This article in Chalkbeat, sad to say, illustrates the inherent bias of a publication funded by the charter industry’s magnates.
Here are the facts: Charter Schools in New York State derived their political power from their alliance with hedge fund managers, Wall Street, the Republican Party, and Governor Cuomo (who relies on hedge fund managers and Wall Street for campaign contributions). In the midterms, the Republican Party and a group of Democrats who voted with the Republicans in the State Senate, were ousted.
Consequently, the Assembly and the State Senate will be controlled by progressive Democrats who are opposed to charter schools. In other words, the charter sector benefitted financially by their partnership with reactionary Republicans (and a half dozen Democrats who voted as if they were Republicans).
So Chalkbeat gives its readers an article posing the dilemma of “progressive charter leaders,” who don’t want to suffer because of their longstanding success at working with the Republicans who lost.
The article doesn’t explain in what ways these charters are “progressive.” Are they non-union, like most charters? Are they integrated? Do they take the kids with the greatest needs? Or are they just lobbying to keep a modicum of power in Albany?
The article uncritically states that there is a “waiting list” of 80,000. Where did that number come from? Was it audited? By whom? Or was it simply manufactured to claim a need that may or may not exist?
The new class of state senators ran against Democrats and Republicans who were funded by the charter lobby. The new Democratic leader of the State Senate is Andrea Stewart-Cousins. She was the target of a vile, racist attack last year by billionaire Daniel S. Loeb, who at the time was chair of the board of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain. He said Senator Stewart-Cousins, who is African-American, had done “more damage to people of color than anyone who has ever donned a hood.”
Charter schools aligned themselves with the Trump-DeVos-Walton-Koch view of school choice. Elections have consequences.
Journalists should strive to avoid advocacy. That’s the realm of the editorial and opinion pages. Not journalists.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I posted this comment on the Chalkbeat piece.
“Left-leaning charter supporters” is an oxymoron, because charter schools are a right-wing operation based on far-right, free-market principles, promoted by right-wing billionaires and the huge right-wing think tanks.
Charter supporters who may otherwise claim to be left-wing are promoting that right-wing operation, presumably because their principles are for sale.
The education “reform” sector has worked very hard over the years to portray right-wing, free-market ideas (privatization, freedom from regulation, and hostility to unions — especially female-dominated unions) as liberal/progressive. For decades, the
so-called education “reform” sector has made a great conspicuous point of hiring people with Democratic party credentials — dating back to the late ’90s, when once-hailed,
now-fizzled for-profit Edison Schools loudly trumpeted having hired executives who had worked in the Clinton administration; once-hailed, now-obscure Parent Revolution did the same thing; it was always conspicuously pointed out that once-hailed, now-vanished Michelle Rhee was a Democrat; the privatization-pushing Democrats for Education Reform is a right-wing operation that strategically chose to put “Democrats” in its name for that deceptive reason; and on and on. (Can anyone think of other right-wing ideas that are so carefully and cunningly packaged that way?)
Responsible, ethical journalism would not help promote that massive lie — misleading the reader is a mortal sin in journalism. Also, responsible, ethical journalism does not quote PR hype like “80,000 students on waiting lists” as though it were G*d’s received wisdom.
LikeLike
Your comments are always so spot on. Thank you.
There are some charter CEOs who probably run their charters in a somewhat more “progressive” manner, but who have remained silent about the exaggerations and outright lies of the most prominent and powerful charters. They are terrified to criticize them and would far prefer getting the crumbs thrown their way than to incur the wrath.
In that way, those so-called “progressive” charter leaders are — at best — similar to Jeff Flake and more likely to be like Susan Collins. They will talk a good game as long as it doesn’t interfere with the powerful people whose largesse they depend on. Because when the choice is throwing kids under the bus so they can get what they want, those “progressive” leaders always manage to convince themselves that as long as they can help a few kids, whatever happens to the many others who are harmed by their intentional silence doesn’t matter. Ultimately, when push comes to shove, so-called “progressive” charter CEOs value their own salaries over the well-being of most children.
LikeLike
Thanks Caroline for replying at Chalkbeat. A huge factor in media making the false claim about charter schools having progressive support is linked to Podesta’s Bill Gates-funded Center for American Progress. The politician that CAP gave the most money to was Corey Booker. When Z-berg wanted to get involved in politics, Sheryl Sandberg recommended he contact CAP. Recent news reports show Facebook hired a firm of Republican operatives, whose sister organization stated its strength, crafting” the most negative narrative against Democrats”.
Wolves in sheep’s clothing.
LikeLike
It’s funny because Chalkbeat is really THE BEST of the various ed reform-funded outlets, in my opinion.
They are the only one that even approaches being “unbiased” – the bar is REALLY low 🙂
LikeLike
Seth Andrew states,”“My belief is that we need long-term organizing and grassroots movement building to help elected officials understand why school choice and school quality should be core progressive and democratic values.”
