Steven Singer is sorry, really sorry for the self-proclaimed crybabies who call themselves reformers.
Their efforts to privatize public education were going well, they were under the radar, until Trump and DeVos came along and joined forces with them.
How could they continue to sell charters as a crusade for poor children when Trump and DeVos want the same?
How could they get away with the ridiculous assertion that turning public money over to private contractors was a matter of civil rights, when the most reactionary, anti-civil rights administration in generations shares their cause?
What’s next? Will they hold a joint press conference with DeVos and Jeff Sessions to denounce the NAACP for daring to demand that charters cease to operate for profit and meet minimal standards of financial and academic accountability?
It was bad enough when they took their cues from the Waltons, ALEC, and the Koch brothers. Now their champions are Trump and DeVos.
Sad.
Singer writes:
“It’s gotta’ be tough to be a corporate school reformer these days.
“Betsy DeVos is Education Secretary. Donald Trump is President. Their entire Koch Brothers-funded, ALEC-written agenda is national policy.
“But their stripes are showing – big time.
“The NAACP has turned against their school privatization schemes. The Journey for Justice Alliance is having none of it. The Movement for Black Lives is skeptical. Even their trusty neoliberal Democratic allies are seeking to put some distance between them.
“And it’s making them look… sad.
“You’d think they’d have much to celebrate. Their policies are right up there with voter disenfranchisement, the Muslim ban and building a wall.
“Charter schools – YES! Voucher schools – YES! Public schools – NO.
“High stakes testing is going gangbusters pushed by the federal government with little interference from the states.
“Common Core is in almost every school while the most state legislatures do about it is consider giving it a name change.
“And in every district serving students of color and the poor, budgets are being slashed to pieces to make room for another juicy tax cut for the rich.
“They’ve taken George W. Bush’s education vision – which neoliberal Barack Obama increased – and somehow found a way to double-triple down on it!
“They should be dancing in the streets. But somehow they just don’t feel like dancing.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think this is the case that proves the opposite of what it is intending.
If reformers in general were the greedy privatizers that you make them out to be, they would be celebrating about Trump and DeVos. But, as you’ve noticed, most of them are not. That is because they disagree with the Trump/DeVos agenda.
This split between people who want privatization and profit, who support online and for-profit charters, and the people involved with not-for-profit charter networks and EMOs and mom and pop charters has always existed. Trump/DeVos is calling attention to it. the not-for-profit folks are not happy because they are being (unfairly IMO) painted with the same brush as the others.
I think anti-reform folks don’t want this split to occur as they’re thinking they can more effectively fight all charters by treating them like the worst. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Sorry, John, the charter cheerleaders are on the same team as Trump and DeVos, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, the Koch brothers and ALEC.
I spoke in Houston a few years ago at the invitation of Mike Feinberg of KIPP. I warned that the charter sector had to disown the corrupt and for-profit charters or see the entire sector besmirched. Mike said it was not their job. If you hang with crooks,you look Like one.
Or as the saying goes, lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas
THANK YOU, Diane. AMEN!
As I said, you have a vested interest in promoting that point of view, but I think it’s simply not true.
Trump policies like immigration “reform” and budget cuts to title 1 affect charters even more than district schools (given higher percentage of low income and minority families).
See https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/03/28/trump-education-budget-needs-work-charter-school-ceos-column/99705262/
and
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-leaves-democratic-charter-school-advocates-isolated-295eb9e3fc99/
“I warned that the charter sector had to disown the corrupt and for-profit charters or see the entire sector besmirched”
I think you’re already seeing the start of that and it will grow. I think NFP charters have been reticent to do that because they’re happy to take money from those who support all charters and don’t want to tick them off (especially because anti-reform folks have made it hard for those interested in education of low income children to support charters).
Public sentiment against for-profit charters could be the push needed for nfps to speak out against the rest.
What will be most interesting to see is where moderate Dems who have supported education reform (Obama, Booker, etc.). I’m sure you hope they will abandon all reform, but I’m hopeful they will make the case for differentiation and support of the NFPs.
John,
What exactly is my vested interest in opposing privatization?
I am not paid by unions.
Please explain.
If you can’t, then stop making groundless accusations or you will be permanently ousted.
If you ENABLE unethical or immoral behavior, then you are no better than them.
John enables racists and crooks and goes to great lengths to attack the NAACP because they call out the racists. Doesn’t that make him racist himself? Are you racist if you enable the people saying racist things and defending them? I suppose it depends whether you are defending it because it is financially rewarding, or whether you are defending it because you really believe with all your heart that lots of little 5 and 6 year old African-American children act out violently when they win lotteries for high performing charters.
Which is it, John? I wonder if you defend racist comments because you believe them or because it pays better than criticizing them.
You are complicit.
NYC parent,
You should be banned here for your incessant personal attacks with no basis. You add nothing to the conversation and rarely argue points or discuss data.
I have not and will not make or defend racist statements. Find me any place where I did and I will apologize to you. If not, I think you owe me one.
You have not satisfactorily explained how I have a “vested interest” in stopping the proliferation of charters and privatization.
Saying that I do is not an explanation.
It is a flat=out and insulting lie, and I don’t accept lies about me on my own blog.
Diane,
You’re not understanding what I’m saying.
I’m saying that your interest in “stopping the proliferation of charters and privatization” gives you a vested interest in promoting the point of view that ” the charter cheerleaders are on the same team as Trump and DeVos, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, the Koch brothers and ALEC.”
My point is that I think people against privatization (such as yourself) want to lump all reform efforts together and paint them with the brush potential supporters will find most offensive.
John,
A vested interest typically refers to a financial interest, a means of self-enrichment. As such, it is insulting and I suggest you drop it now.
All charter schools, except for the few that are directly authorized by school districts and committed to sharing whatever they learn, are part of the effort to privatize and impoverish public schools.
The original idea of charter schools, as propounded by Al Shanker, was that teachers who wanted to create a charter would get the approval of their colleagues and their local school board and would share whatever they have learned.
It is now obvious after 27 years that charter schools have produced no innovations and share nothing because they have nothing to share. They are parasites.
I say so with no vested interest. I do not belong to a union and I gain nothing by sharing my perspective.
Diane,
As I said, I didn’t mean to imply that you gain personally from your opinions. I think the interests of anti-reformers gain from lumping all reformers together with Trump and DeVos. I find that insulting, but I see where your cause (not you) benefits from it.
My cause, John, is democracy.
What’s yours?
Educational equity and economic mobility.
John,
You certainly won’t get educational equity with charter schools. A few boost the test scores of their students; most don’t. Meanwhile, they suck students and resources away from public schools that enroll the vast majority of students. If you believe in charter schools, you believe in selecting a tiny percentage of students to take a chance on a privately run school while sinking the hopes of most children.
If you believe in educational equity, you should abandon the charter industry and work to improve public schools.
Diane,
I believe money should follow the student. When it does, traditional public schools are left with more money per student when children leave for charters. Only districts that fail to adjust to their lower enrollment have financial troubles as a result of charter enrollment.
I also believe that traditional public schools are not as flexible and responsive as charters and that the institution has failed to adjust to the educational needs of the now majority minority and low income students we are educating. Urban charters are doing better than traditional schools at educating children of color and children from economically disadvantaged families. This is a truth that you would rather ignore or rationalize away than confront.
I also think that you can’t talk about our traditional education system without “owning” the injustice of spending inequities between urban and suburban areas, and the fact that well off families leave school districts while poor families can’t afford to.
I am in favor of equitable funding of all schools. Charter schools present themselves as a way to avoid that discussion.
In that sense, they are a hoax. Instead of talking about equalizing funding across district lines, we talk about charters. They are a distraction and a waste of time and money.
Worst of all, they enable the rich to avoid talk of raising taxes to equitably fund the public schools. I have come to understand that the diversion is the purpose of charter schools. Not to improve education for all, but to change the subject.
We are in agreement about equitable funding of all schools.
I don’t agree that charter schools “present themselves” as a way to avoid that discussion, but there are certainly people who want to spend less on public education who point to charter schools doing more with less as a component of their argument. As you have pointed out, that’s becoming less valid as charters ask for parity funding.
I advocate for more spending in urban areas and in mine in particular. There’s no doubt that we as a society don’t spend enough to provide an excellent education to the people who need it most. Unfortunately, we pay dearly later when we end up with too many high school dropouts and too many unemployed and even incarcerated people from poor families.
Charter schools don’t do more with less. Several national studies have shown that charters spend far more on administration than public schools.
Eva’s charters have far more to spend than public schools, thanks to the Wall Street crowd that drops millions in her coffers. No public school could afford to spend over $700,000 for a rally, as Success Academy did.
KIPP spends more than public schools.
John says:
“Public sentiment against for-profit charters could be the push needed for nfps to speak out against the rest.”
LOL! Thanks for revealing how completely corrupt you are.
MORALITY is not enough to get those complicit not for profit charters ceos who adore their big salaries to speak out against wrong doing. ETHICS is not enough.
But if there is so much public sentiment that their billionaire masters tell them it is okay to speak out, they will jump to do it.
You have been living in such a corrupt system that you cannot even see how corrupt the things you say are. At least your ignorance reveals exactly who you care about the most. Yourselves.
Look like a duck, quack like a duck, walk like a duck….
