Recently the Education Writers Association Blog posted a “debate” between distinguished economist Helen Ladd of Duke University and charter advocate Robin Lake of the Center for Reinventing Public Education about whether charter schools were harming public schools financially. Ladd had completed a study of the amount of money that districts in North Carolina had lost to charter schools. Gates-funded CPRE exists to sell charters and portfolio districts.
Jane Nylund, an Oakland public school parent, sent the following comment to the EWA:
“As a supporter of public schools, and as a parent who has experienced firsthand the financial damage done to portfolio districts like ours in Oakland, it is disappointing but not surprising to see how the authors of this debate on financial impact to districts fail or simply ignore the fact that charter and district populations are different.
“Clearly, this debate was framed around the myth that charters do more with less, when in fact, they do less with less. District school students cost more because of higher levels of special education (which CRPE conveniently leaves out), as well as higher ELL and FRPL in many cases. District schools also provide food, transportation, after-school programs, and enrichment programs such as art, music, and sports. District schools also value wraparound services such as health clinics, on-site nursing care, psychologists, and counselors. Charter schools aren’t required to provide any of this, nor are they required to have experienced teachers to educate the neediest kids.
“So in summary, charters take the cheapest kids to educate, and then unfairly compare the cost to districts which provide many important services for ALL kids. Anecdotally, the $57M that our district has lost to the 40+ charters that have opened here has impacted our district to the point where they have decided to eliminate 50% of our sports programs that serve our district children.
“There is no debate, here. That is a fact. Please do your research next time and use a different source than CRPE if you still feel the need to “debate” the financial impact of all this disruption. CRPE is front and center of the privatization movement that has caused so much financial misery in Oakland. “Nimble” is code for school closures and teacher layoffs, so that more unaccountable charters can have our district buildings. “Sticky costs” is code for experienced teachers, which CRPE wants to classify as variable costs ala Milton Friedman.
“CRPE would like nothing more than to see “nimble” districts hire and fire cheap teaching labor at will; helps get rid of those “sticky costs”, and also to close down our schools to keep us nice and “nimble”. Going forward, impress us with a well-balanced debate complete with complete, accurate, well-documented, unbiased information. That’s a lot to ask, isn’t it?”
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
I have been called many terrible things over the years by those who seek to destroy public education. “Sticky” is a new one.
Sticky Teachers
Icky and sticky
Teachers, in schools
Tricky and kicky
Kangaroo rules
If Betsy DeVos ever calls me icky I will fly to Washington D.C., elude her million dollar a year publicly funded security team, kick her in the pants, fly back to Los Angeles, buy a big net, and catch her when she lands.
“Anecdotally, the $57M that our district has lost to the 40+ charters that have opened here has impacted our district to the point where they have decided to eliminate 50% of our sports programs that serve our district children.”
What a shame. You won’t see any of the tens of paid advocates for charters and vouchers addressing this, that’s for sure.
Because it’s the kids who attend the unfashionable public schools- the disfavored sector- so who cares, right? Their schools are being wound down anyway.
Hey, maybe one of these billionaire supported “scholarly” organizations could every once in a while put some effort towards finding out how ed reform affects kids in PUBLIC schools?
They’re all lockstep pushing “portfolio districts” in ed reform now, but before local people buy this heavily marketed product they should ask ed reformers how PUBLIC school students fare under privatization plans. Not well, it seems.
I live in Ohio. My state government has been utterly and completely dominated by ed reformers for the last 20 year. EVERY SINGLE YEAR they have been in power kids in public schools have taken a hit- on funding, on extracurriculars, on national measures of academics. It’s been 100% loss for kids in district schools. They have contributed NOTHING to the public schools in this state. They simp;y do not serve children who attend public schools.
A lot of these ed reform researchers work for PUBLIC universities. Can someone tell me why I am paying these people to come up with policy that harms my son’s public school?
If ed reform wants to eradicate existing public schools maybe they could do it on their billionaire donor’s dime instead of the public dime?
I’m now funding the anti-public school US Department of Education AND public universities who are also anti-public school.
Why do I have to pay for this? Can’t Bill Gates or the Waltons cover the cost of lobbying for privatization?
It’s ludicrous. The public is paying tens of thousands of people who are actively working AGAINST the public schools the vast majority of our kids attend.
How did this happen and why does it continue?
Yet another reason to abolish the Federal Dept of Education. Ronald Reagan promised to abolish the Dept. yet it continues.
Until annual, high stakes testing is eliminated and the U.S. DoE stops being the testing and school rating enforcement agency, I agree with you about that, Charles.
Wow! Ms. Nylund really laid it out. We need more voices like hers. She made them look like fools; it would be kinder to call them stooges.
BEST LINE: ““Clearly, this debate was framed around the myth that charters do more with less, when in fact, they do less with less.”
Agree!
Don’t ask what others have done for you, but ask what you have done for others