Carl Cohn is one of the most respected figures in American education. He is a problem solver who has been superintendent in several districts in California. He won many plaudits for his leadership in Long Beach. I met him when he was superintendent in San Diego, which was probably the first urban district to be subjected to a heavy, concentrated dose of what was called “reform,” in the late 1990s, early 2000s. Cohn was called in, to clean up the demoralization left behind by top-down leaders who arrived with a script. In my 2010 book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, I devoted a chapter to the colossal failure of “reform” in SD. I interviewed Cohn and was pleasantly surprised by his candor and insight. Talking to him reassured me that my reactions were on target.
In this post, he urges the reform of California’s charter law.
He does not lay out a menu of what is needed, but he points to some genuine problems.
Note that one of the members of Tony Thurmond’s Task Force rejected Cohn’s request for some relief from the law. That would be Margaret Fortune, Chair of the Board of the California Charter School Association, which lobbies to protect the status quo.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Too bad Margaret Fortune can’t find a “real” job.
Diane I think even the term “reform” is Orwellian doublespeak when used by the charter industry.
Briefly, the fox presently in the hen-house of education was invited in because it recognized the real need for real reform; it put on that costume, pretending that its only interest is: what’s good for the children (and in some individual cases, it fits real need and then shouts about it all day long). Along the way, it hides its real long-term intent–until either they kill public education and democracy, OR until “the people” GET IT.
WE WANT AUTHENTIC REFORM of public schools; but we don’t want to kill public schools and give them over to corporate interests who take advantage of that authentic need for their own low purposes. We need to find a way to recapture the idea of reform and put the truth of reform back into the narrative that the public hears. Diane, you are doing that (bless you); but we should NOT use the term “reform” to define the charter industry. At least we should say “so-called reform.” But more also.
For instance, the article refers to a popular sports figure who genuinely wanted to help disadvantaged kids; who saw the need for real reform; and who looked to charter schools as the way to help.
The point to calling REFORM doublespeak is that YES, he recognized the real need for reform. But NO, not THAT way. And so the “reform movement” saw an opportunity they couldn’t resist. And of course, “kill public schools,” along with voter suppression, is not-so-sublty related to “kill democracy.”
And so the charter industry now owns the term “REFORM” that, when heard by parents, voters, and even some legislators who don’t yet know what’s “in the mix,” is understood as innocuous at best, and as an excellent idea! at worst–precisely because everyone knows that, at best, public education and teaching are not up-to-speed in many districts across the nation (and indeed need reform in many ways–and from my experience, are doing a good job of it in most if not all cases–even under the raft of current pressures they are up against); . . .
. . . but, at worst, the long-term drumbeat about “failing schools” has done it’s job of propagandizing the public, of hoarding the narrative and stifling public understanding . . . so that the CHARTER INDUSTRY NOW OWNS the whole idea of REFORM as a good thing when, IN FACT, THEY ARE the ones who are FAILING. But along with ownership of the term reform, the idea that public education is BAD permeates . . . and that those who continue to support public education are merely being “nostalgic” for the bad-old-days and ways; They just don’t like change . . . blah, blah, blah. . . . .
Under that narrative, however, public-school and teacher-voice advocates are ANTI-REFORM–because we don’t own a part of that idea in an intentionally corrupted narrative.
Whereas, in fact, under the charter industries’ idea, REFORM actually means chopping education-in- America away from its authentic root in the democratic ideal–and away from anything truly public (and the racism and other ism’s that underpin it, like the article’s example of turning public education into a forum for religious ideology. AND it means corporate/private creating and/or takeover of institutions of education by the profit-making principle, often under the GUISE of public-private partnership, which again, is corporate doublespeak for” “We want to own it, pay for it with public funds, and rescind completely from qualified public oversight, save the ones that have been bought-and-paid for.”
Of course (and this may be a bit over-simplified for brevity) the underlying principle is that business people can do everything better; “BETTER” means: the first principle is to make money for stockholders and CEO’s; and the far “second” is truly-educate children in democracy; and that, if a business doesn’t make money, then it’s a failure.
The GRAND OVERSIGHT is that, at best, a tension between capitalism and democracy that turns into a conflict when one or the other becomes predatory, and that educating children at either end of the spectrum (K-12 to what adults do with their lives) is not merely about serving financial ends aka: making money.
Capitalist principles are only good principles when they also serve the greater public and the higher principles that keep that public strong. CBK
“The GRAND OVERSIGHT is that, at best, a tension between capitalism and democracy that turns into a conflict when one or the other becomes predatory,”
I don’t understand that statement. How can democracy become “predatory”? Unless by that you mean the tyranny of the majority. Please explain. Thanks!