John,
Stop attacking parents like NYCparent. Stop insulting teachers for needing to unionize against oppression. We are some of the least greedy people around. Stop insulting Dr. Ravitch. Stop dividing! It’s a form of bullying. I know you don’t want to be a bully. Stop supporting cutthroat competition bred by privatization and start supporting equality.
Look, John, you keep getting suspended, and you’re in danger of getting expelled for your behavior. It doesn’t need to be like that. When you’re here, support public schools the best you can, and we can get along, no prob. We’ll help as best we can. We’re on the same team if you look at the big picture. You might even learn a thing or two, hanging out with all us smarty pants. Who knows? Stop bullying. Be good. Stay in school.
LeftCoastTeacher,
Would you point out one post in which I insulted teachers, parents, or Diane despite pretty constantly being insulted here by others?
I have never been suspended.
LCT is right.
You were in moderation for the past two days because I was disgusted by your bold assertion that the NAACP was influenced by the unions’ money.
I am still disgusted.
With all due respect, NYCPP is an attack dog nonpareil on this blog, as perhaps dozens of regular commenters here could testify. She can handle herself.
John, I’m happy to call your bluff.
Is it racist or not to say that the NAACP is asking for transparency and accountability not because charters have been making claims about their children that are quite racist, but because they got a donation from a union?
Is it racist or not for one of the most praised non-profit charter CEOs to claim that the suspension rates as high as 25% for 5 and 6 year old children in her charter schools that just happen to have almost no white students are that extraordinarily high only because those children are doing such violent things she has no choice?
You can answer those questions yes or no as I have asked them many times and you have always made clear that you do NOT think it is racist to claim that lots of very young African-American children are violent and dangerous when they get to high performing charter Kindergarten classes and therefore no one should criticize such practices. Like the NAACP. Because it means they only care about the union and not their kids.
I’m not putting words in your mouth. You are the one who keeps posting attacking anyone who questions the most racist charter actions. If you aren’t doing it because you are a racist, why ARE you doing it?
NYC parent,
Sorry, but questioning decision making by the NAACP is not racist. If you think so, you don’t understand the meaning of the word.
I can’t find the quote regarding “violent and dangerous” so I can’t respond to it.
Where did I “attack” you for questioning SA? In fact, I think I said at one point that I’m glad there are people who question them. I’m just tired of your personal attacks on me because I haven’t denounced them sufficiently for you and somehow owe that to you or anyone else.
$$$
John,
Here is the problem with your claim that you aren’t really acting as racists do:
With regards to the documented very high suspension rates of young elementary school children at Success Academy and Eva Moskowitz’ many public statements saying that they were NECESSARY, you say: “I’m just tired of your personal attacks on me because I haven’t denounced them sufficiently for you…”
You have not denounced them AT ALL! Not once.
Contrast with your attacks on the NAACP in which you constantly denounce them as sacrificing their own children in exchange for a union donation. Now there is something you can REALLY condemn and attribute the worst motives to.
Your problem, John, is that your biases are revealed in your need to publicly criticize actions or not. And your willingness to criticize depends on whether you have a problem with their actions because you believe they are wrong, or whether you can imagine a scenario in which their actions would be justified and correct so you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and keep quiet.
In the case of the NAACP you are so certain that the NAACP asking for transparency and accountability for charters MUST be financially motivated because it’s certainly not something a white guy like you could ever imagine being justified unless you were paid to do it.
Burt in the case of Success Academy’s outrageously high suspension rates for 5 and 6 year old children and Eva Moskowitz’ justification of it, you can’t really offer an opinion. Because as a white guy, you CAN imagine that there MIGHT be a legitimate reason for suspending lots and lots of African-American Kindergarten children and you don’t want to criticize it without being sure.
Your willingness to repeat over and over again that the NAACP’s actions are wrong and financially motivated contrast markedly with your UNwillingness to even once say that Eva Moskowitz’ actions are wrong and financially motivated.
Your choice of which people to give the benefit of the doubt to and which people to attack and criticize their motives is certainly revealing. You are far more certain that NAACP leaders would sell out their now children for money than you are certain whether huge cohorts of African-American 5 year olds who are lucky enough to win Success Academy seats are violently acting out in class.
Is that racist or not?
NYC public school parent,
Since you seem obsessed with me offering an opinion on SA’s suspension of 5 and 6 year olds, please post some links for me to look at. I don’t form opinions without data.
Thanks.
Making the claim, as a white person, that the NAACP is a money grubbing organization that does not represent African American people is racist. It is very racist. It is horribly racist. You should stop doing that.
Some people working with district & charter public schools have been denouncing corruption – and improving laws involving charters, or many years. Just as there are some thieves and corruption in the charter sector of public education, there is some in the district section.
As a person who helped start and worked in alternative district public schools over the last 45 years, I recall vigorous opposition to educators who tried to create new options within districts, as is now evidence in opposition to chartering.
Joe,
I told Mike Feinberg in 2010 that charters should take the lead in sweeping out the Augean stables of corruption and self-dealing but he said it was not their job. Unfortunately the charter industry has fought hard against any accountability or transparency. They fight it in the legislature with lobbyists.
Diane – Some people working with charters have worked hard to refine state laws to increase financial & programmatic accountability. NACSA, (the national group that works with authorizers, has been very active) as have a number of others.
Moreover, some charter and district advocates have worked together on various battles, such as the successful national battle against the NCAA. The NCAA tried to tell every high school in the country which courses were and were not appropriate for college preparation. That’s not the NCAA’s job.
People from Jonathan Kozol and Herb Kohl to Jeanne Allen, the late Senator Paul Wellstone and former Mn Gov Arne Governor (and thousands of others) worked together on this.
In some states, district and charter educators have worked together at the community and state policy levels.
If the charter industry were actually working hard to stop abuses, there would be no for-profit charters and no for-profit management organizations. And charter leaders would not collect salaries if $500,000+ a year.
Instead charter advocates applaud BASIS as the “best” in the nation, when it is a cash cow for its owners.
The charter industry is the opposite of what Al Shanker proposed. That’s who he turned against charters in 1993 and denounced them as a front for privatization and union busting
“If the charter industry were actually working hard to stop abuses, there would be no for-profit charters and no for-profit management organizations.”
As you know, charter “industry” is a term made up by anti-reform folks. There is no “industry”. There are just individual charters, charter networks, charter authorizers, and charter supporters.
There are vast differences in the quality of charter sectors primarily as a result of state charter laws and authorizers. That is the place to focus to improve the sector.
Unfortunately, most charter critics speak out equally against for-profit and not-for-profit charters, and don’t differentiate between states where the sector is healthy and performing well and those where it has schools that are poor academically and those where corruption occurs all too frequently.
So long as there are non-profit charters that hire for-profit managers; so long as charter leaders are paid outrageous salaries, there is no distinction between for profit and nonprofit charters.
One of the reasons some students give for attending Mn charters is bullying – cyber and otherwise, by some students in large traditional district schools. Sadly, here’s another example of a youngster who died after, according to her parents, school officials did not take needed action.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/02/after-months-of-bullying-a-12-year-old-new-jersey-girl-killed-herself-her-parents-blame-the-school/?utm_term=.bddb2124207b
There are many examples of parents believing schools did not handle cyber-bullying well. But I would not condemn all district schools or educators for the ineffectiveness of some people who work in them.
I see, there are no bullies in charter schools. Of course, you throw them out and send them to public schools. Nice
Diane you regularly post problems with charters. That’s fine.
How about acknowledging that there are reasons people leave traditional district schools for alternative district schools or charters?
Joe,
Traditional public schools have enormous problems. None of them will be solved by the creation of a separate school system that drains away the best students, excludes children with disabilities, and diverts resources.
Traditional public schools are in trouble. They need more equitable funding. They need the energy of the entire community.
Why do you think you are helping public schools by creating privately managed charter schools and taking away resources from the struggling public schools?
Wealthy families have many options, including exclusive suburbs that serve only families that can afford to purchase a home there, and many high real estate taxes.
Moreover, some families in middle class suburbs have found the large traditional high schools are not good places for their children.
http://hometownsource.com/2017/03/08/joe-nathan-column-nick-stangers-success/
There are many examples throughout the country of constructive responses by school districts to the fact that chartering exists. The Boston (district) Pilot Schools program was created, giving educators a chance to create new district options after Mass adopted its charter law. Here in Minnesota districts in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Forest Law and Rochester all have created new options after frustrated parents and educators started, or discussed the possibility of starting, chartered public schools.
Turning public money over to private corporations and entrepreneurs weakens public schools.
I am sorry you can’t see that. Are you aware of the many instances of fraud, theft, nepotism, and multi-million dollar corruption in the charter industry.
You are a good person. It is a shame that you have remained attached to a privatization, union-busting movement that Al Shanker denounced in 1993.
Thanks for the compliment, Diane. But I’ve readily acknowledged there is way too much corruption in public education – in both district & charter sectors. I’ve spent a fair amount of time with state legislators and governors all over the country, trying to help refine legislation to dramatically reduce corruption and malfeasance.
Turning public funds over to private companies happens every day – without much protest on this list serve (except for the standardized tests, a concern I strongly share and have criticized in a number of newspaper columns). For example:
http://hometownsource.com/2015/04/22/joe-nathan-column-pearson-should-pay-for-mca-testing-problems/
Tens of millions go to private companies to help finance bonds for school buildings. Private companies sell books, computers, chalk paper, pencils etc to schools. Some of those products are great, some are awful.
