Mike Petrilli is concerned that Republican support for charter schools has declined sharply. He suspects it is because charter advocates have tried too hard to pretend that charters are all about being progressive.
He thinks it is time to remind Republicans that charters are a conservative idea.
“We found a 12-percentage-point drop in public support for charter schools from the spring of 2016 to the spring of 2017. What’s most surprising is that Republican and Republican-leaning respondents helped to drive this trend, with GOP support down 13 percentage points. Nor is this a one-year blip; roll back the tape to 2012 and Republican support for charter schools is down a whopping 22 points.
“The puzzle is why. This is no idle question, as Republican support has been crucial to the growth and success of the charter movement over the past twenty-five years.
“While the charter movement has historically received proud bipartisan backing in Washington—Presidents Clinton and Obama both strongly supported charter schools, as have Presidents Bush II and Trump—charters are almost entirely a GOP accomplishment at the state level, where charter policy is made. To be sure, some blue and purple states can count a handful of Democratic legislators and the occasional Democratic governor as proponents, but the charter movement has relied on strong Republican support to sustain it. If that support evaporates, the movement could hit a brick wall.
“One would imagine then, that advocates of charter schools would be exquisitely attentive to the political math at the heart of their coalition: They typically need virtually every Republican vote, plus a handful of Democrats. Such attention would inexorably lead to an obsession with shoring up support on the right side of the aisle, correct?
“Well, no. Instead, many leaders of the charter movement have spent the past decade displaying their progressive credentials and chasing after Democratic votes that almost never materialize. Thus, the case for charter schools today is almost always made in social-justice terms—promoting charters’ success in closing achievement gaps, boosting poor kids’ chances of upward mobility, and alleviating systemic inequities. That was certainly the approach taken by President Obama and his social-justice-warrior secretary of education, Arne Duncan….
“A simpler, more direct way to boost conservative support is to remind people what made charter schools conservative in the first place. This means emphasizing personal freedom and parental choice—how charters liberate families from a system in which the government assigns you a public school, take it or leave it. Choice brings free-market dynamics into public education, using the magic of competition to lift all boats. And while some conservatives understandably would prefer private school choice, which allows a family to select a religious school, for example, instead of an independently run public school, charters are much more than a way station to vouchers. They have proven to be scalable and powerful, especially in cities.
“But there’s another aspect of charter schools that gets very little attention these days, especially from the social-justice types: Most are non-union. In fact, in most districts, union representation is the most significant difference between charter schools and traditional public schools. It’s hugely important. It’s why charter schools can and do fire ineffective teachers, why they can turn on a dime when an instructional approach isn’t working, why they can spend their money on the classroom instead of the bureaucracy, and why they can put the needs of students first, every day, all day. Yet most charter supporters almost never talk about any of this.”
Yes, It is time to remind Republicans—and Democrats—that charters are a conservative strategy. They sacrifice community to competition. They get rid of unions. They make teachers at-will employees.
But I disagree with Mike about the reasons for declining support for charters among Republicans and Democrats alike. I think that the public—that is, members of both parties—are hearing quite a lot these days about charter scandals and swindles in their own states. They don’t want to waste their tax dollars on exorbitant charter salaries coupled with frequent reports of graft, misappropriation of funds, and indictments of charter operators. How do people react when they hear about the millions paid to virtual charter operators? What about the convictions of swindlers in Pennsylvania and Michigan? Most Republicans went to public schools, send their own children to public schools and are happy with them. They cheer for the local teams and show up when their neighbors’ kids are in a school play. They don’t want charters in their neighborhood. Many serve on school boards. They are not antagonistic to public schools, not like DeVos or the people who work at conservative advocacy shops inside the Beltway. In New York, for example, Republicans in the legislature vote for charters but don’t want them in their own backyard. They think charters are fine for black and brown kids, but not their own.
Charters could never have gotten this far without bipartisan support so it was useful for their advocates to play the “social justice” card. Now that Republicans control so many states and DeVos is Secretary of Education, why not tell the truth? Charters are a way to break up public schools and replace them with competition and choice, while getting rid of unions. They are and always have been a conservative ploy to launch school choice. Obama and Duncan fell for it. So have Corey Booker and Andrew Cuomo. They got fooled into attacking their political base. Will Democrats continue to support charters now that they are clearly part of the Trump-DeVos agenda?
Republicans support charters for “those kids,” not for their own kids. If they are losing faith in the charter idea, it is probably because they don’t want them for their suburban and rural communities.
