Wherever the charter industry gains control, they adopt (or impose) what is called a “unified enrollment system,” so that charter schools are put on an equal footing with public schools. The parents registering a choice can’t tell the difference between a privately managed charter and a genuine public school. That is the goal of UES. The unified enrollment system has been pushed hard by the Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, in hopes of putting the free market system they prefer on a firm foundation, basically locking the charters in forever.
Chalkbeat reports that Mayor Bill De Blasio, once known as a critic of charters, came close to adopting the universal enrollment system. His top aides endorsed the idea. He must have noticed because he dropped the proposal from the speech he was about to make.
Watch his aides as they push the Walton-Gates agenda of the portfolio district:
“I’d like to propose that that we offer to include charter schools in our central enrollment system,” Josh Wallack wrote in an email to several other senior officials that September.
“It’s a nice ‘tip of the cap,’” Wallack said. “It also allows us to settle, once and for all, the question of whether the charters are operating with any selection bias because all families would use exactly the same admissions process. Equity. One system.”
Common — sometimes known as “universal” — enrollment systems exist in cities from Newark to Indianapolis. Backers of the approach argue it can simplify the often complex and time-intensive process required to apply to either district or charter schools in cities that allow parents to choose among both. Streamlining the process can put parents on equal footing instead of allowing those with more time, knowledge or resources from automatically getting a leg up.
Early in de Blasio’s administration, emails show, the idea was initially met with approval from other senior officials, including Karin Goldmark, an education advisor to de Blasio who now serves as a deputy chancellor responsible for overseeing partnerships with charter schools among other programs.
Please note in the article that Chalkbeat went to charter advocates to get their views and didn’t bother to interview anyone who thought it was a terrible idea. The unified enrollment system reinforces the Corporate Reformers’ “portfolio model.” Contrary to the article’s claim, the unified system does not put parents on an equal footing, it puts charter schools on an equal footing.
Why in the world would Chalkbeat reach out to someone at the charter-friendly Center for Reinventing Education at the University of Washington in Seattle instead of talking to anyone in New York City who wants to stop the resource drain of the aggressive charter industry, which already costs New York City over $2 billion every year? Why not call Bill Gates or Alice Walton and go right to the source of the corporate takeover of public education?
I wish there were someone on the De Blasio payroll here who could clarify that there’s no evidence that De Blasio himself ever was interested in this plan, and that, indeed, that the proposal was nixed from the speech and nothing ever came of it is proof that De Blasio did not support such a plan. Anyone?
How would anyone know the answer to this? Someone threw out an idea to discuss and even if at some point de Blasio or officials in his office thought it was worth discussing, it is clear that after hearing more about the idea it was decided it would not work. (I actually like the idea because I agree with Wallack that the richest network would have screamed bloody murder if they had to stop using all their screening processes to make sure lottery winners they did not want, left the school or never enrolled.)
Obvious a universal enrollment system would not work if charter simply dumped 50% of the kids assigned to then back to into public schools after forcing them to attend lots of pre-enrollment meetings and making it clear that either their kid was wanted or would be treated like the kids on their got to go lists that were so famously revealed to be regularly used (but not called that, of course).
Probably the Mayor’s office knew that it wouldn’t work because the charters would throw back kids assigned with impunity — and if called out on it would publicly trash 5 year olds as violent instead of just admitting what Wallack wanted them to admit — that they select the kids they want and dump the rest.
So the idea, while good, doesn’t work when charters are enabled to lie with impunity to get what they want. Sort of like Kavanaugh. His claim that he and his buddies were being extra nice to Renate reminds me of so many of Eva Moskowitz’ blatant lies.
EdCo coming soon to further separate communities from the democratic process. CAP’s Ulrich Boser, “Addressing…Gap…”, June 20, 2018, writes that “RPP’s need infrastructure”. Legislation was introduced in Maryland to achieve it.
“EdCo could be funded by private groups….”. No surprise, it’s all about “leveraging” i.e. loss of control of community schools through another layer in the state capitol, a layer without any accountability to the community where students of the middle class and poor attend schools and where their parents pay taxes for their schools and contribute to GDP. It’s one more win for America’s unproductive, leeching oligarchy.
