Mercedes Schneider responds here to an article in The Washington Post by one Emily Langhorne of the “Progressive Policy Institute,” which is one of those DC advocacy groups that champions charter schools.
Langhorne seems to be the designated point person at PPI assigned to churn out pro-charter propaganda. She was last seen writing about the graduation rates of D.C. charter schools, falsely claiming that they are higher than the graduation rates of the D.C. public schools. That claim was shot down by a genuine expert, Mary Levy, a civil rights lawyer who has been tracking the travails of education in D.C. for many years.
Recently, asserted that New Orleans has become a national model. As Schneider explains, this is simply not true, unless you are a fan of separate and unequal schools.
“When one writes an op-ed on the post-Katrina success of New Orleans schools, one should consider what one is trying to sell as success. Continued racial inequity, low school grades for almost half of the charter replacements for once-community schools, abounding fiscal corruption, and community exploitation are all components of the true narrative that is almost-all-charter New Orleans schools 13 years post-Katrina.
“Anyone omitting these sad and frustrating realities from an op-ed on the New Orleans charter miracle is either ill-informed or allied to promoting a flashy, market-based-ed-reform agenda likely from headquarters hundreds of miles away from those Katrina-swept streets.”
A note to Emily Langhorne: Be careful not to develop a reputation as a propagandist. The money is good, but think about your reputation.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There is no privatization group who are more charter cheerleaders than the Progressive Policy Institute.
It’s 100% charter cheerleading and public school bashing. They are a charter lobbying group, basically. They’re more pro-charter (and anti-public school) than the groups who admit they are charter lobbying groups.
I just don’t think they’re at all credible as “information”- it’s a sophisticated political campaign promoting charters and bashing public schools- indistinguishable from a political campaign.
Apparently before they decided to “reinvent” public schools they “reinvented” the health care system. Since we have the most wasteful, expensive and inequitable health care system among developed countries I would NOT take their advice on public education.
David Osborne of PPI recently published a book about charters as the solution to every ill in education. He’s been going around the country hawking it. He might have a hard time in Detroit, Milwaukee, Ohio, etc. where the veil has been shredded.
There is nothing ‘progressive’ in the Progressive Policy Institute’s policy prescriptions. Source Watch of The Center for Media & Democracy reveals PPI as “Bill Clinton’s idea mill”, a proponent of the third way.
Media Transparency lists PPI as receiving nine grants totaling $350,000 from nine grants over the 1997 to 2002 originating from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. [3]
The conservative Capital Research Centre database lists PPI’s funding as comprising:
2001
2000
1999
1998
1994-1997
It’s like they all get some group email- “time to promote New Orleans again!” and then (remarkably similar) op eds appear.
Regular as rain, every year, always the same.
Imagine if they turned all that lobbying clout and billionaire bucks to looking at a PUBLIC school system? Will never happen- doesn’t fit the agenda- but imagine reading about some OTHER schools besides the charter schools they’re all lock-step promoting?
Ugh. Ivanka Trump was a “senior adviser” on the career and technical education bill.
What kind of model is this for students? We’re scolding them to prepare for careers yet we put people in charge of vocational school policy who did NO preparation or any kind and know nothing.
Could they not find a single person in DC who had some actual experience with vocational/technical training? Kids who opt for vo-tech got stuck with the NYC socialite running their policy?
Why is that? Is it because the millionaires in Congress have no respect for kids who opt for vocational training? Is that why they stuck us with this completely unqualified nepotism hire?
We need to wake up like a lot of countries in Europe and invest in technical education. Not everyone is a candidate for college, and there is a demand for skilled labor that offers good paying jobs in industry and health care.
and for many students having a vocational career is a wonderful foundational support to subsequently taking classes and one day getting a university degree
One of the great issues of the first Clinton presidential campaign was his strong advocacy for a vocational educational program based on the German model. It was what made me enthusiastic about his campaign after toying with the idea of supporting Tsongas. I desperately wanted to work on this as a joint program of the Departments of Labor and Education that could have forged private-public partnerships. On the day he took the oath of office, he and Secretaries Riley and Reich all forgot about it, never to be mentioned again.
“Could they not find a single person in DC who had some actual experience with vocational/technical training?”
One doesn’t need “actual experience” when one has an ideological agenda aided and abetted by supine fellow travelers. But, hey, you already knew that when you posed these rhetorical questions.
My daughter lives in Texas where there is no shame in working with one’s hands. The state community colleges are very responsive to the workforce needs. They train people in sheet metal work, welding and other such skills. Texas State Tech offers one of the only wind turbine programs I have seen in the country.
I hope my comment didn’t make you think that I think there is shame in working with one’s hands. Could’t be further from how I feel. That’s why I feel so passionately about apprenticeship programs. I’ve seen the evidence of how successful they are in Germany.
In response to Diane’s last paragraph… I’m not sure that Ms. Langhorne is motivated to stake out her policy positions because she wants to make money. I think she really believes she is staking out a principled position and there are way too many media outlets who are willing to support her “principles”.
And in response to Chiara’s comment, I think the sad reality is that there are many media outlets who support the “progressive ideas” like the New Orleans “miracle” and very few who support truly progressive ideals espoused by John Dewey or the hard work that public school educators do to help students. We are now living in an era where Sinclair broadcasting and billionaires like Jeff Bezos own almost all the major media outlets… a group email is unnecessary in this group-think environment where “government needs to run like a business”.