I wasn’t going to refer to this article by Kyle Spencer in Politico magazine. It reads so much like promotional literature massaged by Eva’s public relations department that I thought it best to ignore its it. But several people sent it to me, so I couldn’t overlook it.
It is called “Paul Ryan’s Favorite Charter School.” It presents Eva Moskowitz as a “liberal Democrat” whose no-excuses charters produce miraculous results.
When she interviewed me, I told her to pay attention to student attrition. She didn’t.
When I pointed out that the same students who performed brilliantly on the state tests were unable to gain entry to the city’s highly selective exam schools until their third year of trying, she ignored that.
She fell hook, line, and sinker for Eva’s claim that the goal of schooling is to get high test scores, even at the risk of crushing the spirit of students with rules and sanctions.
Kyle Spencer knows that affluent parents don’t want their children in such a rigid atmosphere. But it seems to be just right for poor black children. That’s why Trump interviewed her for the job of Secretary of Education, and why Republicans like Paul Ryan love Eva. The patronizing rich usually believe that black children need a firm hand and swift justice.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Puff piece is the only way to describe this poorly-reported article. Kyle Spencer didn’t even bother to mention that Eva Moskowitz came out early with an overwhelming endorsement of Betsy DeVos as a wonderful pick for Secretary of Education. As if that tiny little fact was irrelevant.
I also read many fawning phrases to describe Eva Moskowitz that could have come right out of a press release. In fact, they sound so remarkably like the fawning phrases used to describe Ms. Moskowitz in earlier PR puff pieces that I wondered if the writer could be accused of plagiarism. Is it plagiarism if your copied from a press release “facts” sound remarkably like the phrases used by other writers whose reporting consists mainly of press releases?
I guess the only people who object to Ms. Moskowitz in this so-called journalist’s view are union teachers. Funny how she couldn’t be bothered to interview any of the non-white parents whose kids were drummed from the school and who are suing. I suspect to Kyle Spencer, those non-white parents who don’t like Ms. Moskowitz are invisible because as long as there are “Success Academy-approved” parents trotted out by the charter school to offer praise, no need to do any reporting of the others who this writer obviously believes do not matter.
^^And the fact that this journalist ignored student attrition when you specifically pointed it out demonstrates that her poor reporting was intentional. Obviously her job was not to look at those parents who obviously don’t matter to her since their children have been marked as not good enough by the remarkably educator who she knows has dedicated her life to civil rights. Appalling.
“the network’s elementary school science program is one of the absolute best in the city.”
Who says it is “absolutely the best”? This is shockingly bad writing worthy of a 12 year old.
Hyperbole is never too grand, when the rich want their way. Look at Trump.
Yes, it’s a shame that so few of the students exposed to “absolutely the best” science program in the city — maybe even the world! — aren’t learning what they need to attend one of the specialized high schools that actually focus on science.
“One such teacher was videotaped, a few years ago, tearing up a first grader’s work while she berated the young minority student.”
No, the “model” teacher in charge of training other teachers didn’t just tear up the paper — she sent the child AWAY from the circle to sit in a “calm down” chair for children who were bad. The child was perfectly calm but couldn’t answer the question and the teacher didn’t just tear up the paper — she sent her away to punish her for the “crime” of not knowing the right answer.
And the assistant teacher in the room tried man y times to tell someone and was told to shut up that this was normal and fine. She videotaped it finally so someone else could tell her whether she was being gaslighted or not. This was no “anomaly” and the fact that the reporter brushes this off as a “he says, she says” while leaving out all the relevant facts is another example of co-opted writing by someone who should not be calling herself a journalist. But she is a very good PR person.
““It is racist for people to claim that African American and Latino families are sending their children to our schools because they don’t know or care about ‘harsh discipline’ or are somehow ignorant about what good education looks like.”
Ann Powell, Moskowitz’s executive vice president of public affairs and communications, calls us all out for our “racism”! How DARE we think that treating the unworthy non-white low-income students in the manner that the model teacher knows they deserve is wrong.
Ann Powell wants us all to believe that every African American and Latino parent at the school AGREES that those punished and humiliated and suspended 5 year old children deserve every punishment that Success Academy’s model teacher metes out to the unworthy children. They all approved of what the model teacher did so how dare we criticize just because some unworthy children whose parents object care. Those parents don’t matter.
Perhaps this lazy reporter should have read a series of articles in the “NY Times” that highlighted many of the problems and harmful practice embedded in Success Academy’s “miracle” schools.
I have always underlined and highlighted many of Dr. Ravitch’s salient sentences, but never have I read a statement more powerful and thought-provoking than the final sentence in this blog: “The patronizing rich usually believe that black children need a firm hand and swift justice.” This is undeniably true and an example of privilege in action as a cause of the on-going racism that plagues our country. Thank you, Dr. Ravitch, for shining this spotlight on the education of children of color in America.