Thanks for the info. I’ve been wondering about the Kirwin commission and it’s purpose? The Kirwin report is always calling for more money to be spent on education and then the Gov. turns around and says he is already fully funding education. Many mixed messages in a wealthy, tax heavy state that has many crumbling school buildings. But never fear, Common Chore and PARCC will save us all! Those test scores will balloon every child out of poverty and into a 21st Century McJob (sarcasm).
McJob- I like the term.
Unfortunately there are few (none?) elected officials of color who are publically critical of charters, and high profile legislators of color who support charters (Booker), probably because they fear charter dollars supporting opponents – BTW, Ben Jealous, the former NAACP, is the dem running for governor in Maryland in a hotly contested race, is he publicaaly opposed to charters?
I live in MD and I will vote Jealous because he is a Dem and I am really tired of our mini me Chris Christy…Gov Hogan. Jealous doesn’t say much about education except to fund it with legalizing marijuana… but his mother was a public school teacher? We have a really strange relationship with the Charter industry here in MD and I think it’s because we have a very strong teacher’s union. The Charters here are governed by an elected and appointed school board I believe?
Excellent expose of “liberal” NYC friendly to the billionaires, thank you. Deblasio could have appointed Educ officers who would not schmooze with charters. Very hard to hold so-called “progressive” Democrats like DeBlasio to account once they are elected.
It would be easier to get rid of Dem, privatizers and corporatizers if the misnamed and mislabeled Center for American Progress wasn’t on the map.
Bernie was instrumental in getting the $15 per hour from Bezos. Where was the Dem establishment?
a sadly oft-repeated question for decades now, WHERE WAS THE DEM ESTABLISHMENT
This post shows the power of the charter lobby in New York. Since 2015 the political climate has changed, and more regular voters are opposed to charters because they now understand that “choice” is just a marketing tool. The real agenda is privatization and destruction of public education. It is going to take a lot of informed voters to weaken the impact of the wealthy charter lobby.
Am I the only one who sees Josh Wallack’s e-mail as saying “I’d like to call out the lies of the charter schools — let’s call their bluff with a universal enrollment system”.
““I’d like to propose that that we offer to include charter schools in our central enrollment system,” Josh Wallack wrote in an email to several other senior officials that September.
“It’s a nice ‘tip of the cap,’” Wallack said. “It also allows us to settle, once and for all, the question of whether the charters are operating with any selection bias because all families would use exactly the same admissions process. Equity. One system.”
Wallack wants to do this because he KNOWS that charter schools are blatantly lying that there is no selection bias and insisting that they enroll exactly the same students as public schools do.
Readers are missing the point. The most powerful charter network in NYC would never allow this because their charter DEPENDS on selection bias and having a dumping ground for the many students who win seats and mysteriously end up at different schools, either before BEDS day in October or during the next years.
If the enrollment was universal, how would it cope with half of one charter’s assigned students appearing before the DOE to announce that they were “nicely” encouraged to take their child elsewhere.
Wallack suggested a system to SETTLE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CHARTERS ARE OPERATING WITH ANY SELECTION BIAS.
They were calling the charters’ bluff. I wish they would have done it. I would have liked to see how a big charter network addresses getting randomly assigned kids whose parents they can’t bully into leaving .
It is perfectly possible to have selection bias with a universal enrollment system. Exhibit A: New Orleans.
New Orleans was set up by people who were promoting charters.
The suggestion in NYC was to have universal enrollment in order “to settle, once and for all, the question of whether the charters are operating with any selection bias because all families would use exactly the same admissions process. Equity. One system.”
As an idea, it is certainly something worth exploring since charter CEOs in NYC are always lying about teaching exactly the same students found in failing public schools and welcoming every single kid assigned there.
Perhaps the reason that it was never pursued is that like normal, respectful people who believe in public education, they looked closely at the pros and cons and decided that it probably would not serve the purpose it was intended to serve — which was to make sure charters didn’t cherry pick or at least force them to stop lying that they welcome every student.
