Julian Vasquez Heilig, professor at Sacramento State, researcher, and prominent blogger, debates Howard Fuller, leader of BAEO (Black Advocates for Educational Opportunity). BAEO is funded by the Walton Family Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and other rightwing foundations.
The debate focuses on the recent decision by the NAACP annual conference and by Black Lives Matter to call for a moratorium on new charters, because of the harm done to black communities.
Julian, a leader of the NAACP education division in California, is highly critical of charter schools because of their lack of accountability and their private management; Fuller supports school choice as the best way to help all black children.
This is well worth listening to.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/watch-john-oliver-expose-shocking-flaws-of-charter-schools-w435501?utm_source=yahoomusic&utm_medium=referral
Unfortunately Julien did not consult with people in Milwaukee who actually follow Fuller’s school he operates or his role in the City charter authorizer. He had three straight years of expelling 11%-16% of his students but the authorizing Board did not sanction his school. Secondly, he is Board president of school, gets a contract to operate the charter authorizer through his role at Marquette College and plays a major role in lobbying the City and State. He is a walking conflict of interest.
Interesting, David.
Because I found Fuller to be very skilled at two things: lying and being intentionally obtuse.
I listened to the whole thing. The biggest whopper was Fuller saying that unions have the equivalent financial power in school board elections as venture philanthropists. A lie he can get away with in the general public unfortunately.
He was also very good at deflecting Vasquez’s criticisms by saying only two different arguments. He’d agree and say that he wished the same standards on some issues for all schools but refused to acknowledge that his “wishes” and reality were different. Secondly, he constantly said that the same types of issues (regardless of the topic) were true about public schools. If that’s the case (which it isn’t), then why do we have two parallel systems, in Fuller’s apparently intentional obtuse view?
His strategy was to meet arguments and debate points with the approach of “Hey, I’m a really nice guy.” He didn’t seem to want a back and forth. He’d agree or say just like traditional public schools and that was all.
The fortunes of the big reformers dwarf the assets of the unions. Gates has $60 Billion. Broad: $2 billion in his foundation but has about $20 billion more; Walton family: $2 billion in the foundation but the family has another $140 billion (!).
I haven’t got to the many other billionaires pumping money into their version of reform, every part of which has failed and failed.
Neither Union has even $1 billion to fight the billionaires.
“We certainly want to thank the Walton Family Foundation for its support. . . ”
The National Urban League can’t resist the lure of lucre, eh!!
Don’t forget to highlight the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation’s support for BAEO. Harry was one of the original charter members of the John Birch Society. From Sourcewatch, “The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that from 2001-2009, the Bradley Foundation doled out nearly as much as the 7 Koch and Schaife Foundations combined…The Bradley Foundation gave a total of $675,000 to Richard Berman’s PR front groups in 2013…In 2013, the Foundation gave an award to Roger Ailes …in 2011, to Jeb Bush…in 2004 to Thomas Sowell….”
Here is the link I always post in discussions about choice. http://horacemannleague.blogspot.com/2013/01/asymmetric-information-parental-choice.html
To me, it is the reference standard to use in debunking the fallacy that is school choice. To summarize, choice erroneously assumes that parents always and only choose schools based on an objective measure of quality ( no such measure exists) and that all parents have equal access to information and an equal and complete ability to determine the truth or falsehood of the information they are given. Choice also wrongly assumes that all parents have equal and complete agency as advocates for themselves and their children.
Proponents of choice hope we continue to ignore that fact that parents have never had a seat at the table, have never had any influence at all over what will be made available to choose from. Choice pushers also hope that all parents remain ignorant about all the times and places where other parents raised their voices and demanded that their actual choices be honored, only to then be ridiculed, marginalized and rejected by the choice pushers. The idea of “School Choice” is snake oil, a bald faced lie.