If this guy truly understood democracy, he would understand that privatization has nothing to do with progressive and democratic values. He needs a reality check. Privatization suppresses democratic input and places power in the hands of the corporate structure. There is nothing progressive about choice. He should look at the research. All choice systems result in the interests of a few taking priority over the needs of many. Choice systems are unfair to the majority of students resulting in increased segregation. Choice systems undermine the the authentic democratic schools that serve all students. Charters use the public schools a a dumping ground for those that are more expensive or difficult to educate. Choice is all about corporations having the choice, not families and students.
Basically, the article points out that these people will continue to bribe politicians to expand their agenda. Parents should countermand the impact of this cash by visiting politicians frequently and let them know they will be held accountable for their actions.
LikeLike
Hmm, “progressive charter leaders?”
That’s an oxymoron, up there with “business ethics.”
LikeLike
The line between “news” and “opinion” has become fuzzy, it’s all about “clicks,” and editors need clicks, the Democratic led legislature has to decide what actions to take in regard to charter schools, I offer some suggestions: https://mets2006.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/democrats-rule-will-the-democrats-pass-a-moratorium-on-the-creation-of-new-charter-schools/
LikeLike
“Progressive Charter Leaders” is an OXYMORON.
LikeLike
Ditto Michael Fiorillo and Yvonne: Scary times when, after years and years of anti-reform activism, it still feels like so few people can SEE the glaring oxymoron of those words: “progressive charter leaders…”
LikeLike
“The article uncritically states that there is a “waiting list” of 80,000. Where did that number come from?”
That number probably came from the same place that Trump gets all of his FAKE facts, the Alt-Right lying, conspiracy theory, misleading media machine.
LikeLike
A charter chain operator in Michigan stated that the reason most charters close is lack of enrollment.
LikeLike
Diane,
This might be interesting to you:
Should the US Constitution guarantee a right to education?
AUTHOR
Jessica Campisi
PUBLISHED
Nov. 30, 2018
While most countries make education a constitutional right — and in some cases, a mandate — the United States doesn’t. Almost all states, The Atlantic reported, have filed educational equity suits, and in Rhode Island, a new class-action lawsuit being filed by 14 public school students and parents accuses the state of failing to give people the tools they need to exercise their constitutional rights.
Because education isn’t explicitly stated as a U.S. constitutional right, the plaintiffs argue students’ 14th Amendment rights are violated because they aren’t prepared for citizenship and civic duties like voting, The New York Times reported — and unlike some other states, Rhode Island doesn’t include any civics or citizenship education in its curriculum frameworks.
All 50 states guarantee the creation of a public education system in their constitutions, but some argue that as a result, factors like the amount of public school funding and quality of education vary significantly at the local level, depending on where a student lives. It’s an ongoing battle that’s more than 40 years old, and with the potential to reach the Supreme Court, it could have major implications for education in America.
Dive Insight:
While the current battleground for this argument is set in Rhode Island, similar fights have gone on around the country for decades. In the 1970s, a group of mainly Latino, low-income Texas parents filed a lawsuit arguing that a number of districts in the San Antonio area, like the Edgewood Independent School District, didn’t get the same funding as other nearby, affluent, mostly white districts like Alamo Heights. They said this violated the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote that it didn’t agree. In its decision, the court also ruled that in challenging school finance formulas, the equal protection clause can’t be used.
The San Antonio parents didn’t win their suit, but at the state level, others have. In 1995, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that all children in the state are guaranteed the opportunity for a “sound basic education.” And some are still fighting: In Michigan, a case filed in 2016 claims the state denied students in Detroit from learning to read and argues for a right to literacy.
While these issues are broad and overarching, they affect local school leaders and administrators in every state. Inequity is a hotly debated topic in today’s education sector. The achievement gap is alive and well, with students of color in low-poverty schools still behind their white, higher-income peers. And some results show racial gaps aren’t just staying stagnant — in some areas, they’re widening.
Prioritizing district practices that aid low-income students and students of color is one step to addressing the achievement gap. Research-based strategies — including personalized instruction, mental health resources, racially diverse teachers and responding to trauma — are among the practices experts recommend to help bridge this gap. Outside the classroom, non-discriminatory discipline policies and implicit bias training for teachers and staff members is helpful to ensure students are treated equally and fairly.
Some also argue that forcing students to attend a school based on their zip code lends itself to segregation, and while this kind of policy doesn’t change overnight, teachers who act as advocates can help spur the changes they want to see in education.
Recommended Reading:
The Atlantic
The Lawsuit That’s Claiming a Constitutional Right to Educationoffsite link
The New York Times
Are Civics Lessons a Constitutional Right? These Students Are Suing for Themoffsite link
LikeLike
The pretense that concern for the poor drives ed deform- how original (sarcasm).
Read the post and comments related to Pondiscio’s im”moral ground”.
LikeLike