For many of us, the question is not who provides education – it is about the quality of the education provided.
The 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most progressive documents humankind produced. Article 26 reads, in part:
“Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Say NO to DeVos and ALEC and Trump
How about a salary cap?
“No charter leader may earn more than the chancellor of the NYC public schools.”
$250,000.
Watch the exodus.
Would you differentiate at all on the basis of the source of the money? For example, if most or all the salary of the leader of a charter school were derived from private sources, would that in your view appropriately permit a higher salary?
Stephen,
If charter salaries are supplemented by outside sources, they are not public schools.
Diane: “If charter salaries are supplemented by outside sources, they are not public schools.”
That’s interesting. Could you provide a legal citation or any other kind of backing for that notion?
It seems contradicted by material like this that I find on a quick Internet search:
“Neither Illinois law nor [Chicago Public Schools] CPS policy prevents schools from using fundraised money for teachers or other staff. According to a district manual on the subject, schools must not use fundraised money to buy things that only benefit individual employees, should be able to document purchases and must make sure the expenditures benefit students.
“CPS could not provide Catalyst a full accounting of how the money is spent, but officials said that in this school year, 18 full-time and five part-time teachers were hired in schools using money from private fundraising. In addition, 15 teachers’ salaries were partly paid with private fundraising money.”
http://chicagoreporter.com/the-price-of-fundraising/ May, 2015
Stephen,
You asked me for my opinion. I don’t think that private gifts should be used to add to the superintendent’s salary, as was done by Eli Broad for John Covington when he ran the Educational Achievement Authority in Michigan. It stinks.
You conflate that with parents holding a fund-raiser or a bake-sale so they can hire an extra teacher.
You are too smart to think you can fool me with that nonsense.
Do you really think that it would be kosher for a billionaire to pay the school superintendent an extra $200,000? That doesn’t pass the smell test, and no it is not a bake sale.
I very much sympathize with your desire for salary caps for those who lead charter schools, but for me it starts to get complicated if someone with ultimate executive authority for a charter school, like Eva M or, if I understand her correctly, Randi W, has duties that extend well beyond what is expected of a charter school leader and, at the same time, funds supporting their salaries are in large part derived from private sources. I don’t have an at all solid sense of what policy would be optimal for the kids in such circumstances…
In respect to Randi and her $500+K compensation, I’m guessing you’d say it’s a whole different kettle of fish because she doesn’t really run the school, although she claims to? Randi last week: “But Margaret, you’re talking to the head of the AFT. I run a charter school in New York that had a….” (I’ll spare you a repeat of the sentence’s completion.
Stephen,
Randi runs a national union. She has nearly 2 million members. Someone is paid to run the charter school sponsored by the UFT. Not her.
The highest paid superintendent in NY is in Syosset at over 500k.
There are also NY TPS administrators that make more than 300k per year in retirement.
There are union leaders making over 500k off public education as well.
John,
I repeat:
No charter leader should be paid more than the chancellor of the NYC public schools, who is responsible for 1.1 million students and more than 1,000 schools.
Please name a union leader of a local in New York State who is paid more than $500,000.
John, your colors are showing. You can’t say a bad word about Eva, can you? You and Eva are like Trump and Putin.
Are you also speaking out about the Syosset superintendent making twice that?
I won’t second guess Eva’s salary. I think half is paid by the schools and half by a foundation. I have no doubt that she brings in many times her salary in philanthropy. Should her school dismiss her and take the cut in income that I’m sure would result?
John,
If the elected school board of the town of Syosset wants to pay him a big salary, that’s their business and their property taxes.
Why should I as a New York City taxpayer underwrite a sweet salary for Eva, whose board is private, not elected, and whose doors are closed to children with disabilities?
“Why should I as a New York City taxpayer underwrite a sweet salary for Eva?”
The simple answer is that you don’t. Despite her high salary, fewer of your tax dollars are spent for a student in her school than for one in a traditional NYC school.
I would prefer a board pay teachers more and a leader less, but as you point out, that’s a board’s decision.
John, I can always count on you to support Eva no matter what.
Diane: “Instead charter advocates applaud BASIS as the ‘best’ in the nation….”
Well BASIS itself may assert that… Could you cite some charter advocates who have no connection to BASIS who assert that?
Stephen,
The Center for Education Reform–which loves anything that takes money away from public schools–hailed the listing of BASIS as the “best” high school in the nation, despite its exclusionary policies, its very small number of graduates, and the huge profits it generates for its owners. Those are all pluses in charter world.
Stephen, you seem like a kind and smart person. Why are you so hot and heavy for charters? Why don’t you leave the dark side and join those of us who want a better education for all, not selective schools for a small minority?
Long ago, African American friends encouraged me to avoid references to “dark” as bad. Something to consider.
And as a former public school teacher, administrator, PTA president and advocate, married to a recently retired, 33 year urban public school teacher, and father of a 15 year veteran urban public school teacher, I stand with many trying to expand justice and opportunity throughout this land.
Just returned from standing in solidarity with Muslim friends whose community center in Bloomington, Mn was bombed early this am.
Expand justice by closing down charters and vouchers.
“The Center for Education Reform,… hailed the listing of BASIS as the ‘best’ high school in the nation, despite its exclusionary policies”
“Hailed the listing”… Nicely done! Incontrovertible!
But I don’t find anywhere that it has itself designated it as the best. Or that any other independent charter advocate has.
By contrast, Whitmire alluded to the Brooke Charter schools here in Boston as best of breed,
https://www.the74million.org/article/whitmire-americas-best-charter-school-doesnt-look-anything-like-top-charters-is-that-bad
perhaps at least in part because CREDO identified it as the school system demonstrating the greatest postive impacts on math and reading capacities when comparing all charter CMOs throughout the country. (See pp 84-85 in CREDO’s 2017 report).
Click to access CMO%20FINAL.pdf
According to CREDO’s measures, limited as they may be, Brooke significantly outperformed BASIS.
And dismissive arguments about potential effects of attrition tend to disintegrate when one takes a close look at Brooke schools.
Remarkably low attrition there and little, if any, perceptible difference in the capacities of those few who leave and the many who stay.
“Stephen, you seem like a kind and smart person. Why are you so hot and heavy for charters?”
Thanks. This sound hot and heavy to you?
“I tend not to be impressed by the wisdom of anyone making blanket statements about charter schools. And try to assiduously avoid doing so myself. They are enormously diverse; in various aspects some are superb, others dismal, most in between, and they commonly have a mix of more and less laudable aspects. Kinda like district schools.”
“Why don’t you leave the dark side and join those of us who want a better education for all, not selective schools for a small minority?”
I think we’re already joined in wanting better education for all.
But in respect to strategy, I continue to encourage you to pursue the more scholarly approach of which you are supremely capable rather than…. mmm, Joseph, how can I work “pallid” or “pale” in here?
I have previously offered to help screen your postings so that you would be able to better point out their defects when they are distributed to your eager audience… That offer still stands… we could presumably assemble a capable team of folks with diverse viewpoints but uniform commitment to accuracy…
Stephen,
I can only deal with one charter troll at a time.
Please don’t quote Richard Whitmire or The 74 to me. I reviewed Whitmire’s sycophantic bio of Michelle Rhee for the Washington Post. Whatever happened to her?
And then there was his book praising the Rocketship Charters as the wave of the future. Where are they now?
Chill. I actually have some important work to do.
Ok, you have my unsubscribe. This blog has gone from being hostile to contrary opinions to being a total waste of time. Failure to cut off personal attacks from people shows you prefer drama to substance. I think what you want is a mutual admiration society, not a discussion about better education for all as you proclaim. This hubris about traditional public schools is one of the reasons charter school enrollment continues to grow each year.
John, it’s certainly true that some people here find it useful to use “name calling” as part of their response. Everyone has to decide what level of cionversation you’ll accept.
Having said that, I’ve appreciated your insights. I’ve learned from you, as well as others including those who disagree with me.
So I hope you’ll continue reading and continue, as you find appropriate to post. But of course you have to decide what’s right for you.
You and others can learn more about the work our center is doing at http://www.centerforschoolchange.org
Thanks and have a good Sunday.
Joe Nathan,
Thank you for noting what you consider a great success after all your hard work. You fought the NCAA which only wanted to recognize some courses as valid so now they accept that other courses that charters offer are fine substitutions.
Thank for your willingness to take on such a controversial subject! I’m sure the powers at the NCAA had a really hard time accepting that some courses they didn’t think were valid actually are. Since their purpose is to keep big time college sports humming along and making lots of money and let colleges get the college athletes they want without another college being able to recruit an athlete they can’t.
Honestly, your example just showed why the NAACP is right to demand accountability and transparency. States like Ohio have had charter scandals for years and years with no accountability. But we can all rest easy knowing that the NCAA will recognize more high school classes so colleges can have them on their teams. I am just speechless.
Actually, district and charter public schools all over the United States worked together to successfully challenge the NCAA.
Here is a link to a NY Times story that appeared at the beginning of this battle.
The vast majority of educators and students who were frustrated – even dismayed – by the NCAA’s actions came from district public schools (including those mentioned in this NY Times article). FairTest was another great ally, challenging the NCAA.