Duane E Swacker The dialectical tension of the extremes is between COMPLETE socialism, and COMPLETE capitalism. The below is really too brief; but if we are going to keep capitalism (and I think we should) those who “own” and direct it need to know its tensional place in the context of the good of “the people” ALL of us; a higher cultural order than merely “the shopping public or other corporations,” and a **Constitutional law-abiding Democracy/Republic that supports it. Here’s a bit of background:
“Democracy” turns into socialism as seeded in ideas like the “tyranny of the majority” and where the so-called majority is tyrannical, self-serving in the its lowest meaning, and politically smart but really stupid in the long run (e.g., Stalin in the Soviet Socialist Republic). Here, the horror of (democratic/socialistic) chaos requires a savior! ready and willing, in the form of the oligarch class and their capitalism-saturated me-first souls; and where fascism comes forward in the guise of whatever name is popular at the time (remember that “facism” takes on the sheep-clothing of ANY language). Presently, the smell of fascism is heavy, indeed, in Trumpism.
But the ideas that form whatever instantiation of democracy abides (tending towards socialism, not in the extreme, but potentially in a right tension with capitalism) come into direct conflict with predatory capitalism INSOFAR as, in a democracy that is not yet completely socialistic, the social and cultural orders do need financial support.
But if PUBLIC funding doesn’t support what is truly public (as in public spaces, education, the arts, or health , none of which make money directly for their own support, and aren’t supposed to) then in a NARROW view of capitalism (if your program doesn’t support itself financially, and doesn’t make money for its CEO and stockholders), then it’s a failure.
So under PREDATORY capitalism (predatory OF democratic/public ideas and institutions), anything deemed public (and rightly so under democratic/republican principles) is a failure and should NOT be supported or even exist, SAVE by our own oligarchs who, in turn, and even when well-meaning, don’t recognize the shadow of Stalin and/or Hitler and who want to make $$-making businesses out of heretofore public institutions and, BTW, who want personally to control the narrative and the curriculum. Too brief, . . . but neither extreme is good for anyone, nor sustainable. CBK
Thanks for your explanation, Catherine!
I think the tyranny we have to fear the most is the tyranny of a minority group like Neo-Nazis and/or the Turmpists.
The United States has the third largest population in the world after China and India but is also ranked the 4th or 5th most educated country in the world.
I think we can trust the majority of the American population not to give in to tyranny and mob rule.
In fact, today, that threat is not coming from the majority of Americans. It is coming mostly from uneducated white men who are over the age of fifty, and they do not represent the majority of Americans.
And that can be easily verified by just looking at the RCP Pole Average that shows Trump’s approval rate is 44 percent vs 52.9 percent.
Donald Trump has never been supported by the majority of Americans. Just click the link and scroll down to the chart that goes back to January 2017.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
I read Carl Cohn’s article — he makes some excellent points and he does seem like a thoughtful educator who believed in the original promise of charters and then saw for himself how the promoters of charters lost their way. I was a little taken aback about his story about approving a charter operated by a former NFL star. He mentions that he wondered about how it could be overseen 500 miles away and when he drove by he saw a religious banner draped in front of the school, but Cohn’s “tut tut” in that instance sounded just like Susan Collins when she “tut tuts” something awful the Republicans do that she has earlier given her approval of by claiming she thought it would be good. I didn’t see any real desire to do anything but provide “better oversight” for those kinds of good public charters that progressives keep supporting.
One of my favorite posters on here – especially when it comes to California issues – is carolinesf and it was great to read another brilliant comment on the edsource page that published Cohn’s article. Hopefully she will forgive me for re-posting it:
CarolineSF:
“I wonder what people would say if they heard this proposal: Our public transit systems are troubled, so let’s create a setup where anyone can apply to run a parallel system or part of a system. They’ll just have to go through an application process that requires minimal qualifications (and they can copy a template application provided by billionaire-funded pro-privatization organizations). They will get public funding that’s drained away from the municipal transit system, which will have almost no ability to reject the proposal. The municipal transit system will be required to give them buses. There will be some minimal regulation, but they’ll be proudly free of “burdensome bureaucratic regulations.” They’ll get minimal oversight and have maximum political clout, so they can largely run their privatized but publicly funded transit routes any way they want. They can serve whom they want and kick whomever they want off their transit system with no repercussions. Also, the billionaire-funded pro-privatization organizations will mount a huge ongoing promotion for them based on bashing the publicly run transit system and blaming all opposition on greedy unions, and politicians across the spectrum and media will take up that cry.
Or let’s make this police departments. Or park systems.
Clearly this wasn’t what Sen. Hart and other early supporters intended.”