Remember that universal enrollment means that the DOE assigns new students to you as you have spots. A charter would no longer be allowed to give students a pre-test and refuse to give them a seat in their rightful grade. Attrition seats filled with students sent from the DOE, not the kids you want to fill them with.
“New Orleans was set up by people who were promoting charters.”
And you’re assuming that NYC is not? You’re assuming that they really are trying to “to settle, once and for all, the question of whether the charters are operating with any selection bias because all families would use exactly the same admissions process.”?
You don’t think that other charter-friendly actions on the part of the NYC DOE bely that claim?
The problem with deBlasio’s Department of Education is that he never cleaned house. Most of the high-level officials are holdovers from the Bloomberg-Klein regime. Under the surface is a strong strata of Reformers.
dienne77,
I have a kid in the NYC public schools and I have followed the issues surrounding charter and public schools as closely as I can, beginning with Bloomberg’s DOE. I know quite a few parents whose kids are in charters. And I voted for de Blasio in the primary because he was the only Democrat who was actually speaking the truth about what was clear to anyone looking closely. (Just like Clinton was the only national Democrat or Independent who ever publicly stated that charters push out students and don’t teach the exact same students.)
I am not looking for a politician to go out of their way to intentionally harm the students in charters. That would be unconscionable and I support de Blasio for not letting politics get in the way of doing what is right.
Where de Blasio is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Mayor Bloomberg is that he is not FAVORING charters. He is giving them the very least that he is legally obligated by the state to give them in a way that seems to do the least harm to as few public school students as possible.
And it is clear to me that his DOE has tried unsuccessfully to get the media to accept what most of us who read Diane Ravitch already know it true — charters in NYC cherry pick kids and the ones that cherry pick the most have the highest state test scores.
While you probably believe this is obvious, I can tell you that as someone who regularly reads coverage of NYC charters and public schools that it is never reported as true. In fact, it is generally reported like this by NY Times, NY Daily News, and the rest of the NYC media:
“Critics like the teachers union (who obviously hate every charter who doesn’t use union teachers) claim without any evidence whatsoever that charters don’t teach the same students as public schools but charters deny this and insist that they have 99% passing rates teaching exactly the same students found in failing public schools.”
I don’t know if universal enrollment is the answer in NYC, but I do know that with universal enrollment charters would have to teach every student whose parent put them first — every single one. Because in NYC, if you get your first choice school, the school can’t dump you because you aren’t their first choice student.
In case there is any doubt, unified enrollment will help charter schools and hurt public schools. Let’s hope Mayor deB understands this and doesn’t let it happen. Those who proposed it need a tutorial and I will be glad to give it to them.
If the charter lobby were given the green light to sign up students freely, they would go door to door and use any tactic possible to entice parents to sign up their children. It would be a smash and grab for charters, and the public schools would suffer.
?? That’s not how universal enrollment in NYC works. You rank choices and get assigned.
And yes, charters already try to sign up students freely to enter the lottery! They want the numbers! And then they “freely” make sure the ones who they don’t want to teach are sent packing. You can’t do that with universal enrollment because those kids are now the charters’ responsibility. That is the point.
Universal enrollment does not prevent charters from pushing out the students they don’t want.
UES benefits charters, not students.
Diane,
I don’t know about other cities, but I am familiar with how universal enrollment works in New York and I could see where it MIGHT actually work at Wallack hoped — to call charters’ bluffs that they welcome all students.
Here is how it works. You rank your choices for your child. You get assigned based on various preferences.
And the parents who get their very first choice are the ones who are least able to “voluntarily change their mind” and get a different assignment. In other words, if you have ranked a school as your top choice and get it, you are at the very bottom of the list for transfer because the DOE’s priority is to move the students who did NOT get their very first choice.
See where the bluff is called? It would be impossible for SA to dump a bunch of students — especially in the pre-enrollment meetings — without their bad practices being revealed because those parents can’t leave if SA was their top choice. And if half of them tried to leave after winning their first choice seat, the lies that charters want every student would be easily revealed.
