Ann Cronin, a retired teacher of English in Connecticut, writes about what charters were supposed to be and how they have failed to fulfill their original promise. Nowhere have they been more disappointing than in Connecticut, where the harsh “no excuses” model prevails. The charters in the Nutmeg State have won generous state funding, thanks to the campaign contributions to Democratic Governor Malloy by hedge fund managers and the OxyContin billionaire Sackler Family.
Cronin thanks the NAACP for speaking truth to power.
She writes:
“An English teacher friend of mine was a finalist for Connecticut Teacher of the Year in the mid 90’s. As one of the culminating steps in the selection process, the four finalists were assigned a topic little was known about at the time. They were instructed to research it and present their findings to an audience.
“The topic was charter schools.There were no charter schools in Connecticut at the time. My friend concluded that the worth of charter schools would depend on the answers to two questions:
“1) Will the innovations created at charter schools inform and improve the public schools that the vast majority of children and adolescents in the U.S. attend?
“2) Will charter schools be held accountable to address student needs as traditional public schools are required to do?
“Fast forward to 2017: We now have had charter schools in Connecticut for 21 years. The answers to my friend’s two questions came from the NAACP.”
The answer to number 1: NO.
The answer to number 2: Not yet.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Parents really have to start paying attention to how hard the ed reform “movement” is selling online learning.
“Portability is a funding mechanism where dollar amounts are allocated per student and “follow” students wherever they enroll. While invoked by many as a strategy to fund charter schools or voucher programs, the concept can be applied to student-centered learning systems in which students may earn credit for learning full- or part-time through online or out-of-school experiences. In such a system, each student would carry a metaphorical “backpack” of funding from which they can pull to pay for whatever mix of school(s) or provider(s) that they choose as they embark on unique educational pathways. As Roza notes, such a model would incentivize schools and providers “to pursue diverse digital and personalized learning offerings in ways that work best for their mix of students.” Conversely, without such funding rules – and without applying them at the federal, state, and district level – schools and systems will have fewer options for supporting student learning, much like the party host hiring Company A’s solo magician.”
This stuff is EVERYWHERE. The echo chamber has a new idea and boy are they selling it hard!
Parents better wake up or they’re going to find their entire school taken over by a series of for-profit “service providers”. They want kids in online courses and this of course opens up a HUGE private sector business opportunity as schools outsource more and more instruction to these branded products.
I feel sorry for kids, I really do. They will be INUNDATED with garbage online product. This is a 600 billion dollar market and it’s all public money.
And we have yet to address the issue of WHO, exactly, is now going to be writing up our kids’ curricula simply because they know how to create computer programs.
It was brave of the NAACP to criticize charter schools. No one does it inside “the movement”.
It’s either 100% cheerleading or you’re considered a heretic and thrown out of the ed reform club.
Some of the ed reform sites are amusing they’re so biased towards charters. A typical “front page” of The 74 will have 5 rah-rah for charter pieces and then 2 pieces on how public schools suck. This is what passes for “agnostic” in ed reform.
DeVos is laughable with those speeches. All the public school kids head straight to prison while the private school kids succeed. It counts as “agnostic” if she throws in a sentence or two about “great schools”.
Yesterday, I read through the NAACP’s report that led them to conclude that we need a moratorium on charter expansion. I did this after John’s claim that the NAACP was fronting for the “evil” unions. I found no overt evidence that would substantiate this claim. The twelve members of the task force that wrote the document were all NAACP members, and there was no mention of any union affiliation. What I read was a thoughtful, well stated document full of legitimate concerns about charter expansion. These are the same issues that concern anyone that cares about quality public education, accountability and equity, and they are the same concerns repeatedly discussed on this blog.
Cross posted the original article at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/The-NAACP-Tells-It-As-It-I-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Children_Connecticut_Truth-170805-375.html
with comment
Carol Burris, at the NPE, notes in this article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/06/22/problems-with-charter-schools-that-you-wont-hear-betsy-devos-talk-about/?utm_term=.4c8f3b107d79 that the NAACP passed a resolution last year demanding a moratorium on new charters until charters cleaned up their actions and policies.
Instead of doing some self-examination and trying to right what was wrong, the charter apologists attacked the NAACP.
No matter what you have been told, what you have read, what you think, corporate charter schools are NOT public schools. Diane Ravitch says: I want to stand and shout as loud as I can the world “Not!” Do not fall for that lie.
Here is the linkto POSTS ON THE CHARTER SCHOOLS AT THE Diane Ravitch site
https://dianeravitch.net/category/charter-schools/