Kramar, a Nevada delegate who is devoted to public education. These activists had the support of Randi Weingarten, and some of their platform changes were accepted.
Peter Greene writes about the most important of them: the charter language. The original platform spoke out against for-profit charters, but Peter has shown in other posts that the difference between for-profit charters and non-profit charters is often a distinction without a difference.
He writes:
Randi and this amendment do make a new kind of distinction– that when charters disrupt and displace traditional public schools, that’s a Bad Thing. Which is a remarkably direct challenge to the modern charter model, which says that disruption and displacement of the public school system is the goal. It’s the closest I think I’ve heard a national union leader get to saying, “The goals of charter proponents are bad, destructive, wrong goals.” So I’m happy for that….
But the original platform definition of Bad Charter was just “a for-profit charter” which seriously overlooked the point that non-profit charters are just as bad (and profitable) as the for-profits. This new language defines a Bad Charter as one that does not have democratically-elected governance, does not serve the exact same population as the the local public school, and that destabilizes or damages the health of that local public school.”
In other words, the new language offers a much broader understanding of when a charter school is Not Okay than the draft did.
Peter would have preferred language that recognized that charters by nature undermine public schools, but he was pleased that the Democratic party moved to recognize the damage that charters inflict on neighborhood public schools and to propose that this damage should no longer be permitted.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I refuse to “bite” DEMs’ rhetoric. It’s election year “get your vote” talk, and then after the dust settles back tobbusiness as usual.
LikeLike
“the official party platform will have zero on the policies that Clinton pursues, and we already know that the policy will be the whole-hearted support of the charter business. Nothing that happened in writing the platform was ever going to change any of that. But the minute shift here means that at least they know that using the bullshit “distinction”
between non-profits and for-profits was not going to be bought and they would have to come up with something more. I never expected any meaningful change, but I’m happy to see them have to dance, even a little.”
That was Peter Green responding to a comment last night at 11:30 PM. This is such a dog and pony show on every issue not just education. So how do the People take back “The Party of the People”?
LikeLike
Peter Greene: Setting up a Bad Charter v. Good Charter opposition? This is what is known as rhetorical sleight of hand. They continue to use bogus jargon such as “public charter schools” as if such a thing actually existed. Cheering such a “minute” shift in rhetoric is a big step backward for people who claim to tell things like they are. The language that was adopted is a strong endorsement of draining public resources for the benefit of well-placed people with billionaire backers. It might be a good time to go read some Orwell.
LikeLike
I have to agree. The platform describes fantasy charters that do not exist – these charters that accept the same kids as public schools and do not drain resources from public schools. It is fiction to declare that charters and public education are compatible – or that charters are even public schools, for that matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an addendum the fact that it can be ignored does not inspire much confidence, but it is a start to a conversation. It will take a lot of public pressure to remind the DNC about this statement, especially when so many of them get money from the charter lobby.
LikeLike
I know I say this all the time but I wish there was more of a focus on something positive FOR public schools. That’s the real damage that is being done by ed reform, in my opinion. It’s a wholly negative agenda for and about public schools.
This wholly negative narrative isn’t fringe in ed reform:
“The intent was obvious to her, Ms. Massman said. “They are trying to rebrand public education,” she said.
The use of the term has set off alarms even among some Republicans, who fear that it signals still less support, financially and otherwise, for the public schools in a state that had long felt pride over the quality of its education system. The recent adoption of a school finance plan that was acceptable to Mr. Brownback, the Legislature and the Kansas Supreme Court has not entirely assuaged those concerns.
Davis Merritt, a columnist for The Wichita Eagle, said in a column in May that state legislators’ “deaf and blind” ideology was threatening public schools.
“Some have begun to call public schools ‘government schools,’ a calculated pejorative scorning both education and anything related to government,” he wrote.”
Jeb Bush uses “government schools” and so does the leader in the lower chamber of my statehouse.
If you read on the ed reform side you’ll see it yourself- public schools are either completely ignored or any commentary consists of a list of their deficits.
They’re truly political orphans. Schools to be wound down and phased out- “the status quo”, “traditional schools”, “government schools”. Ohio ed reformers have set this language into law- they call the public schools that 93% of kids attend “district schools” while charter schools are called “community schools” and vouchers are called “scholarships”. It permeates ed reform. It’s everywhere.
LikeLike
The Randi shuffle…talk out of both sides and make it look like you’re fighting. It’s just words folks. She’s just like the Clintons. They continually create their own scams and then try to portray themselves as victims surviving attacks from haters.