The notorious “we dump kids but say we don’t” charters want to market to have tens of thousand of students but do not actually want to teach many of those students they market to whose parents wanted them as their first choice. And they have used some truly abhorrent practices (which the NAACP report documented) to make sure those among them they don’t want to teach leave.
But with universal enrollment, those charters would have to teach the students placed there because their parents would not be able to suddenly transfer to a different school if they got their very first choice but their first choice didn’t want to teach them.
I suspect that the DOE realized that the charters would probably use some other workaround to dump students, but I sort of wish that they would have done this because many of the worst practices of the most reprehensible charters would have been revealed.
And I really don’t understand why having a discussion about whether including charters in the universal enrollment practice would stop the most reprehensible dumping practices of charters or not is such a big deal. Those are exactly the discussions I hope every DOE in America is having. What things can be done by the public school system to call out the lies of the charters that are doing so much damage to the students in public schools?
And charters still retain the power to kick out the kids they don’t want.
Wallace was deceived.Reformers everywhere push for UES because it presents charters and public schools as exactly the same. This sounds like a trick. If the Waltons and Gates want it so badly, why should NYC adopt their plan?
I don’t think the NYC DOE should adopt the Walton/Gates plan.
I am just pointing out that having the DOE discuss ways that could force charters to teach the same kids and show their dumping of kids for what it is seems like a good idea.
Presumably the discussion found that this would not work as planned and charters would still dump kids. But a DOE-run universal enrollment system (where the DOE is not giving charters a special advantage) would certainly result in a more fair distribution of students in charters than the current system.
Remember, one of the charters’ big marketing lines is “we have xxxx thousands of students on the wait list”. But with universal enrollment, that so-called “wait list” number for one of their schools would look tiny compared to the numbers of students on wait lists for public schools (i.e. they ranked a public school anywhere on their list and did not get a seat). With universal enrollment, much of the charter propaganda would be revealed as exactly what it is — dishonest.
I’m not talking about other cities but only NYC where extremely rich charters already have an incredibly unfair advantage and are outrageously dishonest in the claims they make. Perhaps Wallack’s idea would not have called their bluff, but I don’t see how making sure that students with higher needs were randomly assigned to their school and could not be sent away if it was their first choice would make what is already happening any worse.
My kids attend DOE schools, so I received their brochure at the beginning of the year. I was surprised at how lengthy the charter section was and the emphasis on communicating that any family is eligible to apply to any charter school. This article explains that.
I wonder why there is a charter office at the DOE, given that they don’t have oversight over charters.
On the subway the other day a woman with two girls in Success Academy outfits entered the car. The (presumably) mother asked one of the girls if they had watched videos that day. Turns out from what I overheard is that not all the teaching positions at the Upper West Success Academy are filled (not a surprise) and that in some classes the kids watch videos. This family was white. Given that white families in NYC have more choices than others, it was surprising to me that a parent would tolerate such a situation or ignore the obvious red flag. I know white SA parents are weird, but I just don’t get it.
My previous comment explains what happened. Carmen Farina never cleaned house and many Kleinbergs were left in charge.
Middle class families are fawned over at Success Academy. There are special elementary schools just for them where the majority of the students are NOT disadvantaged. Those are the parents who were so upset when their kids got to a SA middle school that was led by a principal who trained in a high poverty Success Academy. They complained their kids were traumatized by the treatment and even experiencing “meltdowns” (fyi, “meltdowns” are what affluent kids have, “acting out violently” is what poor kids have at SA.)
In other words, those parents’ children are wanted at Success Academy and they get treated like students who the school wants to teach, not like students the school wants out of there.
@NYC public school parent I see your point. As a parent though, I have difficulty understanding why this situation would not cause alarm. Leaving a classroom vacant in September and having the kids watch videos would not happen in a DOE school.
Charters and vouchers = JIM CROW
You are right, Yvonne. That’s why the racist Georgia Gov. Talmadge introduced a privatization plan.