I agree. That was the line that lodged in my brain.
The patronizing rich usually believe that black children need a firm hand and swift justice.
And the patronizing rich claim that many black parents WANT their child to have a firm hand and swift justice, as demonstrated by the fact that they line up in droves for the chance to attend a no excuses charter school. Because the fact that those very same rich have starved their neighborhood public schools, given them no resources to deal with difficult children, and allowed their infrastructure to crumble plays no part in why the parents would choose a charter school that has millions to lavish on the perks that publics don’t have.
The question this lazy reporter never asks is why then do so many of those parents LEAVE those very same charters? According to the lazy reporters, we are supposed to believe the same parents who so desperately wanted that good school then left in numbers higher than they leave almost any other charter school with far less stellar results.
A reporter not as lazy as Kyle Spencer would ask herself:
“Hmmm, there are many mediocre charters serving the same types of kids as this very good one, and yet families are leaving this very good charter in much higher numbers when the opposite should be true.”
A reporter not as lazy as Kyle Spencer would ask herself “why would students disappear from Success Academy sometimes twice as often as they disappear from other charter schools when Success Academy is far superior to those other charter schools?” A good reporter would see how little sense that makes. A good reporter wouldn’t accept without question the racist excuse that those parents prefer mediocre charter schools to great ones. A good reporter wouldn’t say “I refuse to compare Success Academy to other charter schools because I was told that I didn’t have to and instead I will only compare them to the attrition rate of the worst public schools and as long as it’s better than those, I don’t care that so many mediocre charters are inexplicably keeping far more of their students than Success Academy is. That’s none of my business because I’m sure that there’s some good reason that has nothing to do with got to go lists or high suspension rates or anything else. It’s just that those parents of “certain” children hate good schools when they actually are in them. Yea, that’s the ticket.”
Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be many real journalists left covering education anymore. Instead, we get Kyle Spencer who probably has convinced herself that she has written a stellar and unbiased piece of work! And Eva Moskowitz agrees!
Democrats for education reform, are not Democrats certainly not progressive . Then unfortunately we have seen 50% of the party are no longer Democrats . Far too few Democrats have been willing to stand up against Obama on education and on many other issues. Don’t blame ALEC for the losses since 08 on State and National levels . Blame the Democrats led by Obama and Clinton .
It is not enough to be the ‘not Republicans’, especially when you are in bed with Republican money.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/03/13065/how-dfer-leaders-channel-out-state-dark-money-colorado-and-beyond
“Democrats for education reform, are not Democrats….”
Really? How do they differ from the Democrats?
Follow the money !!!
AGREE, Joel.
I have been waiting over a year to hear Bernie Sanders make charter schools an issue. And yet – silence. I realize he can’t be bothered to learn and ins and outs of such a useless issue like what is going to happen to the public schools that educate most American children. It’s so much easier to offer “free tuition” in public colleges which ends up not addressing what is really expensive about colleges — room and board.
In the campaign, I noted that Hillary Clinton had a much better grasp on the issue than Bernie did. Even than Elizabeth Warren. But being a wonk is a nasty thing if you are a woman.
The real problem is that we don’t have any Democratic leaders except Mayor Bill de Blasio who actually understands what is wrong with charters. So it’s easy for the right and their co-opted Dem friends like Cuomo to center all their negative attacks on him.
Public education is IMPORTANT, and it is treated by every Democrat except de Blasio as something that is too boring to learn enough about to make the good arguments that would change public policy.
Pray tell, what was so much better about Hillary’s position than Bernie’s? Both came out against “private charters” (which nearly all are), but otherwise they both hedged about supporting “good public schools” (and, yes, they both consider charters to be “public” schools”). Mostly they both studiously avoided the issue of K-12 altogether and spent their time debating whether the world’s richest nation could afford to provide college and to whom.
Incidentally, Hillary voted for NCLB. Bernie voted against it.
The November election was not between Hillary and Bernie.
dienne77,
I am waiting for Bernie to care as much about public schools as he does about free college. I have no faith he has any grasp of the issue. Do you? Can you name a politician who does?
I can – Bill de Blasio. And he is a target of lots of attacks by the billionaire privatizers as a result. Being mischaracterized as a crook the same way Hillary was where innuendo of wrong-doing for acting like a politician is considered a “crime”. No doubt he isn’t perfect and by October the very brilliant propagandists will have many voters certain that de Blasio is just as “corrupt” as Hillary was.
If there are enough voters like you who believe the propaganda, the demise of public education in NYC will happen even faster.
