Steven Singer says that the charter school idea has been a massive swindle. It results in increased racial and ethnic segregation, yet its promoters have stealthily sold the idea to black and Hispanic parents.
He writes:
In Brown vs. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is Unconstitutional to have “separate but equal” schools because when they’re separate, they’re rarely equal. Having two parallel systems of education makes it too easy to provide more resources to some kids and less to others.
Who would have ever thought that some minority parents would actually choose this outcome, themselves, for their own children!?
After Bloody Sunday, Freedom Rides, bus boycotts and countless other battles, a portion of minority people today somehow want more segregation!?
It’s hard to determine the extent of this odd phenomena. Charter advocates flood money into traditional civil rights organizations that until yesterday opposed school privatization. Meanwhile they hold up any examples of minority support as if it were the whole story. However, it is undeniable that large minority populations still oppose their school systems being charterized.
It’s especially troubling for civil rights advocates because black and brown charter supporters have been sold on an idea that could accurately be labeled Jim Crow. And they don’t even seem to know it.
Give credit to propaganda, marketing, false promises. Some salesmen are so good they could sell coals in Newcastle or ice in Alaska.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Singer supports his argument with statements like:
“Higher suspension rates for black students!”
and his source for that is a study by Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California that compared charter schools to all school throughout the United States.
Does anybody here think that that is a more appropriate methodology than comparing each charter school with traditional public schools in the same general locale?
According to a report authored by Nat Malkus, who used the latter approach:
“Discipline rates are another important measure on which to compare charters and TPSs because charter opponents have argued that charters use severe disciplinary practices to “push out” undesirable students. In fact, a report by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies used the very same data as in Figure 8 and found that charters suspend students at higher rates than TPSs do. That pattern appears when charters are compared with all TPSs; however, the pattern of discipline is much more similar between charters and their neighboring public schools, casting doubt on whether charter discipline is disproportionate.
[…]
“Suspensions. Again, about half of charters were in the mid-range for suspension rates, compared to 70 percent of reference TPSs. The percentage of charters that had the highest rank was quite close to that of reference TPSs (Figure 24). In contrast, charters were the lowest ranked in terms of suspensions twice as often as reference TPSs, casting significant doubt on the frequent assertion that charter schools broadly use excessive discipline procedures.
[…]
“On the other hand, charter discipline practices are a clear example of a myth that these analyses persuasively discredit. Recently, a report by UCLA’s Center for Civil Rights Remedies used oversimplified comparisons that supported the notion that charters have higher rates of out-of-school suspension.30 Press coverage used pejorative phrases such as “the charter sneak attack” and the “school-to-prison pipeline” to describe the findings and further propagate this myth.31 Appropriate and balanced methodological critiques of the report will only do so much to push back on such generalizations.32
[…]
“These analyses, using the very same data but more careful comparisons, clearly show that the reverse is true for most charter schools. Compared to their neighboring TPSs, more charters have lower suspension rates than reference TPSs. Unbridled discipline policies are problematic in any school, but the idea that charter schools suspend students more than traditional public schools do is a myth.”
Click to access Differences-on-balance.pdf
In respect to racial composition, according to Malkus’ report:
“Compared to their neighboring TPSs, charter schools serve disproportionately more black students, fewer Hispanic students, and both more and fewer white students.”
One of the articles Singer relates to includes this sensible warning:
“A naive examination … appears to show that the critics are right: More choice is associated with minority students attending less diverse schools,” wrote the Brookings Institution’s Matthew M. Chingos in his 2013 study of education data. “Of course, this relationship ignores the fact that charters tend to locate in areas that serve large shares of disadvantaged students and members of minority groups. As a result, this simple correlation tells us nothing about whether charters increase segregation or just tend to locate in areas where the schools are already segregated.”
LikeLike
Actually, Strohen, there are many sources for the higher suspension rates of charters. In Washington, DC, for example, charters were suspending kids at 72 times the rate of public schools. That from the Washington Post.
LikeLike
I think you’re recalling the 2011-2012 school year, when DC charter schools had an expulsion rate of 72 per 10,000 compared to 1 per 10,000 for traditional public schools (the latter had a much higher rate of long-term… more than 10-day… suspensions).
Anyway, rest ever so slightly assured, in the years since then expulsion rates have been declining faster at charter than at traditional public schools in D.C.