FLERP! says “NYCPP is an attack dog nonpareil on this blog, as perhaps dozens of regular commenters here could testify. She can handle herself.”
Odd that you identify me as a woman. And revealing.
I care about this issue because my kid is in a NYC public school and I have seen for myself the lies that come out of some charter operators’ mouths. The same charters that are getting disproportionately high funding (but public and private) to teach disproportionately inexpensive students and using the excessive profits to fund a PR campaign that uses those results to attack public schools.
Calling me an attack dog is a nasty way of changing the subject regarding my criticism. I go to great lengths not be a liar or intentionally mislead readers like some of the charter leaders and you John are unwilling to criticize. Like John, FLERP! takes far more offense at a public school parent who offers facts and tells the truth than he does a charter school CEO who claims that so many African-American children commit violent actions that demand their suspension from Kindergarten. FLERP! is always so concerned with my tone which bothers FLERP! far more than the tone that any charter CEO takes. Which also reveals a lot about FLERP!
Somehow my calling out the racist innuendoes that are part and parcel of “high performing” charter chains to excuse the high numbers of non-white non-affluent children who disappear offends FLERP! far more than the charter CEOs who tell the world how violent so many 5 year olds are when they get to their charter school.
I can take care of myself. And I will continue to call out the racist innuendo of people spouting pro-charter propaganda. What is astonishing is that you aren’t cheering me on, FLERP! But your agenda is obviously very different than mine.
Mine is to have an honest debate. Yours is to undermine me. I can’t help wondering why.
NYC parent,
“far more offense at a public school parent who offers facts and tells the truth”
If you stuck to that, it would be fine. But pretty much every post of yours is a personal attack against someone else on this blog. When you say things like “John thinks it’s OK to hit babies” or “FLERP thinks it’s OK to kick kids out of schools” you are not offering facts or truth; you are simply lying, insulting, and not adding an iota to the discussion.
For example, you must have posted 10 times that I am against transparency and accountability, which is a lie. You either ignored my posts saying I support those aspects of the NAACP report or just lied. Same for my pointing out once (you called it “incessant”) that the AFT and NEA provide financial support to the NAACP. I don’t know if you are looking for pats on the back from other readers or what, but you are the single most user of ad hominem attacks on this blog by far.
Here’s a list of techniques of internet trolls. See how many apply to just about every one of your posts.
-Name-calling and insults
-Ad hominem attacks that try to negate an opinion by alleging negatives about the person supporting it
-Impugning other’s motives
-Emotional rants
-Bullying and harassment
You also seem to see every issue through the lens of one charter network. It’s fine that you talk about them a lot, but they are more the exception than the rule in a lot of ways.
John, I barely know where to start with you. You throw nasty remarks my way and toward Diane Ravitch and toward the NAACP — without one bit of evidence accusing us of either being trolls or being motivated by some financial gain or some other innuendoes to impugn our motives. The ONLY thing that you absolutely refuse to accept is that I, Diane Ravitch, or the NAACP could possibly say what we say because it is the right thing to do – you refuse to acknowledge any reason whatsoever for our concerns. So you attack and attack. And when someone — me — calls you out on how nasty your innuendoes are, you have the chutzpah to accuse them of being mean to you. Right out of the Trump playbook. Sorry, you are way too obvious.
And the reason I bring up Eva Moskowitz with you is because your unwillingness to criticize her proves how dishonest your attacks on the NAACP are. I got a big laugh out of you saying “I just don’t know enough” to judge Eva Moskowitz. But “not knowing enough” sure didn’t stop you from going on the attack when it comes to the NAACP! And as you well know the data is not in dispute – even Eva Moskowitz herself isn’t denying the high suspension rates. She is just claiming it is justified! So it isn’t that you don’t know if kids are being suspended — you just aren’t sure that they all didn’t deserve it. But you ARE sure that the NAACP is calling for accountability and transparency for financial gain or some other unethical reason. Yet there is even less data to support that but you attack the NAACP anyway.
John, you care about accountability and transparency about as much as Ivanka Trump cares about the environment. It’s a nice talking point to make you sound like a less profit-motivated person but when it comes to taking any action to achieve it, you refuse to do so. For years the NAACP has heard charter cheerleaders like you telling them they support those things while you keep enabling the people who make sure it will never happen. And like Ivanka Trump, people finally realized you are all talk. You are complicit. And nothing revealed it more than your insanely over the top attacks on the NAACP because they realized your “concern” for accountability means nothing. And when they called you out on it by actually saying “we shouldn’t expand charters until accountability and transparency actually happens” you went absolutely nuts attacking their motives. You don’t really want to do what is necessary to achieve accountability and transparency – you just want to say you support it. And then go on the attack against people who would actually take action to make it happen.
I know your nastiness works with less educated people who voted for Trump. It’s not working here, John. And you can insult me and call me a troll as long as you want. You wrote a list that describes YOUR actions more than mine.
Here is the difference between a troll (you) and me.
I “bully” you into having to answer for your nasty attacks on the NAACP and your blatant unwillingness to give even a fraction of that criticism to dishonest charter CEOs like Eva Moskowitz. I don’t let you get away with a double standard that so obviously reveals your true agenda, so you feel “bullied”.
And you bully me to try to stop me from calling out your bullying tactics.
Although Trump and the Republican would agree with you, calling out bullies is not bullying. It’s a way to scare critics so that the bullies can continue to lie and mislead.
John, you are the true representative of the entire charter industry. You are the “best” of them the way Ivanka is the “best” of the Trump administration. And that is the problem.
NYC parent,
Hint, when your posts are filled with the word “you”, you are the problem.
No facts, no links, no data. Just insults and innuendos.
If you can find one place where I said anything about you except that you use these ad hominem attacks, please post it.
I don’t know you enough to say anything about your motives or who you are as a person. Likewise, you don’t know me, yet half your posts are about me.
I stand by what I said. You make up stuff about people and then attack them for it. That doesn’t belong in civil conversation.
John,
Once again, you failed to address a single one of my points. You smeared the NAACP because the organization voted to approve actions that would do more than give lip service to the notion that charters should be transparent and accountable. You used the same innuendo to criticize Diane Ravitch. And when called out on it, you claimed the people calling you out were bullies.
I pointed out your hypocrisy – something that has been evident for quite a while – and instead of offering any explanation, you offered platitudes and when I called that out you repeated that I kept bulling you. Because I didn’t let you get away with saying “I support accountability and transparency”. You are very upset because I pointed out that saying you support accountability and transparency is belied by your attacks on people and organizations trying to bring that about.
Saying you support accountability and transparency is also belied by your unwillingness to do the same when it comes to a powerful charter operator who endorsed Betsy DeVos and receive millions from right wing Trump supporters. When I point out that there are documented high suspension rates in the youngest grades, public smearing of students and claims that only the children violently acting out are suspended, you have no desire for accountability and transparency.
You don’t impugn Moskowitz’ motives the way you jumped to impugn the motives the NAACP or Diane Ravitch.
And you still refuse to criticize Eva Moskowitz — it’s almost like you aren’t allowed to do so. So instead you make claims that you have no idea what her motives are for her actions like endorsing DeVos and insisting high suspension rates for 5 year olds are necessary. But you also “have no idea” what the NAACP’s motives are or Diane Ravitch’s motives are. That didn’t stop you from criticizing them.
Your hypocrisy is showing. And you despise me for pointing it out. So you claim to be a bullying victim because that is easier than actually defending your hypocrisy. I suspect you have no defense.
NYCPSP -> John: “Once again, you failed to address a single one of my points.”
John invited you to make a presentation about Success Academies and its suspension policies and practices, so that he could evaluate the information you provide and offer you an opinion. You haven’t yet done so. But, as is I think clear to everyone here, you prefer to invent opinions on his behalf, frequently not only unsubstantiated, but directly contrary to his stated views.
If you were to accept his invitation (and I sincerely hope he can be persuaded to remain active here), some data you might helpfully provide might include:
What are the current suspension rates at Success Academies for all grades? How many days of schooling lost?
What are the attrition rates?
What, if any, correlation is there between students being suspended and leaving the schools?
What are the attendance rates/chronically absent rates/unexcused absence rates?
What, roughly speaking, is the amount of time that students are actually in school during the course of a school year?
And how do these compare to other charter schools and to local district schools?
What are the behaviors that result in suspensions? What are alternative responses to such behavior that may be better for the students and school community?
What success do Success Academies have in facilitating student growth in academics and socially?
What are other questions we should ask in order to understand the impact of Success Academies’ suspension policies? To the extent we consider them to be suboptimal, how could we most effectively improve those policies?
I suspect that you could make a compelling case that might persuade John that those policies could be improved. That would seem like a useful effort. I’m curious why you haven’t bothered.
Joseph Nathan,
You never give a good reason why charters can’t be authorized by the school board so that they are PART of the system — to serve the students who want a different type of education — instead of “competing” with them.
If your only argument is that “competition” makes for better schools, then you have just made the for-profit charter’s argument. If you believe that, you can’t really give a reason not to have for-profit charters. Competition uber alles.
The rest of us understand that competition provides motivation to get rid of children who don’t make your school “better”.
That’s why charter advocates like you should be embracing what the NAACP just did. I don’t understand why you did not.
Stephen B Ronan says:
“John invited you to make a presentation about Success Academies and its suspension policies and practices, so that he could evaluate the information you provide and offer you an opinion. You haven’t yet done so.”