It’s sad to me that Bernie barely showed up in LA when the privatizers won. He has a bully pulpit and could make this an issue but I don’t think he actually has the knowledge to do so. I don’t expect co-opted Dems like Booker and Cuomo and Rahm to do so but I expect more from the so-called progressives like Bernie. If you know of any politicians other than Mayor de Blasio fighting for public education in a way that you approve, I wish you would let me know. I’d love to support them.
I’m confused, Diane. NYCPSP attacked Bernie because he never made “charter schools an issue”. S/he then went on to say that Hillary “had a much better grasp on the issue than Bernie did”.
I asked for evidence of why Hillary’s position was better than Bernie’s. I pointed out that basically their positions were mostly the same – avoid, deflect and focus on higher education. I also pointed out that Bernie at least had the advantage of having voted against NCLB, which Hillary voted for.
Seems to me that the discussion was entirely about Hillary vs. Bernie. So what does the November election have to do with anything? Fact remains that Hillary lost the November election. To a candidate that my dog could have beaten. I think it’s entirely fair to discuss how it could have been different with Bernie.
Dienne,
The Democratic Party held primaries. Hillary won the most delegates and the most votes. That’s why she won the nomination.
The election in November was between Hillary and Trump. Bernie campaigned for Hillary. Trump is a disaster.
NYC public school parent
While you were waiting perhaps you missed something .
I suspect you missed something else in your blind support for Hillary and i know you claim to have voted for Sanders . Some how I doubt that. What you seem to have missed is how weak a candidate Hillary was. You may have 4 years to figure it out
But why would Sanders have done better than other progressive Democrats . Simple he was the anti Obama and the anti Clinton .
The position on charters you seemed to have missed. His position seemed very clear during the primaries. Even if the language was twisted . Hedge fund billionaires and Sanders seldom if ever will be on the same side of an issue .
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/02/bernie-sanders-jumps-into-massachusettss-charter-school-fight-opposes-question-2
Joel,
Bernie is supporting the hedge funders candidate for governor of Virginia.
dienne77, since I think we believe the same things about public education, I’m surprised you didn’t answer my question. I challenged you to name someone other than Mayor de Blasio that you find to be fighting for the right things when it comes to public education.
You’ve already made it clear who you despise. Hillary. And I agree with you that it is wrong to say that Hillary would definitely have been better than Obama since no one knows that.
What I do know is that Hillary would have been better than Trump and that’s something you and I will have to keep disagreeing about because I know you keep finding all sorts of silver linings to Trump’s election that I just don’t see. I guess it helps you to know that your vote helped stop the election of the evil Hillary Clinton who joined the evil Ted Kennedy to approve the NCLB act that Kennedy co-sponsored. Joe Biden, that evil sell out voted for it too since the vote was 91-8 and 6 of the 8 votes against were Republicans! All those Democrats were wrong and can never be forgiven. If only Hillary’s wrong vote had been to oppose gun control and fight the Brady Bill – that’s much more forgivable! But how dare she vote for a bill that Ted Kennedy wanted when we all know Ted Kennedy only cared about pleasing rich people and not the poor. I guess that’s part of your rationalization for your decision that Hillary was no better than Trump. And oddly, you still don’t seem to see Trump as the truly dangerous man that he is.
Joel,
You are wrong. I know just how weak Hillary was. Just like I knew just how weak John Kerry was. And Al Gore. And Mike Dukakis. World’s biggest losers every single one. Worst of all? Walter Mondale? What a lousy candidate as his defeat proves. It must have been because voters realized what a sell-out he was. I mean, he was such a loser that he couldn’t even beat the loser Norm Coleman! Now THAT’s what a loser Mondale was and I’m sure you agree that he is the lowest of the low for being such a loser, just like Hillary. .
Did I get that right?
Let’s try to forget all those losers ever existed and find some “winners” like George W. Bush and Trump! Maybe after thinking about it for 4 years we can find a candidate like those “winners”. Or Obama!
And I suspect I followed the Massachusetts charter fight much more closely than you did. I waited for Elizabeth Warren to speak out and FINALLY she did — it sure took long enough. And Bernie waited until days before the election? Was it really all that hard of an issue for him to figure out? It reminded me of Eli Broad’s very late opposition to Betsy DeVos. I do think Bernie’s opposition to issue in Massachusetts was more genuine than Broad’s opposition to DeVos, but when you wait until the last minute, it’s pretty obvious to the folks watching that you either don’t care or haven’t made up your mind yet. I guess it took both Warren and Sanders an extraordinarily long time to make up their minds, which certainly gives me pause.
Joel,
Is Diane right that Bernie is supporting the hedge funders’ candidate in Virginia?
And your certainty that the Bernie would have won is belied by the fact that “loser” Russ Feingold (as you would characterize him) couldn’t even beat a candidate as weak as Johnson was. I’m sure you’ll find every reason in the book to blame Feingold for being such a loser and if it had been Bernie running for Senator he would have wiped the floor with Johnson. And yet the loser Feingold couldn’t even manage as many votes as Hillary had.
