Some state laws describe charter schools as “public charter schools.”
ALEC model legislation describes charter schools as “public charter schools.”
But calling them so doesn’t make them so. You can call a horse a camel, but it’s still a horse. You can pass a law calling a horse a camel, but it’s still a horse.
Peter Greene explains here the essential differences between public schools and charter schools.
Charter schools get public money, but that’s the only thing public about them.
If state legislators truly believed that deregulation was necessary for success, they would deregulate public schools. But they don’t. They keep passing more mandates. But only for public schools.
Greene writes:
“The charter sector has been trying to redefine “public” for years. Identifying charters as public schools solves a variety of marketing problems by giving the impression that charters include features that people expect from their public school. “Oh, a public school,” the customers say. “That must mean that the school will be open forever (certainly all of this year), it is staffed with qualified professionals, and is required to meet any special needs that my child might have. Oh, and as a public school, I’m sure it must be accountable to the public as well.”
“Of course, none of these things are true, but the use of the word “public” is a buffer against having the questions even come up. I mean, who even thinks to ask a public school to guarantee that it will stay open all year?
“”Public” when it comes to schools has been taken to mean “operated by the public, paid for by the public, serving the public, and accountable to the public.” Charter fans would like it to mean “paid for by the public” and nothing else. They would like voters and taxpayers not to think of charter schools as private schools that are paid for with public money. They would like voters and taxpayers absolutely not to think of charters as businesses that allow private people and companies to make money by billing the taxpayer. They would definitely not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as schools that are “accessible” to all, but which only serve a select few (like a Lexus dealership). They would certainly not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as businesses that are accountable only to their owners and operators– and not transparently accountable to the public. The word “public” is a handy fig leaf to cover all of that.”
DeVos wants to water down the definition of “public” even more, to allow private schools, religious schools, and every sort of entrepreneurial venture to get public money. In her view, the real public schools would be dumping grounds for the kids that the charters and voucher schools don’t want.
If we want to retain any sense of the common good, we must resist at every turn. We must protect the common good and our obligations to our fellow citizens.

I keep looking for a more accurate, less deceptive name, and I like catchy acronyms —
Today’s try is YMFOK (Your Money For Our Kids)
LikeLike
NYTimes today Thurs 5/31 had news report on the new NYC Chancellor Carranza embracing charter schools as “public schools,” disgraceful surrender to Eva Moskowitz and her Wall Street backers, cementing charter schools as legitimate looters of public education, even as charterites don’t need his endorsement in NYC any longer after Cuomo put them on the mountaintop.
LikeLike
Why be this way? This is what brought us Donald Trump.
The new NYC Chancellor visited the same charter schools that Farina did.
The Mayor is obligated by state law – thanks to Cuomo — to provide free space in public schools to charters.
The Mayor has NOT done what Bloomberg did and made it easy for Moskowitz to have the space she needed. She has rejected many of his suggestions and is very unhappy with the Mayor.
The answer to this is having a Governor who will actually appoint people to the SUNY Charter Institute board who are not entirely owned and operated by Eva Moskowitz and her right wing billionaire funders and removing Joseph Belluck and his white lawyer/businessmen cronies from the board. And then doing a real investigation into why SUNY has not once issued a report on the myriad of complaints by parents about Success Academy nor seemingly investigated them at all. Any SUNY Charter Institute board that is not a Cuomo/Moskowitz tool would be a huge danger to Moskowitz’ expansion desires because her public relations is dependent on covering up her long term attrition rates and the high “retention” (i.e flunking kids over and over again) rates for at-risk kids.
Everyone knows that Cynthia Nixon would do this. Elect Nixon. Defeat Cuomo. That is far more useful than attacking the most pro-public school Mayor that this city has had in 20 years.
Please name one city politician who is MORE pro-public school and willing to stand up to charters than Mayor de Blasio. I will be waiting because I would like to know — all I see is politicians who are far worse.
LikeLike
Do you think the mayor might have discussed his views with the candidates for chancellor before hiring?
The chancellor is not acting on his own. He is an agent of the mayor. He does what the mayor tells him to do. De Blasio has betrayed those of us who believed him. I understood the Legislature and the SUNY committee forced him to accept more charters than he wanted. But Carranza crossed a line by declaring that these privately managed schools are “public schools.”
Wait for the 2 pm response.
LikeLike
I seriously do not understand the word “betrayed”. The Mayor started a universal pre-k system. The Mayor started a renewal program that directed huge resources into failing schools instead of closing them — even though that left him vulnerable to the criticism he got — that he is just throwing good money after bad like typical stupid liberals and he should have just shut them down.
I see Carranza saying things all the time that shows he is still learning and not saying them because Mayor de Blasio ordered him to say them:
Remember Carranza just said sorting students by ability is “antithetical” to the goal of public education.
Do you think that was because the Mayor ordered him to say that?
Remember his tweet:
“Wealthy white Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools.”
Is that because the Mayor told him to tweet that?
I really don’t understand the word “betrayed” because I do not understand what the Mayor is supposed to do beyond trying to thwart the desires of charters by preventing them from undermining public schools as much as they could if he was acting like Bloomberg.
To me,the person who has betrayed is Andrew Cuomo. He is positioning himself as a liberal now while he has spent the last 8 years undermining every liberal idea and promoting what would make him rich.
The Mayor is working with very limited power and STILL doing his best to direct as many resources to public schools as he can instead of charters.
