Peter Greene comments on the Finn/Manno/Wright article about the end of public schools and locally elected school boards.
In his usual trenchant fashion.
What accountability do charters face? If they fail to meet standards of academic performance or fiscal soundness, charters are “supposed to be closed or restarted with fresh leadership.” And that’s absolutely it, because this section started with the phrase “But that’s where democracy comes in,” but now a paragraph later, democracy is a no-show. Voters don’t get a say. Taxpayers don’t get a say. Charters resist transparency vigorously. And if you are a parent who’s unhappy with some aspect of the school, you can vote with your feet– that’s it. Any other kind of vote is off the table.
We’ve seen it over and over. Check out just this single report from NBC News, profiling how the closing, turning over, or general charterizing of schools is invariably accompanied by a loss of voting rights and voice for non-wealthy, non-white communities.
Of course, privatizing means the death of democracy for the sorts of people who don’t read the Wall Street Journal. But the old kind of local control (sometimes known as democracy) is obsolete. What the world really needs is for elected officials to be replaced by boards composed of our Betters, the rich and powerful folks who need to run things without interruption from the Lessers who keep yelping and squawking and demanding some kind of voice or vote. Democracy, as these guys define it, is enhanced by giving fewer people less say. Because on opposites day, the fewer votes you get, the more democracy you have. As long as only the Right People, the Betters, have most of the money, most of the power, and most of the votes, well, then, democracy is thriving. At least on opposites day.
The 1984 world of Doublespeak has finally arrived, albeit a few decades late, when dissatisfied parents choosing to leave or enter a school is called democracy.
http://www.arthurcamins.com
“charter schools are attracting to their boards selfless citizens and community leaders who see a plausible chance to promote change.”
Really insulting to school board members. This idea that people who run for school board are in it to protect some cushy “status quo” for themselves is just ridiculous.
We have a man who owns a backhoe service, an IRS agent, a psychologist, an agricultural chemical salesperson and a retired nurse. I have no idea why they believe these people are profiting off serving on a school board, or what local people who run for school board did to deserve such an unfair characterization.
Is this common in ed reform circles? A belief that school board members are presumptively morally and ethically inferior to appointed charter boards?
That’s a little wacky.
Are there any school districts that pay their board members?
I know here in the Show Me State board members are not paid.
Chiara, you can’t possibly believe that these rather common individuals are capable of the intellectual rigor that is required to run a school system? (snark alert)
This is exactly why Jill Stein of the Green Party should be in the televised presidential debates!! Everyone who truly cares about democracy – no matter who you are planning to vote for – should come to the first scheduled presidential debate at Hofstra University on Long Island on Monday September 26th at 5:00pm and protest with Jill Stein and many activists unless (and until) Jill is allowed in the debate. Again, no matter who you plan to vote for, you should demand that ALL Americans be allowed to hear from ALL the candidates in the presidential race (including Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party). Both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson will be on enough ballots to win the race and both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party are considered legitimate national political parties. They are not “fringe” candidates or protest candidates! Jill Stein received matching funds from the Federal Government. This is a clear indication that she should be in the debates! In poll after poll, 70% of all Americans are now saying they want a third party and they want to see Stein and Johnson in the debates! Why should Clinton and Trump and the corporate elite be allowed to decided what issues and what candidates you get to hear from!?!? We have to fix our corrupt electoral system and to get money completely out of politics. We need to have Rank Choice Voting (at the very least) so that Americans will be more able to vote for who they actually WANT instead of being scared into voting for someone they don’t want simply out of fear of someone else they don’t want.
I am voting for Jill Stein and in New York especially, no one else should be “afraid” to do the same. And no one should be intimidated into voting for Clinton if they don’t like her policies of War, Wall Street, and the Walmart economy. We will not change this corrupt system in time to save the planet for our children by allowing the corporate candidates to control the elections and the debates.
Hope to see you all at Hofstra on September 26th.
Dani Liebling
Brooklyn, NY
De acuerdo con esto.
I read the article and cannot concur with the dystopian review. We’re not going to get anywhere other than stuck if we continue to indulge in shouting at each other from behind each others’ virtuous walled minds
Sorry, Richard I’m hard of hearing. What did you say?
The facts of the matter do conclusively indicate a dystopian agenda on the part of charter pushers, there’s no getting around that, sales pitches and false claims notwithstanding.
Why?
Because Markets, and Meritocracy.
Dr. Ravitch,
I believe that we MUST mention that Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, is bent like wild fire to eliminate local school boards and replace them with state representatives. I mention this because millions of people subscribe to Netflix and don’t realize they are financing, in part, his horrible agenda.
I have recently canceled my subscription to Netflix, and I have refused solicitations from them to air my documentaries.
Reed Hastings is right up there with Checker Finn et al.
I believe that is also, or first, an ALEC agenda.
Yes, Jon, it is.
Sounds like they all want to emulate the elitists Rothbard and Von Mises, the progenitors of top down libertarianism. &… what Fiorillo said….