I guess Feingold is even worse of a candidate than terrill Hillary. He lost, didn’t he. We should spend the next few years finding someone who isn’t as much of a loser as Feingold is.
(I happen to like Feingold a lot but I know you must despise him for being such a loser and not being able to beat someone as lousy as Johnson is.)
NYC public school parent
Lets go back to Mondale . Now, he was a good man . Not to bright telling the American people we need a tax increase, doesn’t go over well in an election. . But it is tough to unseat a sitting president when the economy is doing well . Interest rates were falling . And GDP was somewhere in the sevens. Easy to do when you blow a hole in the budget on defense..
Same with Bushes first term, Dukakis didn’t need Willey Horton to lose a race. GDP 7.6 percent. Good luck with that . Bush was not so lucky the second time . NOBODY cared that he made a Turkey shoot out of Iraqi tank columns. They were more concerned with the turkey on the table.
Need I remind you that Al Gore actually won that election in 2000. Even after Slick Willey could not keep his organ in his pants. But could anybody put you to sleep more than Gore.
Which brings us to Obama 2008 Nah it wasn’t” the economy stupid “was it Must have been that they wanted a change of color in the WHITE HOUSE.
So now on to Hillary . Where were wages in 2016 oops Where was the prime age Employment to population ratio as compared to 2008 and better yet 2000 3% lower than 2000 . Must have been all the Bernie Bros sitting home playing Nintendo. Except it was 3% down for women as well and I do not think there was a baby boom.
Now guess what? I don’t think all that many of the orange haired ass’s supporters were economically struggling . One reason Hillary lost , Blacks who saw little progress on several issues stayed home.
Republican operatives had predicted that as far back as 15 . No Democrat was going to get the turn out Obama got . That vote had to be replaced. YOUTH oops !!!!!!!!!
Add to that all those voters in the Midwest who also stayed home to do some Oxycontin, no need to worry about passing a drug test on the non existent job and an idiot running around the Nation promising to ram another “JOBS DESTROYING TRADE BILL” , down their throats in the LAME DUCK.
Better late then never with Warren and as for Sanders, when did a Senator from another State come to NY to campaign for anything if they were not running for president. He had a pretty busy scheduled
supporting the looser .
“One reason Hillary lost , Blacks who saw little progress on several issues stayed home.”
Or maybe the long efforts of the Republicans to strike hundreds of thousands of minority voters off the rolls for spurious reasons worked. Did they “stay home” when Hillary won huge in California and New York? Or did they just “stay home” in states where the Republicans specialized in voter suppression tactics?
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/10/the-massive-election-rigging-scandal-the-media-ignored_partner/
Am I misreading your post because it sure seems like you are giving every single “loser” candidate the benefit of the doubt except Hillary?
NYC public school parent
I believe he may have been in 2010 . How his donations break down to day I do not know. I doubt it .
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/11/another-wave-washes-over-russ-feingold/93615474/
Trump wave +
Thank you for the link to the Interesting article about Feingold:
“He ran hard on economic issues like raising the minimum wage, paid family leave and making college more affordable, while opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. He also weighed in on local issues, like water quality and bringing broadband to more parts of the state.”
Russ sounds just like Bernie and yet he mustered fewer votes than Hillary. Despite running against an INSIDER who was as right wing as they come. Seems as if this just shows that Wisconsin voters don’t like progressives enough to vote for them. I believe Bernie would have fared even worse than Hillary, especially after being subject to the Russian propaganda campaign that highlighted whatever would turn voters off (it didn’t even have to be true).
NYC public school parent
What you don’t get is that what made Bernie unique was not only his positions, but the fact that he was the perfect outsider . A thorn in Obama’s ass as well as Bushes and corporate Americas ass.
Yes there was a healthy dose of voter suppression . That did not stop anybody from voting who was DETERMINED to vote . Yes it did stop those who were easily discouraged . That’s what lawyers and provisional ballots are for .
“what made Bernie unique was not only his positions, but the fact that he was the perfect outsider”
He wasn’t “perfect.” Aside from his wife’s questionable self-dealing with her college, Bernie had not even begun to be tarred with the Jewish socialist Commie pro-terrorist attacks that were certain to come had he been the candidate. Look, I voted for him but I am not deluded enough to think that he was somehow immune to the same attacks that have brought down many good Democrats. He couldn’t even get a victory for Russ Feingold in a state where voters often split their ballots.
The perfect outsider was Obama, not the guy who spent the last 25 years in Washington with plenty of ammunition for the Russian bots to turn into non-stop news attacks.