Is there a politician in NYC who is better? There isn’t a single one willing to speak out against charters and when the Mayor did, they all remained silent instead of defending him. I would be happy to hear of some NYC politicians who are more pro-public education than the Mayor. Seriously. I would like to know so I can support them.
LikeLike
The difference between Cuomo and de Blasio is that I never trusted Cuomo. He didn’t betray me. I trusted de Blasio. He betrayed me.
Carranza does not take major policy steps in a new direction without clearing it with his boss.
Mayoral control means mayoral control.
LikeLike
I have no problem with ending Mayoral control.
But I don’t understand why you would look at the entirety of what Mayor de Blasio has done for public schools since taking office and reduce his entire tenure to a complete and utter “betrayal” because of a few words uttered by the new Chancellor.
I am watching what the Mayor/Chancellor do with regards to charters and handing over public school resources to charters.
I’m not parsing the words that the chancellor says and deciding that it is a betrayal. If I was judging de Blasio based on what the chancellor said, I would also have to decide that he was for abolishing the SHSAT and that he believed that white families on the upper west side were anti-integration.
Reducing everything that de Blasio has done since taking office as a betrayal of public schools seems very harsh.
I’m sorry, but these kinds of criticisms make me think of how people attacked Cynthia Nixon for “betraying” the transit workers because of one statement. I prefer to judge her on what she stands for and her actions — not simply some words out of context.
LikeLike
Peter Green wrote:
“They would definitely not like the voters and taxpayers to think of charters as schools that are “accessible” to all, but which only serve a select few (like a Lexus dealership).”
Are district schools in most states only accessible only to those who can afford to live in its boundaries?
Difference
Public School – Only accessible to those who live in its boundaries
Charter School – Open to anyone regardless of address\zip code
LikeLike
A while back Diane posted about a charter school where you had to pick up the application at a country club, and only on a specific date between certain hours. Is that a public school?
What about charter schools like Great Hearts which require a $1,500 “donation” to attend? Are those public schools?
What about Success Academy and BASIS and other similar schools where low test scoring kids and their families get told that the school is “not the right fit”? Are those public schools?
What about schools where having an acceptance to a four-year university is a requirement for graduation? Are those public schools?
LikeLike
Public schools are accessible to all, ALL year long, not at a certain date or time once a year as is true of charter schools. Charter schools only take in kids one time during the year; the lottery or acceptance process. Of course public schools, for the most part, only accept kids who live in the district of the resident tax payers. Other school districts raise their own taxes for their own kids. Tax payers would be screaming bloody murder if they had to pay for kids from another school district; schools are already crowded enough. Charter schools are private entities sucking up limited public funds.
LikeLike
Public School: Open to anyone without regard to race, religion, language, gender or disability. All who apply must be enrolled no matter what time of year or what grade they are in.
Charter School: open to anyone unless they have significant disabilities or don’t speak English. If they get low scores, their name will be placed on a “got to go” list and they will be suspended repeatedly until they withdraw. After third grade, in certain of the charters, no new students are admitted.
LikeLike
Ms Ravitch wrote:
“Open to anyone without regard to race, religion, language, gender or disability. All who apply must be enrolled no matter what time of year or what grade they are in.”
I assume you have never heard of private placement where district schools turn away some disabled children because it is cheaper for the district to pay the private school tuition than to educate them in house. It is not true that district schools accept ALL.
LikeLike
District schools don’t reject children with very severe disabilities. They pay for their very, very expensive tuition in private schools that meet their individual needs.
That is very different from the situation of a student who is excluded from a charter school because of her disability; the charter school takes no responsibility for the student. Or they kick out students with low test scores.
The public schools take responsibility for every student. The charters choose whom to accept, whom to exclude.
LikeLike
Public School — has a responsibility to every child in the district and cannot simply drum out kids and leave them in the streets to rot.
Charter School — has a responsibility to the students they want to teach and once that child is not enrolled or drummed out, their responsibility ends permanently and forever.
I think people like Cynthia Weiss believe that public schools should be MORE like charters — and private schools — and simply end their responsibility to children as soon as they can get them out of their school.
It is a legitimate desire on Cynthia Weiss’ part if you consider some kids less than nothing and worthless – even if they are 5. It is a legitimate desire if you believe the savings from throwing large numbers o0f very poor 5 year olds on the street is worth it because some kids get more from that savings.
The rest of us understand what PUBLIC means. And there is not a public magnet in the country that is not run by a SYSTEM where every child is the responsibility of the SYSTEM.
At charters, only the kids they can’t dump on the street are their responsibility.
It makes for a very different incentive. However, it seems like some people like Cynthia Weiss believe that public schools should dump kids just like charters.
LikeLike
Just as we must never say “public charter school,” we must also never say “traditional public school.” To say either is to imply saying the other.
So, we must always say “public school” when we mean “public” (non-rivalrous and non-excludable) and we must always say “charter school” when we mean “private” (rivalrous and excludable).
LikeLike
I use the term “actual public schools.” Does that work?
LikeLike
I agree with Ed Johnson.
Use the terms public school and charter school.
You can also refer to “community public schools” and “privately managed charter schools, to describe them accurately.
LikeLike
PUBLIC charter schools is a MISNOMER. There’s nothing public about charter schools except that they take public $$$$$ with no accountability.
LikeLike
In Michigan, the term is “public school academies”! . . .
LikeLike