END quote.
Thank you CarolineSF!
Until we have any progressive leaders who are willing to make these arguments about why even “good public charters” should not be embraced and given outsize resources to teach whoever they choose to teach, we will continue to have these kind of Susan Collins-like “tut tuts” by Cohn and progressive political leaders who are ultimately unwilling to point out what is wrong with “good public charters”.
While there are probably 10 candidates in the Democratic primary who I prefer, I would welcome Bill de Blasio as another primary candidate IF he makes public education and the hypocritical progressive support for the DFER agenda his main issue in the campaign. Remember, the candidates so far have been offering only the same platitudes that we can read in every DFER mission statement. They all want ” to restore the promise that every child, regardless of his or her background, has a right to a high-quality public education.” So does DFER.
The question has always been HOW that is done and whether “good charter schools” with oversight from people whose only agenda is to see them succeed is what a progressive candidate for President should be supporting. This primary needs a candidate who forces the other candidates to take a stance. Otherwise the entire campaign will be listening to candidates offering more platitudes that basically give progressive endorsements to almost everything DFER stands for.
When de Blasio declares, there will be a huge groundswell to make the guy who made universal pre-k a reality in NYC into a laughingstock (while Mayor Pete gets treated legitimately). That groundswell will be helped by the DFER-supporting propaganda mavens whose main goal since 2013 has been to undermine the Mayor who wouldn’t give an anti-public school charter CEO the run of the DOE the way Bloomberg did.
But if de Blasio forces a discussion of public education that forces other progressive candidates in the primary to criticize DFER instead of lending the movement their progressive credibility, it would be an excellent thing for the Democrats. If de Blasio’s entry forces a real discussion instead of platitudes, then it is far more likely that the winning candidate — whether it is Bernie, Warren, Harris or some yet to declare candidate — will have to stand up to DFER as well as CAP, and that would be a very good thing for public schools.
NYCPSP,
Thanks for posting that great letter by CarolineSF.
I once shared your enthusiasm about Bill DeBlasio but my love has turned to like.
He stood strong against charters during his first election, then the millionaires thrashed him and got a law requiring the city to give free space for charters orpay their private rent. Since losing that battle in 2014, his opposition has disappeared and he turned into a doormat for Eva and the charter lobby. He did nothing to replace the BloomKlein protégés who ran the DOE. They are still there. Honestly I no longer know what he stands for.
I would not describe my perspective of Bill de Blasio as “enthusiasm.” I simply have been a close observer of what has happened in NYC public education from the perspective of a parent who just goes where the facts lead. I don’t have any agenda except the truth. And the reason I like CarolineSF’s posts is because I notice she always goes where the facts lead her without trying to make them fit some agenda. I aspire to be like her.
I don’t agree that “his opposition has disappeared and he turned into a doormat for Eva and the charter lobby” – that characterization just doesn’t describe what I have witnessed and every reporting of facts that I have seen. And I like to look up old news stories to remind me of the facts that other people seem to have forgotten or look at data on the NYSED website if I hear something that doesn’t sound correct.
I readily acknowledge that de Blasio went from strongly criticizing charters to being quiet about them. But that doesn’t mean that he turned into a doormat. In early 2014, Albany forced de Blasio to provide free space to charters (helped by the complete silence of progressive NYC politicians who did not stand up for public schools). In October 2014, the SUNY Charter Institute awarded 14 new charters to Success Academy. By my count, in over 4 years, only 6 new SA elementary schools have opened – and one of them is in the $60 million+ space that Moskowitz purchased. Moskowitz has continued to throw regular temper tantrums since then because she hasn’t been given all that she wanted — something that was never a problem under Bloomberg. And I suspect getting everything she wants won’t be a problem under the next Mayor who will have to come from the legion of NYC politicians from progressives to conservatives who are terrified to criticize Moskowitz. I’ve yet to see one who has stood up to Moskowitz at all, let alone thwarted her the way de Blasio has managed to do despite having almost no power over charters.
“Honestly I no longer know what he stands for.” I look at public schools when Bloomberg left and today and I see everything de Blasio stands for. Universal pre-k. Charter growth being contained even while progressive politicians repeat the DFER talking points about restoring “the promise that every child, regardless of his or her background, has a right to a high-quality public education” and sitting next to Cuomo praising his education policies.