I truly don’t recall whether Kerry supporters had to listen to Howard Dean supporters telling them non-stop how easily Dean would have beaten Bush, and surely Bill Bradley supporters must have been just annoying as they insisted that their guy absolutely would have wiped the floor with Bush/Cheney so it’s Gore’s fault that he lost. No doubt Jesse Jackson supporters crowed to Dukakis supporters that their guy would have won, too. I’m sure that it’s so much more useful to blame the candidate for his flaws — John Kerry had so very many of them as any Dean supporter could have told him — than to look at what is systemically allowing the far more flawed Republicans to waltz to victory. And since the only 2 winning Democrat candidates since 1980 (36 years!) are Bill Clinton and Obama — 2 moderate Republicans in disguise — while far more liberal candidates are going down to defeat, I’d say that your “blame the candidate” strategy is not a very good recipe for electing progressive candidates.
To elect a progressive candidate, we need to address the structural issues that lead to Democrat defeat — whether they are progressive or moderates — in house, Senate, and Presidential races. The notion that some “perfect” Democrat will be so popular that he or she will be immune is a very risky business. Especially since the only ones who have been immune have been the conservative ones.
Maybe Obama won because Hillary Clinton supporters didn’t help the right wing do the dirty work to smear him when he won the primary. Maybe Bill Clinton won because Jerry Brown’s supporters didn’t help the right wing do the dirty work to smear him when he won the primary.
I was one of those Ted Kennedy supporters who embraced all the attacks on Jimmy Carter so I get it. No doubt I spent the first year of Reagan’s term crowing that Ted Kennedy could have beaten Reagan easily. And I was probably just as annoying as the pro-Bernie folks who say the same thing about him. Who knows, maybe we were both right.
NYC public school parent
You’re right, it is as Lofgren said “Svengali like powers” that the Republicans possess Yet they have to rely on the Russians to win . Your boy Feingold lost because of magic . It had nothing to do with being associated with a thoroughly corrupt party . Had nothing to do with some Clinton supporters in Wisconsin not even bothering to go past the Presidential with their marker. It would have been interesting to see what might have happened in an off year .
Don’t get me wrong, on every issue the Republicans are far worse . But then they didn’t have Obama running around the country promising TPP for WISCONSIN, did Feingold call him out on it. . They were just going to vote for it and pin it on the Democrats. By the way Steve Israel assured me many times, he would never vote for a trade agreement that was not in the interest of his constituents . He went silent after he announced he was not running . Think that had something to with big Pharma being his largest donors
What do you not get, the hostility we see here toward all Democrats on education issues translates to every other issue. It is not good enough to just not be a Republican.
Sorry but I’m not buying a word you say.
Obama was STILL extremely popular right up to election day and I suspect he would have defeated Trump in those midwest states that Trump barely won. We’ll never know. But your notion that this was an anti-Obama wave doesn’t add up given his very high approval rates.
But you are right about one thing — the voters were definitely certain that Hillary and the Dems (not Obama himself) were completely corrupt! Not like the Republicans. Why wouldn’t they reject Russ Feingold when they had a chance at the upright Johnson again? Don’t voters always vote against their own self-interest? Yes, they do when they are certain the candidate who represents their interests isn’t to be trusted.
I watched the media destroy Kerry when voters REALLY disliked Bush/Cheney. The fact that you blame Kerry himself for his inability to rise above the nasty memes the Rove and company portrayed him as is fine. I’m sure eventually the Dems will offer up another neoconservative like Clinton and Obama who are able to rise above the the attempts to paint them as just as corrupt as Kerry, Clinton and Gore (that great big liar) were. No need to address why voters keep voting against their self-interest. It’s all the losing candidates’ fault for not being Obama. When the reason Obama remained popular is that the progressives almost never used the same nasty words to describe him as they did to candidates like Hillary who offered exactly the same policies!
Progressives somehow treat Obama as someone who happens to have more conservative ideas than they do and they treat Hillary as someone who was CORRUPT, constantly using nasty words like “co-opted” and “sell-outs” that they rarely if ever used against Obama.
That’s why the voters in the midwest still approved of Obama by a far larger margin than they approved of his policies. Because they didn’t think he was corrupt. The progressives never did that number on him. Even on here, people disagree with his policies but don’t associate it was a character flaw the way they do when it is Hillary.
I rarely hear one bad word against Obama on here. It’s all about Hillary, Randi, Arne and yet the ONE person who is directly responsible for everything that happened in school reform is President Obama. If in 2012 the left had been as loud denouncing Obama as the corrupt and co-opted President who sold out to Wall Street — and pounded that message to the voters every day — just like the did for Hillary, I wonder if he could have survived. After all, it was true! And if only the progressives had pounded that meme, I’m sure they could have convinced many more voters in 2012 that Obama was just as corrupt as Hillary.