LOL! I think most posters here could tell you how bored they are with my citing the outrageously high suspension rates at data.nysed.gov at some Success Academy charters when the oldest students they were serving were in 2nd grade — and sometimes the oldest were in first grade! John Merrow did a very well-known PBS report about it which remarkably escaped both yours and John’s notice. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence even though I am quite sure John commented at the time. It is impossible — as you probably are well aware — to evaluate attrition rates as charters keep that quite hidden. Instead of tracking longitudinal attrition which would tell you how many of the entering at-risk Kindergarten children leave, charters prefer to compare a limited one-year attrition. So I cite the fact that the number of at-risk children in a Success Academy declined by 40% between 2nd and 3rd grade. And I cite other inexplicable data that is publicly available at data.nysed.gov
And I also cite the one longitudinal study done by the NYC Independent Budget Office that included 4 Success Academy charter schools among 53 in which those charters had lost 49.5% of the entering Kindergarten class by 5th grade. That is a lot of lottery winners to lose. Do you really need me to link to it again here? Because I will, just as I have many times.
I cite data all the time. But here what I missed in your many postings:
I missed where you demanded that John make a data presentation about the NAACP’s policies and practices so we could all properly evaluate whether his innuendoes that the NAACP sold out their children in exchange for a donation and his criticisms of Diane Ravitch were valid.
I guess when it comes to believing the worst of motives, you, like John, want a “presentation of data” when anyone questions a charter’s abhorrent actions while you require no such thing from John when he questions the NAACP’s. John should be free from accusations of hypocrisy because he said he supports accountability and transparency. Just as much as Ivanka Trump supports the environment or reasonable immigration policies or gay rights. It’s just that she isn’t going to one thing about it nor criticize anyone who fights against it. Just like John only finds time to criticize the NAACP and not all the charter organizations fighting AGAINST accountability and transparency! And it so happens that one of them is Eva Moskowitz herself — suing in court to prevent accountability and transparency. I’m sure that’s also just a coincidence. Just like the coincidence where you and John missed Merrow’s report, the video of the teacher, and got to go lists and principals who refuse to send renewal forms home with certain unwanted students. And all my posts citing the data.
I bet you and John even missed this NY Times article that I have often posted when you and John claim you lack “data” to judge Eva Moskowitz:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/11/03/nyregion/03eva2.slide-11.html
“Greeting parents coming to pick up their children. Ms. Moskowitz asks a lot of participation from parents, as a condition of admitting their children. She told one group, “If you know you cannot commit to all that we ask of you this year, this is not the place for you.”
“This is not the place for you.”
There will never be “data” enough to satisfy you that Success Academy refuses to educate many at-risk children who interfere with their “mission” of having 100% passing rates so they can make claims about their miraculous program that are not true.
But when it comes to John’s criticism that the NAACP’s motives are corrupt, apparently neither of you need any “data” beyond your own certainty that the NAACP can be bought cheaply. And that’s pretty shameful.
Am I a “bully” because I call you out on your hypocrisy, Stephen B Ronan? I find it incredibly odd that you and John are both so incredibly loathe to call out any corruption at Success Academy. It is will known that Moskowitz has her own lobbying organization and that the billionaires who support her fund the other charter lobbies. So it certainly doesn’t surprise me that you and John go to great lengths to claim you just don’t have enough evidence yet to criticize her because she could be exactly the fabulous Betsy DeVos-endorsing savior of poor children the charter movement has presented her as. Just like you don’t have enough evidence with regards to the NAACP. Oops! I forgot — you believe you have plenty of evidence to criticize the NAACP! You are awash in evidence that leads you to criticize the NAACP! No need for any “data presentation” because you just know.
You are a hypocrite. Although perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you are just a paid shill of the charter movement.
I don’t know what motivates you and John’s hypocrisy just like I don’t know what motivates Trump’s. I don’t know how Trump can claim for years that he has proof that Obama was born in Kenya, and then whine that people are being mean to him when he is called out on his lies. And I don’t know how Eva Moskowitz can make claims about her schools teaching the same students as failing public schools (with less money!) or claims that she only suspends violent kindergarten students and every got to go list, model teacher punishing a struggling student, e-mails saying “don’t put it in writing” is an anamoly.
But I do know that the charter movement has lost its way and the proof positive is the way that you and John — supposedly the most reasonable and ethical of the bunch — post here. And if you had an ounce of integrity, you would recognize that the fact that charters have given lip service to wanting accountability while promoting the people with the least integrity as the saviors of children is exactly why the NAACP issued its findings. But I have been waiting for a sign that you and John have integrity for a long time and I just don’t see it. And the attacks John made on the NAACP and your jumping to his defense does not surprise me one bit. Not one bit.
In respect to the NAACP, I am still wondering whether anyone may try to respond to the question I posed here:
https://dianeravitch.net/2017/07/26/naacp-demands-reform-of-charters/#comment-2709964
In respect to S.A., gosh, NYCPSP, I truly believe in your capacity to assemble a far more persuasive argument than what you’ve done here. I would encourage you to keep trying.
NYCPSP: “John Merrow did a very well-known PBS report about it which remarkably escaped both yours and John’s notice. ”
Don’t know about John, but it hadn’t escaped mine. I would anticipate that John might find Merrow’s anecdotes coupled with dubious data suggestive, but not entirely persuasive, if he also reviewed Eva Moskowitz’ rejoinders, which included the material below:
Start extracts
Second, I noted in my first letter to you that the data show that Success Academy’s rates of attrition are lower than averages for both district and charter schools in New York City. You do not contest this fact in your letter. Instead, you provide this convoluted explanation of how Mr. Merrow made his own calculations to compare us to one single charter network:
“This is a complicated area because charter schools, including Success Academy Charter Schools, calculate attrition differently. Mr. Merrow addressed these disparities by comparing similar time frames and methods for calculating attrition. He used both public numbers and internal documents to calculate a comparison of attrition rates. One of the charter schools in the report calculates attrition by the names of individual children over a 365-day calendar year, from the beginning of one school year to the beginning of the next school year. Success Academy’s data is based on the number of children over the school year, not the calendar year. Mr. Merrow reconciled those numbers fairly and thoroughly.”
This response is nonsense. It is not complicated. In fact, there is publicly available data that respected journalist Beth Fertig of WNYC radio received from the New York City Department of education that makes apples to apples comparisons of Success’ attrition rate with that of district schools and other charters.
Second, your claim that “Success Academy data is based on the number of children over the school year, not the calendar year” is just false. Ms. Fertig noted that her data “used enrollment records from October 31, 2010 to October 31 of 2011” and she found that our attrition was 10%, the same number we quoted to you in our letter and that is less than the average for other district and charter schools in New York City. So your “clarification” contains yet another misstatement which we demand that you correct.
Third, you fail to explain why Mr. Merrow would concoct his own home brew statistical manipulations when there is publicly available data making apples to apples comparisons that has already been cited by another journalist. Moreover, why keep Mr. Merrow’s home brew analysis secret? If it is correct, why not share it with the world?
Finally, you do not explain why Mr. Merrow cherry picked a comparison to one single charter network when there is data available to compare us to the averages for all district and charter schools in New York City.
[…]
You note that we were given an opportunity to respond to Mr. Merrow’s other allegations. Yes, we were and we did — but Mr. Merrow and his colleagues simply ignored the evidence we provided that contradicted the story he wanted to tell. For example, one of the schools mentioned in Mr. Merrow’s report as 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. So this supposed link between suspensions and attrition is demonstrably untrue. But Mr. Merrow simply ignored this data.
Extracts ended. Full letter here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/23/an-unusual-public-fight-between-a-new-york-charter-school-network-and-pbs/?utm_term=.2f1ccda5edf3
Stephen B Ronan,
Interesting that you leapt to Eva Moskowitz defense! By quoting her own letter! You are like the SUNY Charter Institute who says “Eva explains in this letter so we are satisfied – oversight done!”
With “oversight” like that, you just gave the best argument as to why the NAACP was correct in calling for a moratorium until REAL oversight is done. Oversight doesn’t mean accepting a charter CEO’s letter as a fact.
Beth Fertig’s “study” is typical of “oversight” as defined by the NAACP haters. She is a journalist who had written previous flattering stories about Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy’s “miracles” without any inconvenient follow-up questions any curious reporter should have had.
If a science reporter wrote about a new miracle drug with the kind of unquestioning love that Fertig does when it comes to Success Academy, he or she would be laughed out of the business (hopefully).
John Merrow pointed out many flaws with Fertig’s “study”. Merrow had a long history of writing positive stories about the charter movement. But unlike Fertig, he is a journalist willing to question and when he finally did, the pro-charter forces that you are part of did their best to destroy him.
If there is any better argument for why the NAACP is correct, it is the reaction the entire pro-charter industry — including you — had to John Merrow’s piece. “Eva Moskowitz wrote a letter which we accept without question as putting the issue to rest, so our oversight is done”. You could not have made a better argument FOR the NAACP’s actions being necessary, Stephen Ronan. That isn’t oversight. That’s grasping anything to be able to excuse actions of a politically connected CEO whose results justify more charters so they can’t be questioned. If you are twisting yourself in knots to PROVE that a woman who claims she only suspends the most violent children and the fact that so many 5 and 6 year olds get suspended is to protect other children from their violence, then you have really stooped about as low as you can go. Given that Success Academy was claiming lots of violent Kindergarten children in their schools serving almost no white students, and NOT in their schools that have mostly middle class and affluent students — including large numbers of white students — the fact that your first reaction was to attack John Merrow and grasp onto anything to “clear” Moskowitz is very revealing.