LikeLike
Stephen Ronan,
In NYC under Mayor Bloomberg’s DOE, the suspension rate of Kindergarten to 2nd graders was 1/2 of 1% citywide. Out of every 100 5 through 7 year olds in public schools, every other year a single one would be violent enough to warrant suspending. (Under de Blasio that number is even smaller, so I use the much higher Bloomberg since his DOE had no problem with suspending small kids.)
At Success Academy charter schools, it is not at all unusual for one of their schools to have suspension rates from 10% to over 20% of the very youngest children being given out of school suspensions. In one school — with a majority of low-income minority students — 20% of the students were suspended and the school only served K – 2nd graders.
We are talking about charter school OUT OF SCHOOL suspension rates that are 50x higher than public schools for the very youngest children.
But don’t worry, those high suspension rates are ONLY in high-performing charters! Mediocre charters have suspension rates more in line with other public schools, and their test scores are more in line with other public schools. But the very highest performing charter — passing scores twice as high as other charters — is also is the charter with (they tell us) the most violent 5 year olds. Not 1/2 of 1% of their youngest students violent. Not 1% of their youngest students violent. But 10 times the number of violent children as other charter schools. Or sometimes twenty.
Stephen Ronan, maybe you believe the highest performing charters attract the most violent 5 year olds, and the mediocre charters attract the most well-behaved. Or maybe suspensions are a way to educate only the “desirable” minority children while making it clear the other kids are worthless to your school because it isn’t about education at all. It’s about money.
LikeLike
“Stephen Ronan, maybe you believe the highest performing charters attract the most violent 5 year olds, and the mediocre charters attract the most well-behaved.”
Here in Boston, out-of-school suspension rates vary quite a lot among charter schools. Some are high, too high in my view. I don’t see a clear consistent correlation between such suspensions and academic successes at particular schools. One of the better charter schools in Boston is Neighborhood House. I find its out-of-school suspension rate listed as 1.0, compared to 2.1 at a top Boston Public Schools Exam school and quite a few traditional public schools with rates of 5, 10, 15…
In thinking about out-of-school suspensions and attrition, I find this of interest from Eva Moskowitz:
“For example, one of the schools mentioned in Mr. Merrow’s report was Success Academy Prospect Heights. We showed Mr. Merrow a printout from our data systems of every single student who withdrew over a two year period. I have attached that report. It shows that of the 21 students who left during that period, only three of them had ever been suspended. And of the 19 students who did receive suspensions, only two of them withdrew.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/23/an-unusual-public-fight-between-a-new-york-charter-school-network-and-pbs/
Does it make sense to think about suspensions in conjunction with other matters like unexcused absences? Are they at all related? We know that truancy is a consistent at-risk indicator of future incarceration. http://erx.sagepub.com/content/25/5/507.short
Do you think high rates of unexcused absences are a major problem at some schools? Would you guess that there is a positive, inverse, or no correlation between out-of-school suspensions and unexcused absences. What is the rate of unexcused absences at Success Academy schools? How do those compare to traditional public schools in the area?
LikeLike
What are TPPs? Total Party Poopers?? Just funnin ya. Please explain for those of us self diagnosed as AI*.
*No, not Artificially Intelligent but Acronym Impaired
LikeLike
Duane Swacker: “What are TPPs?”
Joel Herman below writes:
“buy American provisions in public contracts(a target of TPP)”
Presumably he’s referring to the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.
But I’m guessing you’re instead wondering about all the references to “TPS” in the Malkus piece that I quoted from above. That’d be TPS as in traditional public schools.
LikeLike
Stephen Ronan,
Thank you for your reply which demonstrates exactly what is wrong with faux reformers like you. And why the NAACP doesn’t trust the people you idolize to run their schools.
I just showed you there is documented evidence that Success Academy’s suspension rate for elementary school children is 10 to 50 times higher than NYC public schools under Mayor Bloomberg, when Bloomberg had no problem with suspending kids.