This wasn’t an anti-Obama vote. It was an anti-Hillary vote. And it was personal. Just like it was with Kerry and Gore. Too many voters believed every word the Bernie bots told them about how corrupt Hillary was just like they believed every word about Kerry and Gore’s lies. And I do think it is naive for you to believe that Warren or Bernie is immune.
NYC public school parent
All I believe is the polling . Which was pretty spot on when you think about it .The National numbers and even the state numbers which basically showed the race was in the margin of error in those states that swung the election. Just didn’t expect to lose every one of them from Florida through Pennsylvanian and a left turn to Missouri . So I believe the polls when they say Sanders had a 10 point larger margin than Clinton . There was not a soul in America who did not know he called himself a socialist and was a Jew . Clinton made sure of that , that’s why he lost the Black vote in the South by 90% margins.
So your explanation is that the American people are just stupid. Poor Hillary was framed . Now I doubt they knew a Citibank exec picked Obama’s first cabinet , I doubt they read past the headline. They stayed home . Hillary was God awful and the fact she lost to the Orange haired ass shows us just how god awful she was .
And the economy was god awful as well . As this piece from today’s time shows. The headline unemployment number is missing a lot . Like a 3% lower worker participation rate since 2000 .
Hillary had a huge lead, too, in late October until James Comey and the alt right / Russia sponsored fake Bernie Bro trolls went to work.
I believe you are way too smart to think that a poll of a candidate who has not even begun to bear the brunt of the right wing attacks that would have been unleashed against him is something to take to the bank. Because then you would have bet your house on Hillary in late October.
Despite what most Bernie fans think, Hillary barely criticized him during their campaign and Bernie returned the favor which I admired him for. They disagreed on policy and made that clear. But neither of them made any attempt to smear the character of their opponent the way Trump smeared so many in the Republican primary. That’s why Hillary had such a large lead after the convention. It took the Russian supported propaganda machine (some of it masquerading as Bernie supporters) and then James Comey’s inexcusable last minute smear to turn the tide. And a whole lot of voter suppression. And she still almost won and handily won the popular vote. You can’t say that about the losers Al Gore and John Kerry. And the loser Russ Feingold.
I can only imagine what would have happened to Bernie when he REALLY got the same right wing attack treatment that Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, and every other imperfect candidate got. If his supporters think that Hillary’s criticism of him during their campaign were anything like what he would have heard from the alt right if he had been the candidate, then they are just ignoring both the facts and history. Every Democrat looked unbeatable right up until the right wing got their nasty attack ads in the fall. Hillary withstood it all until the very last and unprecedented smear by Comey got the trolls started again. And she still won the popular vote by far more than Gore did. You really think a poll when he wasn’t even the candidate is evidence of Bernie’s ability to withstand the attacks he never even had to withstand? Did you even READ what was hacked from the Republican opposition research on Bernie? I can tell you that most people didn’t know any negatives because Hillary didn’t use it and the Republicans had no need to. Look what happened to Russ’ lead once the negative campaigning started in the fall. No one with any integrity — Bernie included — would ever claim that Hillary did the same number on him that the right wing would have. It would take a braggart worthy of Trump to say “I would have won handily” if I had been the candidate and no, Bernie is nothing like Trump. He tries to be honest and think about things. He understands that he is just as vulnerable as all the other Democrats because he would be running against people who have absolutely no morals. And Bernie knows Hillary is NOT like that, despite so many of his acolytes believing in their heart of hearts that Bernie is lying to them about that (some of them post here).
“So your explanation is that the American people are just stupid. Poor Hillary was framed” Framed? That doesn’t even make sense – it’s the kind of nasty remark you say to someone you are certain is a crook. It is certainly revealing of your beliefs, however. I do think there are many deluded Americans who fervently believe every lie that Trump tells them. I never call them stupid for it — do you?
I respect Bernie for understanding that his disagreements with Hillary were on policy, not on whether she was totally corrupt or just very very corrupt and it’s a shame that the people that worship at his altar can’t tell the difference. And that makes me sad. Especially when those same people attack Hillary with nasty words that they would never have the chutzpah to use to describe Obama, who actually DID the things the Hillary haters just assume Hillary would also do.
It’s possible that Bernie would have won because Hillary’s supporters would not have helped the right wing do their dirty work on him. It’s also just as possible that he would have lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote by an even larger number. We don’t know. And there is something very off-putting in Bernie’s smug supporters certainty of victory before the right wing had even begun their attacks on him. Maybe Hillary supporters were too smug in their belief she’d cruise to victory. You may remember that I was on here posting long replies to the Hillary attacks that followed the right wing playbook because I was terrified she would lose. I wasn’t smug — I was scared. And I’m still scared when I hear the same smugness from educated people who should know better than to try to simplify the many complex ways that this election — and many previous Presidential elections — were lost. It’s deja vu all over again.
dianeravitch
He is running far to the left, on several issues from where he was when he was in congress .