You just explained why the NAACP has given up on your promises that you really do want accountability and transparency. Sure you do. You just define “accountability” as “Eva Moskowitz wrote a letter so of course that’s the end of that! She gets good results!”
By the way, Eva Moskowitz’ letter conveniently left out the most incriminating result in Fertig’s very limited study – one that Fertig’s report ignored.
Even limiting the study to the timeframe that puts Success Academy in the best light, Success Academy has one of the highest attrition rate of any charter network in NYC.
That’s right – when you compare apples to apples, parents pull their children from Success Academy far more frequently than charter chains with less money, much worse results, and wait lists that are not nearly as long. Why? This has been going on a long time and the oversight agency should have looked more closely at a glaring fact that tells them something is off. Top charter schools with long waiting lists should have lower attrition than mediocre charters. When they don’t, and they coincidentally have extraordinarily high suspension rates, having people like Stephen Ronan saying “but the huge number of children who left that one year didn’t include very many of the huge number of very violent students suspended that year”, it’s no wonder the NAACP doesn’t trust your promises that real oversight is coming just around the bend.
Longitudinal attrition rates of 53 charters — including 4 Success Academy charters — examined by the NYC Independent Budget Office showed that 49.5% of the entering Kindergarten students were gone by 5th grade. Half. And no oversight agency had the curiosity to say “I wonder if the top performing charter’s attrition rates in that IBO study were among the lowest or the highest and I wonder if the charters with high suspension rates also have the highest attrition rates.”
Beth Fertig’s study indicated that Success Academy’s attrition rate is higher than most other charters – despite having longer wait lists, more lavish funding, and the best education in the state! Parents are leaving. Why?
And why would you and John use nasty innuendoes to imply the NAACP would sell out their own children because Eva Moskowitz wrote a letter so if the NAACP doesn’t understand that is all the oversight that is necessary, it’s because the NAACP was bought by the teacher’s union.
I’m waiting for all the “data” from you and John that justifies such a nasty racist thing for you to say about the NAACP. You just proved how right they are not to trust people like you who will defend any practice that a white charter CEO with support of billionaires who underwrite your industry does. And claim the oversight done so far is exactly perfect! No changes should be made!
When it comes to looking out for the needs of African-American children, how DARE the NAACP not trust the charter CEOs who suspend lots of their 5 year olds and endorse Betsy DeVos, say John and Stephen Ronan. Ronan DEMANDS we all agree that the oversight and accountability has been terrific so far. You are spending so much time telling me that Eva Moskowitz’ practices have been overseen and certified wonderful and how dare the NAACP ask for more.
No wonder the NAACP wants a moratorium with people like Stephen B Ronan describing what he believes is a charter chain whose accountability and oversight has been stellar!!
You really made the NAACP’s point more than I ever could.
“Leapt to Eva Moskowitz defense”?
Is that analogous to accusing me of leaping to the defense of a park bench in Brooklyn against the yapping of a chihuahua in the Bronx?
If you review what I wrote, I encouraged you to strive to develop effective arguments supported by legitimate data from reputable sources. Develop the well-modulated capacity to bully with attack dog ferocity on any occasion where it may be warranted. And some may arise. Meet the elevated standards that FLERP! has assumed to be within your reach.
In this instance, here, using Merrow’s report as your principal weapon doesn’t do the trick, particularly since he abandoned his attempt to argue with Fertig’s/WNYC’s data, withdrawing some of his earlier contentions and deciding, instead, that drawing conclusions from official attrition data is misleading and meaningless.
Don’t underestimate your abilities. Start fresh, take your time, and see what you can come up with.
^^And Stephen B Ronan also ignored every bit of data I provided to focus on the fact that the journalist who wrote lots of glowing pieces about Success Academy over the years has personally “cleared” Eva Moskowitz of all wrong-doing so how dare the NAACP not understand that is all the oversight needed.
Ronan did not even address the NY Times article quoting Moskowitz nor any of the data from the NY State data website. As usual.
Stephen B. Ronan – where is YOUR “presentation” to justify the racist comments you made slurring the NAACP as money-hungry people willing to sell out their own kids’ education for a union donation?
I’m sure I’ll wait forever until you and John provide the “data” for the slimy attacks you make against the NAACP.
Stephen B Ronan, I noticed you had no answer to any of the data I provided and instead changed the subject to critique my writing and debate techniques, which you find lacking compared to John, who you seem to embrace due to the “voluminous data” he uses to critique the NAACP.
I’ll let your obvious double standard and hypocrisy speak for itself – I doubt you are fooling anyone here.
So I leave you with the one question that I suspect you will refuse to answer:
Is the SUNY Charter Institute’s oversight of Success Academy your vision of the type of “accountability and transparency” you believe the NAACP should be satisfied with? LOL!
You just made the case for a moratorium far better than I ever could.
If I recall correctly, John has supported his concerns re: the NAACP being somewhat excessively influenced by the teachers’ unions with a variety of materials, including, but by no means limited to, reference to this Rishawn Biddle piece:
http://dropoutnation.net/2016/08/05/when-black-kids-dont-matter/
and apparent allusions to a portion of the material tweeted by NAACP member Chris (Citizen) Stewart while attending one of the the 2:30 – 4:00 pm concurrent workshops on July 25 at the NAACP National Convention. To quote some tweets directly:
“Wait. What? AFT members and the @naacp share a dues collection system? That raises a lot of questions about control of the ed agenda. #NAACP”
“Now y’all know why we must #FreeTheNAACP. They no longer belong to parents and young people. They are a subsidiary of the teachers’ union.”
“AFT speaker just said they encourage their members to infiltrate the local @NAACP and to advocate at the state level.”
Now, none of that stuff is necessarily a whole lot more convincing that Merrow’s piece might have been to each of us before it was to a partial, but significant, degree debunked and withdrawn. But I haven’t yet seen even one of Biddle’s or Stewart’s assertions of fact debunked or withdrawn. I’d welcome your attempt to accomplish the former, presuming you can keep it reasonably civil.
I’m still maintaining an, if not-entirely-open, at least slightly cracked and leaky, mind, and am curious as to whether the workshop that Chris Stewart attended was videotaped and available for purchase. Anyone know?
I certainly have some understanding of the NEA’s impressive organizing ability here, locally, in respect to the NAACP, and the Democratic Ward Committee on which I serve… Rather than designating it as infiltration, I prefer to think of it as impressively effective participation in democratic processes.
As for SUNY, naturally I’m tempted to suggest the possible analogy:
SUNY is to the Massachusetts charter school authorizer, as the New York Mets are to the New England Patriots…
But am trying to cultivate disdain for football, due to the CTE problems…
And I can claim little knowledge about either SUNY or the Mets.
Stephen,
Attacking the NAACP makes you look petty.
Of course it supports public education. Why would it support privatization of a basic public good?
It’s almost funny to hear Stephen B Ronan justify a TWEET as all the data he and John need to attack the NAACP while he finds all my citations of documented high suspension rates in charters where the oldest children are in 2nd grade to be absolutely something he will ignore forever.
Maybe Ronan will believe the same person whose tweet he used as all the evidence he needs to justify his attacks on the NAACP:
http://dropoutnation.net/2016/02/16/success-academy-merits-no-defense/
“Success Academy no longer merits a defense, especially from school reformers who, like Born-Again Christians, know better and should no longer tolerate its malpractice.”
Stephen B Ronan, you are exactly the kind of school reformers tolerating malpractice that Biddle is talking about. I’m sure your strong defense of Eva Moskowitz will hold you in good stead.
And it’s interesting the in the 18 months after this, the only response by the SUNY Charter Institute was to reward her for a job well done by giving her more charters.
Stephen B Ronan, I am so amused that you didn’t answer my question about whether the NAACP should be satisfied with the SUNY Charter Institute because neither you nor John find anything wrong with their actions, and the entire reform movement holds them up as the model that the NAACP should be satisfied with.
Your answer in all its glory:
“… I can claim little knowledge about either SUNY or the Mets.”
But the NAACP does have the knowledge that you admit you don’t have. So it’s quite shocking that you’d accuse the NAACP of selling out their own children for a donation and sliming them in other ways when you admit that for all you know the NAACP is absolutely correct that state authorizers have been failures. You truly have some chutzpah.
You admit to having no knowledge as to whether the NAACP is correct in their belief that even state authorizers like SUNY are rewarding bad charter behavior. But you’ll smear and attack them anyway. Because you represent the reform movement in all its’ glory!
You could not have provided a better example of how morality and ethics have long been missing from the reform movement.
And for that, thank you Stephen Ronan.
If the outcome is the same, why does the motivation matter? If you and Bubba both want to punch me in the face, frankly it doesn’t matter to me that you’re doing it for my own good because you care so much, while Bubba is doing it just because he’s a big, mean bully. I’ll thank both of you to lay off, please.
This is a pretty brilliant statement.
(I know you probably prefer I don’t comment, but what you wrote was excellent and since no one else said so, I couldn’t help but reply.)