Petrilli’s repetitive, dismissive use of phrases like “social justice types” tells me all I need to know. At least he’s sort of honest. Charters are indeed a manifestation of the conservative myth of superiority of free markets and the fantastic, fictional tales of our meritocratic shining city on the hill.
I wonder what folks like Petrilli find so troubling about us social justice types? Is it because pursuit of social justice might require reflection and reconsideration on the part of entitled, privileged white men? (I am one, so I speak from authority.)
Maybe support for charter schools is dropping because there are more of them and people have some local state-level experience with them now?
Maybe public school families are realizing ed reformers do absolutely nothing to benefit or improve public schools and in many states actually HARM public schools?
“Education might not be the best campaign issue for Kasich, though: During his time as governor, Ohio has dropped from No. 5 in 2010 to No. 22 in 2016 on Education Week’s annual national rankings, according to New York magazine.”
Ohio has adopted every single ed reform initiative, blindly. We have charters, we have vouchers, we have for-profits, we have non-profits, we have the whole roster of accountability measures – yet public education quality has dropped every year ed reformers have been in power.
Can they explain why this is happening? Because it isn’t just Ohio-it’s Michigan and Pennsylvania too.
Maybe marketing isn’t the problem. Maybe it’s the product they’re selling and the fact that they deceptively sold it as “improving public education” when they really planned to privatize public education.
https://www.the74million.org/kasich-reportedly-on-path-to-2020-bid-says-we-need-to-completely-redo-education/?utm_content=buffer10347&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I agree whole heartedly, Chiara. The Reps wanted freedom to choose but they don’t want corruption and inferior education.
Recently it has been said in his blog to the Council of Great City Schools in Cleveland that Bill Gates commented: “If there is one thing I have learned, is that no matter how enthusiastic we might be about one approach or another, the decision to go from pilot (there was none) to wide-scale usage is ultimately and always something that has to be decided by you and others in the field.”
If this is true,… that he has pronounced the program as dead–will we be getting rid of it? What happens next? If opposition defeated common core, when will the states get autonomy and flexibility back? Personally, I don’t think it will happen.
Gates is still funding Common Core. Do not be deceived.
Are the national ed reformers aware that state-level Democrats are running against national ed reformers?
I get an email a day from one or another candidate who is running against privatization and testing and budget cuts- because THAT’S what ed reform means in Ohio- it means privatization and testing and budget cuts. We get it. It’s been 20 years. It’s not what they believe that we’re too stupid to parse their genius plans or “wedded to the status quo” or “complacent” or any of the other insults they hurl to shut down debate every time they’re challenged on anything. We know ed reform. That’s the problem.
Maybe they should go back to their original sales pitch- in Ohio it was that they would IMPROVE public schools. Not replace public schools. Not bust unions. Not create a whole new private sector profiteering industry.
When do we get to the part where they improve public schools?
The word I never want to hear again is ‘innovation’. Try to nail down a single charter chain cheerleader on curriculum. They can spout out innovation over & over but they have nothing. SLANT, personalized learning, firing teachers is all they have. The only innovation is how they put an unaccountable third party in between federal & state dollars and our schools.
Parents know when their kids are being exploited and are realizing charter promises are hollow.
It’s ludicrous to have an entire state legislature and state education department who don’t work on public schools,who spend all their time proposing new schools and “reinventing” local government.
I don’t care what their ideology or personal preference is – no one hired them to attack and weaken public schools. No one hired these people to invent “governance systems” and that isn’t what they ran on. They ran on improving public schools. They should get to work or get someone else in there who values public schools and takes the job intending to DO the job instead of pursuing their theories of markets.
Note to SomeDAMPoet: Smart-ass
“Most are privatized. In fact, in most districts, dark money is the most significant difference between charter schools and traditional public schools. It’s hugely important. It’s why charter schools can and lack accountability to the taxpayers for their spending, why they can turn on a dime when humiliating kids for low test scores isn’t working, why they can spend their money on kickbacks to CEO’s instead of the classrooms, and why they can put students in front of computer screens every day, all day. Yet most charter supporters almost never talk about any of this.”
There, it’s fixed.
They completely “reformed” Wisconsin. How’s that going? Last I read teacher’s salaries were dropping. Any “improvement” to Wisconsin public education systems?
Is that what they meant by “improve”? Wisconsin is just getting to know them. Wait until they’re like Ohio and they have 20 years experience! They’ll turn on them too and it won’t be because of an incorrect ideological message.
Wisconsin can join Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania as we race to the bottom together. Meanwhile, ed reformers will be pointing to DC and Boston.