They both claim to oppose charters . Northam voted for Bush twice and Perriello was a member of DFER. . !!!!
So its tough to pin this on Sanders Like you say there are many issues. He’s looking at a whole package and economic populism is his litmus test.
Hillary ran to the left on several issues, too. I’m sure once the right wing or Russia funded bots get done with them, every Democratic candidate will seem like the biggest liars ever. Can’t trust a one of them any more than you can trust crooked Hillary.
The rich are masters at hypocrisy. The reformers exalt the firm hand and rigid school structure for the kids of color. Then, they bash the public schools as “factories with student as products, crammed with knowledge in the most boring way possible, students ejected from the assembly line”, while in the same article, they describe in beatific terms, “creative” contractor schools.
Those poor traditional (i.e. public) high schools just can’t seem to do anything right when compared to a wonderful contractor school in Baltimore, which was profiled by Hechinger Report. An expansion of the article would have elucidated. The contractor school filed a lawsuit to get more tax money (Erica Green. Baltimore Sun, 9/10/2015). Its $9,387 per pupil as compared to the public school’s $5,300 was inadequate.
Nonstop slamming of charter schools does not promote useful dialogue. Obsession over standardized test scores will not improve education and neither will obsession over the NYC Specialized Schools tests. Undemocratic practices in enrollment, retention and discipline are not the sole property of charter schools. Horrible practices abound throughout all public education. There are many excellent independent, community-based charter schools that live up to their missions and which are treasured in their neighborhoods. Eva’s last name is misspelled in the title and second paragraph. Cannot tell if this was due to haste or intent.
“Obsession over standardized test scores will not improve education….”
LOL! Irony not your thing? Sorry, but it was charter supporters who opened that barn door. Too late for you to try to pretend the horse isn’t out.
I’m sure there are some good independent, community-based charter schools. But the fact is, they’re still siphoning money off the public schools. Are you advocating for a separate revenue stream (meaning, new taxes) to operate these schools? If so, we might have something to talk about.
“Undemocratic practices in enrollment, retention and discipline are not the sole property of charter schools. ”
Right, private and parochial schools have them, too.
And the charter schools that do NOT take advantage of their lack of oversight and do not suspend outrageously high numbers of 5 year old students do not get stellar results. No doubt you want them to shut down their shop and hand their resources over to Eva Moskowitz.
The fact that you tar and attack all charters as having the kind of abhorrent weeding out practices as Success Academy has is insulting to the charters that do it right. Of course, since those charters can’t match the results of Success Academy, you probably blame their nasty and terrible teachers instead of the fact that they are actually doing the right thing and trying to teach kids instead of excelling at humiliating them into leaving.
Poor KIPP. They try to do it right and stop getting rid of so many kids and all they get is people saying what a lousy teaching staff they have since they can’t match Eva Moskowitz results. Soon Betsy DeVos will demand that her best friend take over KIPP and show those lousy and overpaid administrators how to do it right.
Shut them all down and replace them with the only charter school with guaranteed 100% success! Why have a community based charter that can’t teach their kids what Success Academy can teach them?
The refusal of these community based charters to point out how the good charters are getting results will eventually come back to bite them. You are all complicit right now.
Contractor schools. Like “charter” schools, Halliburton is a contractor. The government buys the firm’s services. The firm’s assets belong to its owners. The corporation does not have to disclose information beyond what is specified in the contract. Its owners are private citizens who select management without democratic process.
Non-stop deceit won’t change the fact. If you stopped lying about it, useful dialogue would lead to a better understanding that there is a bi-partisan theft of America’s most important common good.
Someone correct me if I am wrong or verify.
I swear that I remember that SA grades their own standardized tests.
True or not?
The NYC charters refuse to allow their tests to be graded with other NYC public school children’s tests. They claim they cannot but in fact, there is absolutely nothing stopping that from happening except their desire to keep their grading of tests “separate but equal”.
Instead, NYC charters have formed an all-charter consortium in which they hire an ‘independent’ company who works for them to oversee the grading!
It would be interesting to compare how easy the charter graders are on the essays and “show your work” parts of the state exams that are subject to a lot of leeway.
It’s as if the College Board had one set of graders for the private school students who take AP Exams and another for the public school students. With the private schools hiring their own company to grade their exams! No doubt there’d be a lot more 5s given out to private school students.
But “Separate but Equal” is the charter school mantra and it is very appropriate for them.
Thanks for the info NYCpsp! Appreciate it. For me it brings up another question then. You wrote: “NYC charters have formed an all-charter consortium in which they hire an ‘independent’ company who works for them to oversee the grading!”