And your answer was “Eva Moskowitz said that at a single school that the fact that we suspended so many younger kids and they haven’t yet left (of course they also haven’t reached testing grades) tells you there is no need for any more oversight! ”
That is EXACTLY what the SUNY Charter Institute thinks too! As long as Eva Moskowitz can pick out one irrelevant anecdote, all is fine. Remember when John Merrow on PBS first asked Ms. Moskowitz about the high suspension rate she quickly released the records of a single child — who the young and ignorant Success Academy teachers and administrators characterized as a violent, terrible, horrible child who should be kepi far away from normal children — and SUNY said “no need to investigate! Ms. Moskowitz told us that child was violent and so it must be that all those children deserved the suspensions.”
It turned out that child just needed to be in a school that didn’t make the child feel like garbage — like the lowest of the low — because he couldn’t sit still. Just like we saw the “model” teacher on video show how to make a 6 year old who doesn’t get the right answer feel like dirt and a “bad kid”.
Stephen Ronan, I suspect you aren’t a parent because here is something every parent knows:
If you keep telling a 5 year old he is bad over and over again because of something he is not yet developmentally able to do, he will eventually feel bad and act out. It doesn’t teach him, it hurts him.
Your reply proved my point. You “trust” Eva Moskowitz and now you are satisfied with her response. Let her open 100 more schools and as questions arise, you can just ask her and no doubt she can provide a response that satisfies you. No oversight every needed!
No wonder the NAACP doesn’t want charters. You just showed exactly why they don’t.
LikeLike
^^^More of the data that Stephen Ronan doesn’t care about but the NAACP does:
Success Academy Prospect Heights:
At the beginning of 2014-2015, there are 58 students in 2nd grade. In 2015-2016 that cohort took their 3rd grade tests. 54 students tested, so Steven Ronan is very satisfied that nothing funny going on. Eva Moskowitz told him so. And that “acceptable 7% attrition” may be a bit high, but nothing to worry our little heads about. No oversight necessary beyond that!
But when you take a CLOSER look that isn’t the Steven Ronan approved oversight that all the funny stuff shows up.
The 58 students in 2nd grade were 29 male and 29 female. But the 54 students tested in 3rd grade the next year were 33 female and 21 male! Say what?? They lost 4 kids but somehow gained 4 female students? AT LEAST 28% of the male 2nd grade students disappeared — but it could be more since Success Academy could have replaced some boys with other new male students already high performing from their previous school’s education. But at least 28% of the 2nd grade males failed to make it to 3rd grade testing. We have no idea how many others — and how many females — were replaced. Because Stephen Ronan says “Eva Moskowitz assured us all is fine”.
By the way, that 2nd grade cohort had 43 economically disadvantaged kids. By 3rd grade state testing time, 23% of them were MIA too. Just par for the course in the charter school that Steven Ronan assures us needs not a bit of oversight. Parents of boys hate fantastic schools. So do poor parents. So if they disappear, but Eva Moskowitz says it’s fine, then we should all just take her at her word. Why waste money on real oversight anyway? If the test scores are good, a school should have carte blanche to do whatever they need to do to keep them high. No oversight necessary.
And Stephen is shocked! Shocked! That the NAACP doesn’t think this is a good idea!! Trust those white charter school leaders, says Stephen. He knows they are always honest and are only in it for those minority kids.
LikeLike
I thought you might find the Moskowitz quote interesting and provocative, NYC public school parent. But guess I underestimated the degree to which that would be true. My consistent response to your focus on Success Academy has not been to argue with you about those schools, with which I am not greatly familiar, but rather to suggest that you look at the relevant Massachusetts data prior to extrapolating whatever you may know about Success Academy to what you may find here. Have I been entirely unsuccessful at persuading you to do that?
LikeLike
Stephen,
If you lift the cap, you will get your very own frauds.
LikeLike
Stephen Ronan,
Your consistent response is to defend. Most people would be pretty shocked at the data. They wouldn’t purposely google to find a self-justifying quote by the person who runs the schools in order to say “look, it’s all okay, she says it is.”
Suspension rates 30 or 50 times the average for K-2 students. Attrition rates that are higher than almost every other mediocre, underfunded charter. And your reply not knowing anything about the school is to say “but look, she says it’s all okay!”
The charter reform movement has had more than ample time to police their own. They have had more than ample time to offer parents a smidgeon of evidence that they won’t look the other way at unethical practices that weed students out. They have more than ample time to criticize those in the movement who value test results far above the lives of their students. Who see students as either failures who need to be sent away, or welcome them if they can be used for good PR. That isn’t education. That’s a business. Whether it’s run by a so-called non-profit or not.