It used to be that politicians wouldn’t mess with children or old people. It was taboo. What 2 groups use the most tax dollars?…children (education) and older folks with Medicare and SS. The AARP keeps the government in line and older folks are voters. Kids have no representation except for their parents, they don’t vote and have no say. Politicians have knowingly let the free market system steal from children. What politician (either side) wants to be associated with money laundering, stealing, child abuse etc? They are like rats on a sinking ship. The more light is shed on this greed, the more politicians will distance themselves from the whole mess. There’s a lesson to be learned….you don’t mess with the most vulnerable of a population (old people and children) because it makes you look like a bully and a schmuck!…and what politician wants that at election time?
Shorter Petrilli: “Why have I become irrelevant?”
Thank you. I was trying to find a way to sum up this nauseating tripe. As always, you did it better than I could have.
“No Tanks”
It’s really quite absurd
To hang on every word
Of those who live in tanks
And best to say “No thanks!”
SomeDAMPoet:
The posting accurately reproduces Mr. Petrilli’s remarks.
Link: http://educationnext.org/changing-support-charter-schools-among-republicans/
May I ask you, this once, to work your magic on this bit of “I can’t believe they let the cat out of the bag”?
Or, from another angle: a classic of Trumpian “truthful hyperbole” that is literally the poster child for “magical thinking.”
[start]
Choice brings free-market dynamics into public education, using the magic of competition to lift all boats.
[end]
Respectfully,
KrazyTA
😎
“Hurricane Choice”
The hurricane
With power of choice
Will raise the brain
With market force
And break the dike
Of failing schools
As brother Mike
Informs the fools
Great link Krazy!
SomeDAMPoet:
“All men owe honor to the poets – honor and awe; for they are dearest to the Muse who puts upon their lips the ways of life.” [Homer]
KrazyTA
😎
The one thing the Great Lakes had was strong public university systems. But they’re coming for those too! Turning them into commercial ventures. Chopping them up and selling pieces.
Maybe it’s for the better. As our K-12 schools slip in quality every single year under these “reforms” no one from these states would get into them anyway.
I laugh at all these ed reformers who work for universities. They’re coming for your schools next.
I think charters were never the end game . I think the real goal was obtaining public dollars, Vouchers for private schools,” real choice “. . “Public Charters” especially when they were pushed by Obama(Duncan) as a supposed solution to inequality became anathema . The same with Common Core an original project of the Business Roundtable .
And not for nothing”Progressive “(eh-em ) Bill Gates is\was a member of the Roundtable.
Republicans do not care about inequality. Union busting was always a big co lateral benefit. . There are a whole lot of Republican voters who were looking for ways to avoid integrated Public School districts. All over the country .
“I think the real goal was obtaining public dollars. . . ”
1000 YEPS!
Another insidious goal is to quash democratic participation of citizens. That is one of the reasons ALEC sinks so much cash into local elections. Once their proxies are in power, they will turn the money over to corporations, and the community will become disenfranchised as they are in so many urban areas.
@jwherman11: The concept of charter schools, was allegedly invented by Shanker (AFT). see http://educationnext.org/no-al-shanker-did-not-invent-the-charter-school/
The school choice movement, has co-opted charter schools, as a way for the “camel to get his nose in the tent”. The modern school-choice movement would never have gotten off the ground, without the preliminary work being done by charter supporters.
“All warfare is deception” – Sun-Tzu
Before Al Shanker, the charter concept was enacted by southern segregationists who rose up in opposition to Brown v BoEd,1954. As a component of their resistance strategies they set up publicly funded all white academies.
http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-southern-manifesto-and-massive-resistance-brown
Charter schools were the brain child of UMass education professor Ray Budde. His vision was of charters as teacher led, school board governed centers of experimentation. Shanker briefly supported this vision of charters but very quickly dropped it as the reality of charters as they were being proposed bore no resemblance to Budde’s vision.
Budde never proposed creating a privatized, union-busting, parallel non-system of schools. He sure as shyte didn’t envision them as for-profit real estate schemes. I’m wholly unsurprised that ed next would continue to repeat the lie that they are a teacher union creation.
The article clearly states, that Shanker/AFT did NOT invent charter schools.
Raymond Budde was first to advocate for charter schools. He wanted schools run by teachers, not corporations. He envisioned schools with teachers unions, that won the approval of their colleagues and their school boards.
“…his social-justice-warrior secretary of education, Arne Duncan….”
Sorry, Petrelli, it’s Halloween, not April Fool’s Day.
But thanks anyway for the laugh.
Like!