Appreciated, NYCPSP.
John,
Who says most of them are not celebrating? They are crying crocodile tears. You – and all the reformers benefitting greatly from right wing pro-Trump billionaires’ support — sound like Sen. Lindsey Graham saying that the Republicans are wrong to repeal Obamacare without a better replacement right before he votes with the Republicans to repeal Obamacare.
Eva Moskowitz fought very hard for Betsy DeVos to be approved. She gave her word publicly that she was fighting so hard because DeVos was so good for children. Was she criticized? LOL! Yes, the way Paul Ryan criticizes Trump as he fights for his agenda.
Soon after Eva Moskowitz fought so hard for DeVos to enact her “vision”, the Eli Broad Foundation awarded Moskowitz with their $500,000 “prize” — money that means very little to her with the millions she gets — to signal that they had absolutely no hard feelings about her hard work making sure DeVos was our next Sec. of Education. In fact, they wanted to REWARD her for it! Not reward one of those “quiet” Lindsey Graham type of charter operators who mildly criticized Moskowitz while defending every action. Nope, Broad wanted to make sure powerful Eva knew they had her back and (wink wink) and thank her for such good work.
And none of you reformers said a word, or like Lindsey Graham you fake concern as you enable them all the way to the bank.
You are complicit and you have completely abandoned any ethical core because you care only about money. Why else would you fight for the right to claim that lots of non-white children are violent and insist that anyone who questions that is doing it for the teachers’ union? The fact that you cannot even imagine why the NAACP would question when the most celebrated charter operator claims that sometimes 25% of the African-American kindergarten and first graders keep doing such violent things she has to suspend them? The fact that you keep claiming that the ONLY reason a charter operator would say that is because it is true and how DARE the NAACP question it? The fact that you are such a racist you accused the NAACP of only questioning this because they got a union donation?
Even DeVos herself has never said the nasty racist things that you keep implying in your anti-NAACP posts, John. You often sound like Eva Moskowitz herself and I sometimes wonder if you are.
You are certainly complicit. And sometimes I wonder how much more you are. Your racist innuendoes are truly abhorrent.
^^In other words, John is wrong about there being a “split”.
The charter folks who claim to be for non-profit charters are VERY happy with Betsy DeVos and their billionaires are rewarding the non-profit leaders who fought so hard to see DeVos take over.
What split is there in which one “side” gives a huge amount of money to the other as a reward for such good work?
Yes, the entire charter industry will benefit from the hundreds of millions or billions that DeVos wants to give them. For-profit, nonprofit, cybercharters: its a Betsy bonanza!
Don’t listen to their half-hearted efforts to distance themselves from DeVos. She is their benefactor.
Of course. That’s why Eli Broad’s foundation rewarded Eva Moskowitz for her good work endorsing Betsy DeVos. The billionaires like Broad LOVE when Moskowitz does their dirty work for them so they can keep up the pretense that the only reason they reward her is for her talent in identifying the many violent African-American Kindergartens in her charters. What they are really rewarding is her willingness to lie down with the dogs. Broad and company will make sure she has plenty of money so that the fleas she gets from it disappear.
“We won’t just reward you financially, we’ll give you a PRIZE to honor you for caring so much so the taint of your racist comments and adoration of DeVos can be erased” says Broad.
There is no split as John well knows. There is simply the not for profit operators like Moskowitz who are willing to do the dirty work to embrace DeVos that is so financially rewarding and those like John willing to be complicit for the remaining scraps thrown his way.
They work together seamlessly. Although John claims that if the billionaires get embarrassed enough at the public outcry against for-profit charters and tell him he should speak out he will be willing to do so. But not until he gets his marching orders from his bosses.
NYC parent,
“nasty racist things that you keep implying in your anti-NAACP posts”
“Your racist innuendoes are truly abhorrent.”
Give it a break. All I said is that one has to question whether AFT/NEA support for the NAACP influenced their decision. Do you think that’s racist? Nonsense. Plenty of black voices are asking the same question.
It’s so tiring reading you putting words in my mouth and then disagreeing with them. Don’t you have anything better to do? You tie every conversation back to SA and Eva and claim I’m responsible for them in some manner. You live in NYC; I would say you are more responsible for them than I.
John,
I will say it one more time, as clearly as possible. The NAACP had much more money to gain by kowtowing to the Walton, the Gates, the Broads, and the other billionaires who support privatization and charters. The unions have never been able to match the $200 million that Walton alone gives out every year to charters, vouchers, and TFA.
Do you understand? Anyone who wants to sell out goes to the high bidder, not the low bidder. Like Eva, KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Achievement First, and the other corporate chains.
One more insult and you will be permanently banned from this site.
Diane,
There are many types of influence besides financial. There is a lot of overlap between union leadership and NAACP leadership. Many black parents are angry at the NAACP for their stance on charters.
I am not insulting the NAACP. I think their leadership is out of touch with their members, as do many members. I think they’re too cozy with NEA/AFT, as do many of their members. I think they made a mistake in calling for a moratorium, as do many of their members, and even some chapters. I don’t think their “listening tour” was objective.
I think the NAACP has been and is the greatest civil rights organization we have. I just disagree with them on a position. I don’t think the leadership acted against what they believe because of money. I just think what they believe is being influenced by their interactions with union leadership more than appropriate, and not enough influenced by their many members whose families who have chosen charters.
If the NAACP is confident about their position, any of us questioning it won’t threaten them at all.
John,
I don’t know how the NAACP reacts to criticism that they sold out to the unions, but I know how I react. Such claims are despicable.
Those who want to sell out go to Gates and Walton and Broad and the Koch brothers, not to the unions.
I guess I find a big difference between “sold out” and “was influenced by”.
John,
When you say that union gold “influenced” the NAACP, that is a distinction without a difference.
Anyone looking for a cash infusion looks to the players with the most cash.
That’s Walton, Gates, Broad, the Koch brothers, the corporations that support ALEC, the DeVos Family. Those are the big backers of charters.
Like it or not (and charters must pretend that they don’t like it), the charter movement belongs to the Waltons (who put up $200 million a year for charter proliferation) and DeVos, who is fighting for more funding for charters.
Charters must pretend not to like their benefactors, because the Waltons are notoriously anti-union and anti-worker. DeVos is anti-equity, anti-civil rights, anti-science, anti-gay. In short, the children who enroll in charter schools are directly harmed by the money that supports charters, coming from Wall Street and rightwing fundamentalists.
Yes, Trump and DeVos are your allies whether you like it or not.
Yes, Trump and DeVos support charters, but believe me, there is a lot about what we do that they would not support, and their support of us does not (no matter what you say) imply our support of them.
Please explain this to me:
“the children who enroll in charter schools are directly harmed by the money that supports charters, coming from Wall Street and rightwing fundamentalists.”
IMO, their money that goes to some charter schools benefits the kids in those schools.
John,
You have in the past insisted that you did not work for a charter, yet now you speak of “we,” meaning we in the charter sector.
Thanks for truth.
I don’t work for a charter, I volunteer. I consider myself part of the charter movement.
That’s obvious.
John,
The NAACP asked for accountability and transparency before charters be allowed to continue to proliferate. For years you and your charter pals have defended pro-Betsy DeVos charter CEOs like Eva Moskowitz. Now you pretend to take offense if anyone accuses you of taking racist actions. What do YOU call attacking the NAACP for asking for transparency and accountability and claiming they aren’t doing it because the most rewarded charter CEOs say so many of their children are violent, but because a union donated to them.
What do you call attacking my criticism of Eva Moskowitz by claiming if it’s okay with SUNY, you can’t criticize it but you sure will attack the NAACP because when it comes to knowing which actors have bad motives about what they are doing, why wouldn’t you choose to attack the NAACP?
If you can’t understand how racist your presumptions are, then nothing I post will change you mind.
NYC parent,
I, and many charter leaders, support increased accountability and transparency. What we don’t support is a moratorium. There are some excellent charter sectors that should be encouraged, not stopped. We should be focusing on the sectors that aren’t doing well by students for various reasons. There are plenty of those.
This makes no sense to me:
“What do you call attacking my criticism of Eva Moskowitz by claiming if it’s okay with SUNY, you can’t criticize”
My not agreeing with you is not me attacking you.
^^^And please prove that there is a massive outcry from charter PARENTS about the NAACP asking for accountability and transparency for the schools they send their children to. That is nonsense. There is an outcry from the people who make their living in the privatization business.
Ask any charter parent if they believe the NAACP has sold out their children for a teachers’ donation. Your claim that they believe that is about as honest as charter leaders’ claims that their children are so violent.
NYC Parent,
There are more than 700,000 black children in charter schools. I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe that most of them would prefer that the options they are taking advantage of remain open to themselves and their communities.
Here are some parent and community voices speaking out against the NAACP decision.
http://kineticslive.com/2017/07/07/m-e-council-bishops-issues-open-letter-naacp/
http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/education/2017/07/29/memphis-naacp-branch-helps-sway-conversation-charter-schools/518028001/
Click to access NAACPResponse_FINAL_9212016.pdf
http://thelens.news/2016/10/13/a-seattle-mom-urges-naacp-to-reconsider/?utm_content=35110906&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
http://educationpost.org/the-naacp-was-founded-by-white-people-and-it-still-isnt-looking-out-for-black-families/
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2016/10/12/commentary-why-the-naacp-should-keep-their-hands.html?utm_content=35110911&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
http://detroitschooltalk.org/2017/07/naacp-black-activists-black-people-whats-going/
http://citizen.education/2017/07/28/i-love-my-elders-in-the-naacp-i-love-my-children-more/
http://www.charterswork.com/
There are more than 7 million black children not in charters
“There are more than 7 million black children not in charters”
Yes, which is why it’s so disappointing to see the NAACP focused on charters.