Charter folks need to earn our trust before we send billions of dollars MORE their way to be used without oversight. And your kind of posts are exactly why most public school parents don’t trust you. If I read an article about racism in a public school I would not look for a quote from the principal to defend it. I would say “that sounds terrible and why isn’t someone doing a real investigation”. And if you told me no one was allowed to do oversight but one group there to promote the school, I would say “that is wrong.”
Nothing you say convinces me you actually are interested in why parents don’t want charters.
LikeLike
As Diane notes, there are indeed many sources confirming the higher suspension rates for charters. However, this small argument diverts attention from the abominable treatment of poor children, mostly of color, in public and charter schools. While the distinction is important in making a clear-eyed analysis of the charter scam, the larger issue is the widespread misunderstanding of child development and how to love children who are sometimes challenging because of the life circumstances we have allowed to poison communities of color.
LikeLike
We as a nation have ignored the funding disparity between urban and suburban schools for too long. We have also been afraid to try to incentivize integration across district lines as it would be a political bombshell. Our housing patterns have made de facto segregation a too real fact of life that has been the norm in our country.
LikeLike
Excellent points, retiredteacher!
But, in respect to this: “We have also been afraid to try to incentivize integration across district lines as it would be a political bombshell.”
I wonder whether there may be places where moves in that direction would be welcomed?
The METCO program in Boston has achieved and maintained broad popular support. “The mission of METCO is two-fold, to give students from Boston’s under-performing school districts the opportunity to attend a high-performing school and increase their educational opportunities and to decrease racial isolation and increase diversity in the suburban schools.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METCO
LikeLike
retired teacher
We will integrate our communities when we solve our economic problems. The solution to our problems in education are much the same as the solution to segregated housing. Economic opertunity decent wages and bennifits. Just when LBJ freed the slaves , those jobs that allowed entrance into the middle class were either exported, or degraded. “What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can’t afford to buy a hamburger?”
Trump may not mean a word he says, the right wing may chiefly be responsible for the conditions he deplores in the inner city. With everything from de unionization, to holding down the minimum wage, to policy that encourages Tax avoidance and outsourcing or over policing… … But he is tapping into what should be Democratic issues on both sides of the racial divide. This all boils down to economic opportunity. Which means having jobs that enable a middle class life style. We can educate a million more engineers will we have created one more engineering job by doing so? Or will we have put a million more people in competition for a finite number of jobs. Or we could rebuild our infrastructure incentivize American manufacturing through buy American provisions in public contracts(a target of TPP) and create jobs for millions.
It serves the reformers well to portray this country as a meritocracy. Where all you have to do is get the education you need and you will be rewarded. That makes failure a personal matter rather than a policy failure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WELL said. Take poverty and social discrimination off the table, and blame the educational system.
LikeLike
“In Brown vs. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is Unconstitutional to have “separate but equal” schools because when they’re separate, they’re rarely equal. Having two parallel systems of education makes it too easy to provide more resources to some kids and less to others.”
Just a reminder that this was not the rationale for the decision. Brown v. Board based its holding not on resource allocation or any other objective measurements of how often, if ever, segregated schools are “equal,” but on the intangible, harmful, psychological effects that state-sanctioned school segregation had on black students.
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “. . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” [p*494] Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. [n10] Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. [n11] Any language [p495] in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
LikeLike
It’s a complicated issue, and hardly limited to K-12 charter schools. For example, de facto segregation happens in many progressive colleges with the support of administrations; similarly, the impulse toward self-segregation and the demands for safe spaces at these colleges often come black students themselves.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/the-fine-line-between-safe-space-and-segregation-contd/496589/
The reaction this week to the University of Chicago administration’s statement that promotion of safe spaces will not be supported has been interesting. Folks who disapprove of UofC’s new position are mostly progressives.
I think the ongoing ambivalence about self-segregation and safe spaces reflect the inadequacy or absence of effective multicultural education in schools–and society in general–in the last few decades.
LikeLike
After studying world history, the American charter schools are little more than an
udated high gloss version of the sugar and cotton plantations found In the southern USA and Central America, with the geographically and politically isolated indigenous and black people working the fields
Charters prepare this segment of the population for corporate America, low wage jobs, and a mindset that can barely think critically or question the status quo, let alone protest and advocate.