Maybe ed reform could do a political campaign based on their “results” improving public schools. Not cherry picking “high quality” charter chains or musing on the wonderfulness of private schools. Let’s talk about the unfashionable public schools for a while.
What was the sum total improvement in Michigan public education since 1993,which is when they rose to power? Should be a piece of cake remaining popular considering how wildly successful they all say they are.
I’d like to see a comparison between a state like Ohio that stupidly bought everything they were selling and a state that DECLINED to follow the fashion. Which education system came out better? They have comparison states. Why do we never see a study like that?
They could do a comparison IN OHIO. Compare Cleveland, the most reformy city, to another Ohio city during the same period. Is Cleveland better than a less reformy Ohio city? No? Then why are we following these people blindly?
The excuse used to be we didn’t have enough info. We have plenty now that they own the federal government and more than half of states. Let’s do a real comparison.
“The Roundtable Business”
Gates was King Arthur
And Coleman his Night
Duncan his jester
And Core was his fight
For billions they battled
With software and hard-
The public was addled
By Gates and his guard
That was supposed to go after Joel’s comment about the “Business Roundtable”
Great poem, SomeDAM!
Privatization has Republican ideology at its core. The neoliberal Democrats that still run the DNC also jumped on the free market bandwagon as a solution to improving education. Many Democrats attacked public schools and educators with as much union bashing gusto as Republicans. Cuomo even called public schools “monopolies.”
Within the neoliberal arm of the Democratic party, there is a schism. Most of the aforementioned presidents were ideologically linked to the conservative notion of free choice and a naive belief that the market would improve education. Other charter supporting Democrats saw an opportunity to use public money for their own personal profit. The many privatizers from Silicon Valley and Wall St. fall into this category.
Beyond the political leaders there are the rest of us that have witnessed all the waste and fraud, the closing of beloved schools and the deliberate disinvestment in the common good of public education which greatly contributed to building of our nation. Many people like the idea of having more educational options for young people. However, what started out as a presumed positive quickly morphed into a negative. Bloggers like Diane have been instrumental in turning the tide of public opinion. The pubic is catching on to the big lie behind privatization. The main goal of privatization is a massive move of wealth and opportunity from the middle class to corporations and the wealthy. It’s all about the billions behind public education.
Charters started out as a presumed solution for urban schools, but the false “failing schools” narrative was applied to all schools. Middle class parents that support and pay for effective public education have no intention of turning their schools over to corporations. These parents want the pep rallies, sport and debate teams, solid academics, the arts, authentic professional teachers, and the community cohesion that only a strong public school can provide. Even the NAACP has discovered the misrepresentation associated with charters, and this is why they have called for a moratorium on expansion. Charters offer more separate and unequal schools for no better and often worse results than public schools.
The way forward is to reinvest in democratic community controlled public education that is fairly funded. Public schools are often portrayed as gigantic, inefficient dinosaurs. While this may be true in sprawling urban districts, my own experience was quite different. Having worked in a small suburban school district, I never witnessed a “bloated bureaucracy.” I saw a board of education that was responsive to community needs working to build consensus and solve problems fairly and efficiently. My former district was the essence of democracy in action.
retired teacher,
I love reading your comments. Right on.
If charters and vouchers are seen to be ” for the black people” then the GOP will be against it. LOL. The Trump base is very afraid that black folks are catching up and will pass them 😅.
In other words, not stay in the shadows: liberal education is a dangerous thing in that it brings such uppity bravery…hence people like the Obamas.
The ed reform push to buy and put in ed tech will be unpopular too. They’re over-selling it and shutting down any debate by insisting people who don’t want to replace teachers with screens are somehow Luddites.
It’s ripe for pushback from parents. One of the tech-heavy charter chains has already had to close because they wildly over-estimated demand. As it turns out people don’t want schools to look like call centers, no matter how many bells and whistles they attach
Why couldn’t they just let schools adopt or reject this stuff organically and gradually? They really needed to force superintendents to sign vows promising to buy product? What does that say about the product? What does is say about how the salespeople of ed reform view people who work in that public schools that they start with the assumption people will have to be “dragged,kicking and screaming” to adopt worthwhile ideas?
Once a product is placed in the hands of marketeers, they will push their untried products anyway they can to make their quota. Then, they will continue to expand their markets to get a greater share of the market. It is reckless to toss the education of millions of our young people into the viper pit of business when we should be protecting them from commercialization.
“Jason Riley, Wall Street Journal columnist and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, sits down with Paul E. Peterson to discuss where the opposition to charter schools is coming from.”
Where do they think it’s “coming from”? Mars?
