Steve Singer calls out the Destroy-Public-Education campaign for their attacks on Randi Weingarten.
It’s not because he is a fan of Randi’s, but because he doesn’t like hypocrisy.
Charter schools are more segregated than public schools, even in districts that have high levels of racial segregation. Charters don’t mind being 100% black or Hispanic. It’s not a bug to their promoters. It’s a feature. In some states, charters are all black and have become White Flight z
Academies.
Vouchers cause racial and religious segregation. Period.
Meanwhile, the Destroy Public Education crowd is acting shocked, shocked, shocked that Randi dared to connect their activities to the racist Southern governors and Senators who championed school choice as their response to the Brown decision.
I saw an email blast a few days ago from Jeanne Allen, the CEO of the pro-privatization Center for Education Reform, who wrapped herself in the mantel of the late Wisconsin legislator Polly Williams, an African American woman who supported vouchers, hoping they would help poor black children. She neglected to acknowledge that Williams was appalled when vouchers became the favorite idea of Scott Walker, who raised the income limits. Poor black children were left behind. Before her death, Williams admitted her error. Poor black children were cynically used by the hard-right Bradley Foundation, the Koch brothers, Scott Walker, and a bunch of white reactionaries who didn’t give a hoot about black children. To think that these people have the nerve to chastise anyone who calls out their racist heritage!
Jeanne Allen called on Randi to resign for daring to connect charters and vouchers with their historical antecedents. Sorry, Jeanne, Randi was right. You are carrying forward the twisted ideals of George Wallace. For doing so, you should resign.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The proof that charters ADD to segregation can be found in the three NYC Success Academy elementary schools which are located in District 3/Manhattan.
Almost every white student attends Success Academy Upper West — the only Success Academy school in District 3 in which only 25% of the students are economically disadvantaged while the rest are middle class.
And in the other two Success Academy schools in District 3 there are almost no white students and the majority of students are poor.
(By the way, the suspension rates at the two elementary schools with few white kids are huge compared to the suspension rate in the one school that has almost all the white students and very few poor students of any race.)
And in public schools in District 3, the students combine into far more diverse middle schools. But Success Academy ships the middle school students from Upper West into an even whiter and wealthier school district for middle school.
One way to address segregation is MAGNET public schools open to students from all over. But allowing parents to “choose” to send their kids to charters that just “coincidentally” have all their white students concentrated in a small number of schools that serve a much lower number of poor students than they should? (And don’t suspend nearly as many 5 year olds?) That is a way to encourage more segregation.
Nonsense.
School attendance zones cause almost all of the segregation in this country’s education system, and disparate funding based on property taxes cause almost all funding disparities.
To equate parents choosing schools in such a way that they end up all Hispanic or all Black with forced segregation or any form of exclusion is intellectually dishonest.
With charters, it isn’t “forced”, just a coincidence that affluent white parents “choose” to be in schools with lots of other white parents and with non-white parents who are also have college degrees and are middle class.
And it is just a coincidence that charters “choose” to keep them separate and equal through 8th grade when they could combine them if they really had a commitment to diversity instead of enabling the “choice” of white parents to attend a school that keeps the number of poor kids very low.
NYC public school parent,
I know that you know that 60% of charter students are black or Hispanic; a larger percentage than in non-charters. Charters have a larger proportion of low income students also.
Charter schools are predominantly a refuge for low-income minority parents.
I don’t support charters in high income areas.
The enrollment of charter schools in New York City is 94% black and Hispanic and 73% economically disadvantaged. The vast majority of these children are zoned for traditional public schools that have been segregated for at least a generation.
John,
You did not address the fact that the white students in charters are concentrated in some charters and the non-white students are concentrated in other charters. Why?
“Charter schools are predominantly a refuse for low-income minority parents”. Why? Because they don’t have to serve all students?
There are public magnet and choice schools that achieve the same goal but the only difference is that they don’t have the freedom to suspend as many 5 year olds as they please with no one questioning it as long as the 5 year olds they are suspending are the lowest performing ones.
NYC parent,
Segregation in charter schools is as a result of parental choice and first come first served or lottery admissions. I can tell you why black student are concentrated in my charter. White, more affluent students are well served by the schools in their neighborhoods within my city. Black and Hispanic students are not.
I can’t speak for charters in suburban, affluent areas as I know nothing about them. My guess is that they reflect their neighborhood demographics, but I really don’t know.
“Charters have a larger proportion of low income students also.”
Actually, Jersey Jazzman has debunked that claim. That claim comes from looking at statewide data. But, of course, charters tend to be concentrated in urban high poverty areas, so you can really only compare charters to public schools in urban high poverty areas. The Jazzman has crunched the numbers and found that while public and charter schools in urban high poverty areas both have high percentages of free and reduced lunch kids, the public schools have far more of the free and the charters have more of the reduced. So, even in high poverty urban districts, charters are skimming off the least poor of the poor.
Tim says: “The enrollment of charter schools in New York City is 94% black and Hispanic and 73% economically disadvantaged.”
Which makes it even more astonishing that within a single charter chain within a single district, where every single student supposedly has a “choice” of schools, we have the following:
Charter school 1: 3% white and 70% poor
Charter school 2: 2% white and 70% poor
Charter school 3: 39% white and 24% poor
If that is how “integration” works when you allow charters to do it, then I suggest that we should get rid of charters right away.
Especially when that very same district has the following:
Public school 1: 37% white and 52% poor
Public school 2: 16% white, 70% poor
Public school 3: 9% white, 81% poor
Public schools are still segregated but not as much as charters are.
I think that you are confusing school attendance zones with zip codes and real estate evaluations, the latter influenced by settlement patterns in urban districts, transformations of these over time, and federal/state policies to forward “gentrification” or concentrations of low-income housing, other changes in communities–all in addition to the creation of suburbs, many of these now in decline, especially if they were organized around mega shopping centers.
Tax breaks and incentives for corporations also diminish the taxbase for public schools. The theory that the break will increase jobs and add to the tax base is rarely true in practice. These breaks do not always include a with a claw-back if the corporation fails to deliver the promised jobs and with tax benefits as projected.
It might be more accurate to say that banking, lending, and insurance practices have caused almost all of the segregation in the communities were schools are located.
Laura,
Yes, those are the underlying reasons for low income neighborhoods, but tying school attendance and school funding to those is also a big part of the segregation issue.
Oh, Laura H. Chapman. I read all your stuff. You are right on. And in the end – it really IS all about money in this great america everyone wants to come to. Capitalism! The way to go, eh? Working real well for some.