John,
The NAACP is focused on the damage that charters do to black communities. That is appropriate.
John says:
“There are more than 700,000 black children in charter schools. I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe that most of them would prefer that the options they are taking advantage of remain open to themselves and their communities.”
LOL! You just defeated the claims you made in your original reply at the top:
“This split between people who want privatization and profit, who support online and for-profit charters, and the people involved with not-for-profit charter networks….”
There IS no split! The for-profit folks make EXACTLY the same argument you just made above. There are hundreds of thousands of children in for-profit charters and I’m not sure why you find it hard to believe that most would prefer their charter stays open.”
You just got hoisted on your own petard.
By the way, you also tried to mislead people because a MORATORIUM is not closing charters down. It is stopping their expansion until there is real accountability and transparency.
It is only the people who fear that transparency will lead to closure because they know how corrupt so many charters are who claim it is the same thing.
But in any event, I want to thank you for making the case for more for-profit charters so clearly above. It demonstrated exactly how close the for-profit and non-profit charters really are. Diane Ravitch was absolutely correct and deep down, you obviously knew it.
NYC public school parent,
No, the split is within people who run charters and supporters, not among parents. Most parents honestly don’t care about governance models and just want to send their kids to a school they think is best for them.
Why isn’t anyone pointing out that 1) the education SA offers may incite those 25% to violence and 2) if she has such great teachers why can’t they teach students to be nonviolent? As a public school teacher I was expected to socialize all students and instruct in such a way that children would not react with violence.
If SA needs help in this area, I might be willing to give them some hints based on my 44 years of experience 20 years of which was in South Central L. A. and the south west Bronx.
“If SA needs help in this area, I might be willing to give them some hints based on my 44 years of experience 20 years of which was in South Central L. A. and the south west Bronx.”
Have you shared your thoughts on the subject in any publicly accessible location? I’d certainly be interested to understand better your experience and advice. And imagine others would also.
John,
You just claimed that the only thing that mattered is the fact that “700,000 parents” chose a charter including for-profits and on-line charters. That is the argument you grab whenever people point out that the NAACP is only asking for the accountability and transparency that charters have fought so hard to avoid for years and years. You can’t justify it, so you say “but parents choose the charters”.
And by doing so you undermine your own claim that there is a difference between non-profit, for-profit, or on-line charters. Parents chose them. That’s your argument for why no one should ever demand any accountability or transparency. EVERY charter operator agrees with that — there is no split. Betsy DeVos agrees. Donald Trump agrees. Every right wing Koch Brothers’ funded organization agrees. That in America, we should get rid of all health, safety, consumer regulations because someone is buying a product so that means it is fine if other people get hurt by it. The market will work it all out.
There is NO split between the charter operators and those who fund their right wing ideas. They ALL say exactly what you say,
The irony is that the parents don’t. While you repeat the typical pro-charter lie that every parent who attends a charter agrees with you that charters should be beyond any transparency, you are lying just as much as the right wingers who claim that every person who buys a bag of candy at Wal Mart is proof positive that Wal Mart should be free of any regulations.
It is the PARENTS at charter schools who support the NAACP’s desire for transparency and accountability. It is the greedy (and racist) charter leaders and their underwriters who don’t — because it doesn’t matter whether they run non-profits, for-profits, on-line charters — their bottom line is what matters. There is no split. None.
And you just proved it yourself with you comment that just happens to be the same comment Betsy DeVos and the for-profit charters use to demand that they do whatever they want to do as long as they have billionaires who buy enough politicians to let them.
You are all the same. Own it. You certainly just proved it.
NYC public school parent,
Can I suggest that you go volunteer in a school or something? You seem to have too much time on your hands to argue with yourself on this forum. I have stated multiple times that I support increased accountability and transparency.
The NAACP is not “only asking for the accountability and transparency”. They are also asking for a moratorium. They are also asking for charters only to be opened by school districts, which in case you miss the subtlety means killing charters. I support many aspects of their report. I don’t support a moratorium and I don’t support ending the charter movement by putting the very school districts that don’t want them in charge of authorizing them.
I’m also disappointed that the NAACP spent so much time and energy focused on charters after they themselves noted that they affect a small number of students and are a “distraction”. While their report pointed out the many deficiencies of traditional public schools when it comes to educating black children, their policy recommendations didn’t address that at all.
I think the NAACP report showed deep concern and compassion for the eduction of all children of color.
They could not turn a blind eye to the deep corruption that has accompanied the deregulation of the charter industry. Why should anyone get public money without oversight?
The NAACP was also aware that charters are the favorite “reform” of Trump, DeVos, ALEC, and the other leaders of the fringe rightwing that falsely, meretriciously claim the mantle of the civil rights movement.
John says:
“They (the NAACP) are also asking for charters only to be opened by school districts, which in case you miss the subtlety means killing charters.”
Ahh, NOW I get it. You apparently never met Joseph Nathan who says that he works with charters that have been overseen by districts.
It’s clear what you mean is that you don’t think districts will ever support the large charter chains who specialize in sending the most expensive students back to public schools while lying and claiming that they welcome every child who wins the lottery and educate the exact same children who are in public schools but with less money! You don’t think districts will ever support the charlatans who claim to be miracle workers without actually checking to see if their claims are true. You are terrified that the district oversight won’t be “as long as you get good test scores with the students who are allowed to stay in your school, we don’t care how many students you suspend out of your Kindergarten class because they keep acting “violent” (as you claim) in your school.” You are afraid someone will ask questions.
And that is exactly what I hope will happen. That charters have real oversight. It’s obvious we will never agree.
But I have a suggestion. If there ever comes a time when there IS real accountability and transparency for charters, why don’t you just tell the charters that are using bad practices to get their results to stop?
^I’m sorry – this posted in the wrong place and I re-posted this correctly at the top.
Good morning,
I have a question. Is there any way that we might CHANGE the name “reformers” to something else? Maybe corporate reformers! In Kansas we are in the middle of TRUE reform, lead my our amazing Commissioner of Education. It has NOTHING to do with vouchers, charters, etc. Our goal is the SUCCESS OF EACH STUDENT. It is an exciting time to be an educator as we work collaboratively toward this goal.
Thanx so much for all that you do! ~Dayna Richardson
Dayna Richardson
Dayna,
Can you send a link to a resource about what is happening there? Thanks.
I use “rephormers” to indicate that they are phony. Or just “privatizers” works for me.
Dayna,
When you say “our goal is the SUCCESS OF EACH STUDENT” what to you mean by that statement. Is the standards and testing regime a part of the way that “success” is gauged? What is it that your “amazing” Commissioner of Ed does that is so different than all the other Go Along Get Along adminimals?
TIA,
Duane
From what I understand Gov Cuomo is extremely happy with the DeVos plans and is laughing at the resistance all the way to the bank.
Cuomo gets huge donations from the same people who generously underwrite DeVos’ biggest supporters in education reform. You can be sure he is laughing all the way to the bank.
Poor public school kids in Wisconsin. Ed reformers are going after them again:
“An expansion of charter schools and publicly funded vouchers is likely to move forward in Wisconsin as legislators hammer out a biennial budget over the next few weeks. Republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature are also mulling a boost to online “e-schooling” and limitations on local referenda that raise school funding through property taxes.
The proposals are taking shape in response to long-term trends in both education and politics. Local observers are split on their merits, with debate intensifying around two proposals in particular. One would raise the income cap for participation in a statewide voucher program, potentially extending access to middle-class families. The other would dramatically extend the reach of a state agency charged with authorizing new charter schools.”
The part that amazes me is how they don’t think they have to offer ANYTHING to public school kids and parents.
They have whole legislative sessions where kids in public schools aren’t even mentioned. I guess the assumption is none of us care about our kids or our schools.
Of all the solutions bobbing about in the thick fetid swamp of, systematic irrationality in
the oblivious obvious, such as that which posits the “crisis” of:
“High stakes testing is going gangbusters pushed by the federal government with little interference from the states.”
“Common Core is in almost every school while the most state legislatures do about it is consider giving it a name change.”
“And in every district serving students of color and the poor, budgets are being slashed to pieces to make room for another juicy tax cut for the rich.”
will be resolved by charters, is ABSURD.
On the other hand, high stake testing, common core in almost every school, slashed
budgets in districts serving the students of color and poverty, doesn’t seem to gel
with
“the community based, locally controlled, democratic, transparent, …” meme.
The ECOT scandal is literally front page news in Ohio and has been for weeks.
Meanwhile. DeVos is pushing “online learning” next door in Michigan and Walker in Wisconsin is cutting public school funding to start his own ECOT.
It literally doesn’t matter how these experiments pan out. They are ALWAYS expanded.
In ten years we’ll all be talking about how Wisconsin sunk a billion dollars into an experiment that failed in Ohio ten years prior.
Sorry, Stephen.
Flacks for privatization don’t belong in my living room