I love this assumption that it couldn’t be actual, substantive opposition- it HAS to be a mistake on the part of the public because ed reformers, are, of course, infallible.
Why don’t they ask the people in some of the places they parachute into rather than asking “a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute”?
Chiara,
I know what they will say: opposition comes from unions and from people paid to oppose school choice.
I know what they won’t say: opposition comes from people who are protecting the common good and who believe that education belongs to the public and should not be privatized. They also will not say that they are paid to support School Choice.
“Why don’t they ask the people in some of the places they parachute into rather than asking “a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute”?
You’ve probably noticed that 85% of the profession is made up of women. Teaching is mostly women’s work. Reformers are 95% male. Reformers dismissive attitudes about teacher opposition mirrors the lack of women in corporate governance, in Silicon Valley, on Wall St, & the highest echelons of government. You get where I’m going. An implicit contempt for women parallels the contempt for public education.
“Why don’t they ask the people in some of the places they parachute into rather than asking “a seni
orile fellow at the Manhattan Institute”? (Please forgive the redumbdancy)Fixed.
Mike Petrilli says : “In fact, in most districts, union representation is the most significant difference between charter schools and traditional public schools. It’s hugely important. It’s why charter schools can and do fire ineffective teachers, why they can turn on a dime when an instructional approach isn’t working, why they can spend their money on the classroom instead of the bureaucracy, and why they can put the needs of students first, every day, all day. Yet most charter supporters almost never talk about any of this.”
If the speaker believes these ridiculous claims, what else does he believe?
The character of “traditional public schools” and “charter schools” is typical of an ideologue.
The plain fact is in the USA, the states with strong teacher unions like Massachusetts and Minnesota have the highest results. The right to work states have terrible results.
In fact states controlled by Democrats have much better results than states controlled by Republicans.
Laura H. Chapman:
Good catch.
The Petrilli-nator [the much lesser version of that famous movie villain/hero the Terminator] does hit on a critical point, but like all rheephormsters he, er, ends up seriously wounding himself and his cause.
For example, paying teachers a mildly attractive and living wage with some guarantee that they will be able to count on it is, on Planet Earth and in reality, an absolutely essential investment IN classrooms. Because, and I say this literally not figuratively, the teachers are IN the classrooms, not offices and stink [uh, think] tanks and such pulling down the big Benjamins.
That is, what the Petrilli-nator doesn’t want to admit—Rheeality Distortion Fields first and foremost affecting those trying to wield them—is that even in the face of determined [but not always successful] lack of transparency it is clear that the heavyweights and trendsetters of charter “magic” put an inordinate amount of the $tudent $ucce$$ they garner into the pockets of the big money investors, upper management, pr and tech firms, etc.
Not to mention all the money that, uh, how shall I delicately put it, goes into the constantly repeated “rookie mistakes” [think Ref Rodriguez in LAUSD] that characterize corporate education reformers.
It’s not only not “all about the kids!” but rather “all about the few adults that are making out like bandits at the expense of the vast majority of students and adults.”
But won’t the key figures in the “new civil rights movement of our time”—from the chief beneficiaries to the leading enablers and enforcers—someday have a change of mind?
Answered long ago. And when a very old and very dead and very Greek guy isn’t handy, you can always count on the Romans:
“For greed all nature is too little.” [Lucius Annaeus Seneca]
😎
“Of Greeks and Geeks”
The Greeks of old
Were very wise
The Geeks have sold
Us naught but lies
“In fact, in most districts, union representation is the most significant difference between charter schools and traditional public schools.
In fact, in most districts, the most significant difference between charter schools and traditional public schools is that charter schools don’t have any public oversight and public schools do.
Let me run Petrilli’s comments through a little known Google translator:
Bullshit to Simple English
“Blaming teacher unions works every time! It’s hugely important to maintain this BS talking point because its the absence of unions, and elected school boards, and taxpayer input that allows for the complete lack of transparency, the total lack of accountability and the all important capacity to choose the best test takers available. These are the real ingredients to their secret sauce. Charter schools are free to burn and churn their underpaid, over-worked, inexperienced, and uncertified teachers while maintaining a no-excuses boot camp style, test prep program for the very same reasons (secret sauce ingredients). It also explains why they can spend their money on CEO level salaries for their top people while lining the pockets of hedge fund investors without a single peep of protest. No unions, no school boards, no taxpayers, no parents, to oversee the charter industry makes it easy to perpetuate the false claims of superiority when it comes to invalid and meaningless outcomes (test scores only) earned on a very tilted playing field.Yet most charter supporters almost never talk about any of this.” I wonder why?