If you didn’t catch it, read #clintoncontaminaiton in the NYTimes.
LikeLike
Frankly, given the horror we are now facing in PA with HB 530 waiting in the wings as the budget process winds down, I’m rather surprised he would write something like this. I guess if you live in a district that is not under direct threat, unlike my situation in Philadelphia, this may be a more palatable argument to make. Unregulated charter expansion (“good” ones or not) threaten the ability of our district to turn on the lights in neighborhood school buildings.For me this argument rings hollow.
“Cyber charters continue to perform poorly, but in HB 530, the PA legislature didn’t create a cyber charter quality task force or a commission to study student outcomes in cybers. Taxpayers need to understand more about how these public cyber schools are funded and how well they’re serving students. That would not happen under HB 530.
Further, HB 530 gives charter schools many new opportunities to expand without the permission of local school boards and the communities that pay the bills, but does not contain any language that would ensure that new charter schools would provide students with a quality education. In fact, HB 530 does not contain any consequences for poor-performing charters. Even charter schools that fare poorly on the separate, charter-only evaluation system created in the bill can receive a five-year renewal.”
http://educationvoterspa.org/blog/hb-530-bad-charter-legislation-state-budget-update/
LikeLike
Alison (and all), I agree with you and am disgusted with the neoliberals and their conservatives allies who are nationally & globally pushing corporate ed reform (and in PA, HB 530). We can only hope Governor Wolf will veto it, should it pass. I want to give Peter some slack here, though. Sometimes even a crumb of good news tastes good when you are starving. Peter gets the big picture.
LikeLike
My children went to a non profit charter that was run into the ground by the parent school board. They forced out the principal and business manager and fired the experienced teachers. They gave themselves the jobs. An unemployed police officer took over as principal and two unemployed members started their own charter school management company and took over the finances. They hired friends without bidding the work and spent money lavishly on lunches and even a trip to the spa. They even held a political fundraiser on school grounds using school funds. The administrators behaved in inappropriate ways putting children’s safety at risk. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect “non profit” charter schools to be regulated like public schools. Nobody should be surprised by all the corruption in the charter school sector.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent expose. We need MORE OF THESE.
LikeLike
Louis,
It would have been nicer to have heard this from you over the past 10 days.
Ross
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
I’m having trouble with calling this a victory. In my mind a school that is locally governed, serves the local population, and doesn’t disrupt schooling is called a PUBLIC SCHOOL.
Help me if I’m wrong, but this still feels like same old, same old.
LikeLike
It feels like the same ol, same ol because that is exactly what it is.
Not that what the platform says about public education means anything at all as to how the person in the office, and therefore the Fed Ed Dept act.
LikeLike
If you define charter schools as publicly financed but privately managed it is whether the schools is publicly managed that is the attribute that is essential for calling the school is a public school and all other attributes are a distraction.
LikeLike
Charters are publicly funded “privately” managed schools. Public charter schools have to mean publicly managed schools or they are privatized public schools. HRC has to be held to account to define what she supports, publicly managed charter schools or privately managed charter schools.
LikeLike
This new language defines a Bad Charter as one that does not have democratically-elected governance, does not serve the exact same population as the the local public school, and that destabilizes or damages the health of that local public school.”
In other words, the new lan
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Diane Ravitchs blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: “Peter Greene watched the discussion of education by > the Democratic platform committee, and he was surprised by a good turn in > the language used for charter schools. The original platform language had > squishy rhetoric about charter schools. Thanks to ” >
LikeLike
Unionized, non-profit, charter schools are an existential threat to charter schools because they have a private and not a public interest. Many follow their private interest and join their state charter school association and funding from joining those associations, often from taxpayers education tax dollars, are used to hire lobbyist and fund super PACs to influence politicians to advance charter school agenda.
LikeLike
Well are screwed up my opening sentence. I met to write unionized, non-profit, charter schools are an existential threat to public schools…
LikeLike
I do not care if you qualify them with the words private or public, charter schools are a huge part of the plan to destroy true public schools. Please do not be deceived by rhetoric that sounds good to the ear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What’s needed is platform language and a true Democratic Party and HRC commitment to requiring that charter schools become genuine public schools by being run by publicly-elected school boards and by being required to file the same detailed public-domain audited financial reports about how they spend the public’s money that genuine public schools are required to file.
LikeLiked by 1 person