A company “oversees” the grading? What does that mean? How does that actually play out in the grading of the tests? I thought I heard that the SA teachers actually grade the test. Do you know if that is true? (anyone else please chime in)
Here are some links to articles:
http://www.nyccharterschools.org/test-scoring-consortium
http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2015/08/27/charter-school-where-english-scores-spiked-scored-own-state-exams/
And here is the company that used to grade them in 2015. Not sure if they still are.
http://smeasurement.com
Strategic Measurement & Evaluation, Inc.
Thanks for the links NYCpsp! Mil gracias.
Thank you for posting this. I was one of the ones who sent it to you. I’m wondering how the charter lobby got Politico into their pocket. Disturbing.
Their regular education reporter, Eliza Shapiro, was obviously not consulted on this as she generally does know more about the complexities of the issue than this ill-informed writer.
Maybe they fired Eliza Shapiro because she acted like a journalist and didn’t just re-write Success Academy press releases like the NY Daily News reporter likes to do.
Let’s not intentionally spread misinformation: Eliza Shapiro continues to write for Politico. She is, indeed, a good journalist who does not write puff pieces and who understands the complexities of ed issues. If we want to persist with the “charters; good thing or bad thing” conversation there are many people ready to join the food fight. If we want to move beyond the binary thinking that is crippling us (even those of us who likely agree on far more important things than we disagree) then we need to take a breath. Nuance is, unfortunately, in short supply.
I believe in nuance. I have seen none of it from the people like you who refuse to call out the bad charters.
Where was the criticism when Eva Moskowitz gave Betsy DeVos her stamp of approval? She didn’t just endorse her — she gave interviews and wrote op eds to legitimize Ms. DeVos and make it okay for politicians to vote for her — after all, even “liberal Democrat” Eva Moskowitz who has devoted her life to at-risk children says Eva is a wonderful choice.”
And all the while the rest of the charters were terrified to speak out against Ms. Moskowitz’ claims to being the champion of at-risk children she portrays herself as being.
You all remind me of Paul Ryan and John McCain when it comes to Trump. You are just as terrified of Eva Moskowitz as Ryan is of Trump. It’s embarrassing to see you all run the other way when it comes time to criticize anything she does. You’ll hide in the bushes like Spicey rather than to point out that her practices are abhorrent.
That makes you complicit. So no, I’m not going to believe Ivanka when she tells us her dad really cares about women and I’m not going to believe you when you tell us that Eva Moskowitz really cares about ALL at-risk kids and not just the ones who make her look good. I think her endorsement of DeVos says it all. I think the rest of the charter movement’s unwillingness to criticize her shows just how deep your commitment to kids really is. You care about kids, just not as much as you care about keeping your biggest funders happy by keeping quiet so their favorite can continue to do great harm.
Until this year, I supported some good charters because I agree with you that there is a lot of nuance to be discussed. I now see what you all are. Complicit. You are terrified of speaking truth to power. Oh sure, you attack the teachers union as if that isn’t one of the most financially rewarding positions to take. Won’t hurt your bank account one bit. But when it comes to taking a stand that matters — that REALLY matters — you are all silent. Complicit. Eva Moskowitz represents all of you and you all champion her. Do you know why I am certain of that? Because I have never heard one word of criticism against her by you folks who call yourselves “reformers”. You’ll take on Trump, DeVos, Randi, heck you’ll even attack Diane Ravitch herself if you need to.
But Eva Moskowitz? I guess that’s where your spine stops working. Like the Republicans and Trump. Complicit. The people who post here aren’t afraid to criticize the union, Randi, Obama, or Hillary.
But you are terrified of criticizing Eva Moskowitz. Even now I expect you to remain silent or weasel your way to some barely evident criticism that will sound exactly like the “tut tuts” you hear from Republicans in Congress as Trump continues his radical remaking of the presidency into the demagogue dictatorship he envisions. “Eva is a little misguided but she cares so much” is about what I’d expect from you just like I know John McCain will offer up some light criticism of Trump as he enables Trump to do as he pleases.
You are all complicit. Please get a backbone and speak out. The kids need you and telling yourself you must remain quiet to save a few of them sounds an awful lot what people said in Nazi Germany to excuse their cowardice. You are all cowards.
Feel free to prove me wrong, Steve Zimmerman. I won’t hold my breath. I’d bet my money on the Republicans deciding to practice some oversight over Trump before you cowardly “reformers” get around to practicing any oversight over Eva Moskowitz.
Steve Zimmerman,
I see where you are coming from in your defense of Eva and her methods. You founded two charter schools in NYC. Don’t be ashamed. Say it. http://www.wnyc.org/people/steven-zimmerman/