Charters are therefore not the solution, but part of a much bigger problem that reflects vast shifts and concentrations in wealth, power, and social engineering.
LikeLike
Amen!!
LikeLike
The entire so-called “education reform” movement, which the charter school industry is a profitable part, has always been based on a return to racial segregation of America’s schools. The fact that billionaires and hedge funds could pocket tens of millions of dollars from this new kind of segregation was just a bonus for many. The first calls for “reform” in the form of vouchers arose immediately after the 1954 Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education in which the Court declared that separate but equal was inherently unequal and ordered racial integration of the public schools. That ruling triggered “white flight” from public schools to private schools — but parents quickly realized that the tuition cost of private schools was more than they wanted to pay out-of-pocket. That realization led political and private resegregationists to the concoct the “reform” of vouchers, and to sell it to eager parents by deceptively marketing it then (and now) as merely giving parents free “choice.”
But the 1950’s voucher reform faded away when it became clear that because of school attendance boundaries no more than a few token blacks would be attending formerly all-white public schools. In 1972 when the Supreme Court finally ordered busing to end the ongoing de facto segregation, the reform movement rose from its grave and has been alive ever since then trying new tactics to restore racial segregation because it’s unlikely that the Court’s racial integration order can ever be reversed. When it became clear in the 1980’s that vouchers would never become widespread, the segregationists tried many other routes to restore racial segregation, and the most successful has been charter schools because charter schools can be sold to blithely unaware do-gooder billionaires as well as to unscrupulous profiteers who recognized charter schools as a way to divert vast amounts of tax money into their own pockets and into the pockets of supportive politicians at every level of government.
An essential part of the strategy to mask their underlying motives has been for segregationists to sell the public on the necessity for charter schools because public schools are allegedly “failing.” With all manner of “research” that essentially compares apples to oranges against foreign nations’ students, and with the self-fulfilling prophecy of dismal public school performance generated by drastic underfunding of public schools, and with condemnation of public school teachers based on statistically invalid student test scores, the segregationists are succeeding in resegregating education in America via what are basically private charter schools that are funded with public money.
Charter schools insist that they are public schools. Well, if they are as they claim, then charter schools should be required to at least file with the state board of education the same detailed public-domain annual audited financial reports that real public schools file so that the public can see how public tax dollars are being spent. That’s only reasonable. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being diverted away from educating America’s children and are ending up in private pockets.
The Washington State Supreme Court has made a ruling that makes common sense: The Court ruled that charter schools aren’t really public schools and are only masquerading as public schools because they aren’t subject to public accountability and public control because they aren’t governed by school boards that are elected by the public. That ruling made it illegal for charter schools in Washington to receive public tax money from the public school funds (although the pro-charter politicians in the state legislature are now busy figuring out ways to give private charter schools public money from other budget areas, and a recall has been launched against the chief justice who led the common sense ruling). That same ruling should be sought by public school districts and by taxpayers in courts throughout our nation.
Bottom line: Charter schools should be governed by school boards elected by the voters so that they are accountable to the public; charter schools should file the same detailed public-domain audited annual financial reports that genuine public schools file; and anything a charter school buys with the public’s money should be the public’s property.
Wanna bet that if charter schools are made accountable to the public about what they actually do with the public’s tax money that they’ll be around long?
LikeLike
Scisne, that’s a mighty fine summary of the issue! Thanks.
LikeLike
Certainly a part of the Southern Strategy which has no geographical boundaries. The racial dog whistle was used by the party of wealth and power to solidify a base, in the new party alignment post LBJ. However the prime goal of those who fund this movement has always been maintenance of wealth and power. Today there is no longer an opposition party, both have been consumed by their donors class.
The Walton’s provide a prime example, their alignment with segregationists, the old Dixiecrat’s ,in the push for vouchers and privatization, served them well. They are not in it to profit off of Public Education. The political coalition they had with essentially segregationists has enriched them fabulously, by holding down wages and organized labor. Politics is power, the ability to determine the distribution of wealth in a society. This it what unifies the “Philanthropy and Business RoundTable “, not the few pennies some can reap off of public dollars. As you say that is but a “bonus” for some.
https://www.aaup.org/article/when-billionaires-become-educational-experts
LikeLike
At church on Sundays, at schools on Mondays we are a racially and economically based segregated society. Charters just increase that segregation because families are given the choice to send one’s child to a charter or a public school.
The timing of the charter school choice movement is working out nicely for families wanting to move back from the suburbs and avoid sending their children to local urban public schools coming afoul of desegregation laws.
Instead, charter school laws have the public pay for sending a families French speaking African child to a charter school started by French speaking African immigrants. And, in the same city a Gulen affiliated charter school provides a Turk speaking immigrant family who are members and followers of the Gulen religious group to send their children to the city’s Gulen charter school.
Rev Jim Jones surviving followers don’t have a charter school in our city; as far as I know. Then, public information about the founders of charter schools is not something that is broadcasted. That is a problem with privately managed charter schools. What you don’t know about a charter might be something you should know.
Lack of background knowledge of charter school operators doesn’t address my major concern with charters. And, my major concern is charter schools are not public schools; but publicly funded privately managed schools (over 2.5 million enrolled students) that weak public education school system by replacement of public schools with privately managed deregulated charter schools.
LikeLike
“Who would have ever thought that some minority parents would actually choose this outcome, themselves, for their own children!?
After Bloody Sunday, Freedom Rides, bus boycotts and countless other battles, a portion of minority people today somehow want more segregation!?”
Is this really so perplexing? In the metro New York City area, for example, the typical “black or brown” parent is zoned for a school that is intensely segregated or hyper-segregated. When that parent sends her children to a charter school, that charter school is probably more segregated than the local zoned school is. But surely she does not make that decision because she “somehow want[s] more segregation.” She makes that decision because she thinks the charter school will provide her children with a better education than the local zoned school will. She is not choosing between “less segregation” and “more segregation.” As she sees it, she is choosing between (a) one school that is intensely segregated, and (2) a better school that is marginally more segregated than the other. Perhaps this parent is dead wrong about the charter school being the better school. But let’s not play dumb about the choices she faces.
The same goes for the statement that “black and brown charter supporters have been sold on an idea that could accurately be labeled Jim Crow.” The charter school idea could perhaps be “accurately be labeled Jim Crow,” but only if we changed the meaning of the term “Jim Crow.” School choice may increase segregation, but that does not mean it’s the same thing as Jim Crow laws.
LikeLike
shorter FLERP! —
It’s good to give parents a choice and they have one: A charter school run by billionaire lackeys with all the bells and whistles as long as you shut up, don’t ask questions, and your kid is acceptable to them. Or a public school purposely underfunded by the same people that has to teach every single kid, including the huge proportion of at-risk kids that the charter won’t touch because they demand more resources, especially the ones with severe issues who cost 100x as much as a typical student.
How dare the NAACP not rally around giving parents that false “choice”, says FLERP! Because the few at risk that the billionaires find acceptable are being greatly rewarded for their talents. That should be all that the minority community should expect.
Hey, charters are fine with educating their top students. How dare the NAACP not support them! Because that shows that charters care a lot more than the NAACP.
Typical reformer twaddle. I expect better of FLERP! Maybe say: Let’s work for BETTER schools within the system. Which the NAACP would support. Not schools only for the 1% of us that enrich their administrators but do nothing for the vast majority of our children and actually make their lives worse (due to their lies and criminalizing the kids they don’t want to teach in order to get them out of their schools.)
LikeLike
As always, I stand corrected. Minority parents who send their children to charter schools want more segregation, and charter schools can accurately be described as Jim Crow laws.
LikeLike
As always, you are so certain that minority parents demand charter schools with no oversight that are run by boards of hedge fund billionaires. Maybe they just want well-funded schools and getting their kids to one that gets millions in donations is more appealing than the public school that is starving for funding.
I find it odd that the same reformers who want “choice” want that choice to be very very limited. The only choice they like is one that is privately run with no meaningful oversight. Why aren’t they fighting for more choice within the system, which has always worked?
I bet most parents would agree with me, and not the false choice that means they must trust billionaires to know what is best for their kids. Especially when it is the same billionaires trying to cut benefits to poor families.
LikeLike
I think you may have me confused with someone else.
LikeLike
FLERP!, I apologize if I misunderstood the intention of your post.
I am sorry.
LikeLike