I originally wrote a much too long post about the de Blasio changes I liked and disliked. But he actually fought hard to enact the ones he believed in like universal pre-k and ending stop and frisk. I like that de Blasio was willing to fight for risky policies that – had they failed – would have been jumped on and attacked exactly as his “failed” Renewal program was attacked. Yes, there were problems in the execution of the program — like almost all new programs — but instead of supporting changes to it, everyone simply demanded it be ended as some major failure. Finally we have a Mayor fighting to keep public schools open and address some of the non-education needs of the most disadvantaged kids, and no one stood up for the good it was doing because bashing the Mayor seems to be the one thing NYers from all political stripes can agree on. Just like bashing HRC became a sport. Focus only on the bad.
I’m tired of progressive politicians who are all talk and no action being given passes for their worst moments while a progressive politician like de Blasio – who has actually made this city a lot better than it was under Bloomberg – is ONLY defined by his worst moments. He has not been perfect. But he has been as good a Mayor as I have seen since 1985. And yet he is covered by the media as if he has been a failure. Progressives claim he sold out to the right wing, right wingers tell the public he is a tool of the far left, and everyone agrees he is totally inept. You’d think NYC had ended stop and frisk and crime had gone sky high. You’d think NYC had tried to enact universal pre-k and 60,000 4 year olds were still at home watching tv all day. You’d think that the DOE had made absolutely no effort whatsoever to integrate schools and still had policies that were nearly the same as Bloomberg’s. Mayor de Blasio gets attacked for not doing anything about segregation and attacked because he is ruining schools because he is doing something about segregation. He gets attacked for being the lapdog of the teachers union and attacked for being the lapdog of billionaire charter promoters. And despite the non-stop criticism he is still actually changing things. Middle schools in District 15 are going to look different than they did last year.
I happen to find it refreshing to see a Democrat actually willing to do something other than talk a lot. This city is better for it, even if in my perfect world I might have hoped for more.
And I don’t see any NYC progressive politician who might run for Mayor next election who isn’t much worse than de Blasio in terms of education. All they do is mouth platitudes. They won’t rock the boat and they certainly won’t criticize any of the “good public charters” that are beloved of the progressive movement. And I’d love to be proven wrong by one of them in 2021. I don’t see any sign that will happen.
My favorite de Blasio moment was when he and his wife went to bowl and eat at all the places the Ebola doctor had been the day before he was diagnosed. That showed me the kind of person he was. There was absolutely no political upside to that — which was clear from Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie’s entirely “finger in the wind” attempt to look “strong” by feeding the panic. Like the Renewal program issues, any further Ebola cases would have been used against de Blasio, to undermine him as a foolish and dangerous Mayor willing to endanger the public. But de Blasio did it anyway. Because it was the right thing to do, just like ending stop and frisk was the right thing to do. Just like he is trying to do something with integration.
We need more progressive politicians willing to risk their political careers to do what they think is right, even if with 20/20 hindsight that policy doesn’t work perfectly or has some unintended negative effect. That’s what Republicans do. It’s the only way to accomplish things. And I see de Blasio doing that. I sure haven’t seen anything but lots of talk from everyone else.
Disclaimer: I’m not supporting de Blasio in the primary (if he does run). But I hope he forces the other candidates to show some political courage when it comes to K-12 education so they stop mouthing DFER rhetoric and start taking real stands supporting real public schools.
The progressives running for President should be saying what CarolineSF wrote. I fail to understand why they are not.
NYC public school parent writes: “He (Cohn) mentions that he wondered about how it could be overseen 500 miles away and when he drove by he saw a religious banner draped in front of the school, but Cohn’s ‘tut tut’ in that instance sounded just like Susan Collins when she ‘tut tuts’ something awful the Republicans do that she has earlier given her approval of by claiming she thought it would be good.”
As I think you are also saying, I’m not claiming Cohn’s article or attitude are full-throated by any means, nor is the sports figure. I do think both Cohn’s article and his example point up how thinking and responsibility (or lack of it) actually work. Both Cohn and his sports guy probably mirror, so to speak, where many parents and local administrators are–they want to trust their officials, they hear the bells and whistles, and even if they begin to realize the depth of the problem, they still don’t know how to recognize or decode the double-speak of bad actors.
I think Diane’s SUSTAINED and well-supported ARGUMENTS (with those of others) are the ONLY way to break through that wall of shallow neglect on the part of the American people who, along with their acceptance of Trumpism, are become less able to be forgiven for their naivete, empty optimism, adolescence, and guru worshipping, and more earning of contempt by being responsible, at least by omission, for the demise of what’s best about their own United States of America. CBK
CBK,
I agree with these points (and also what you said in your first post). I agree that Diane’s sustained and well supported arguments are vital, but what depresses me to no end is that progressive leaders should be making these arguments as well, and they don’t seem to be interested in offering much more than platitudes and those platitudes actually help legitimize the DFER agenda instead of showing it for what it is. And I really don’t get it because I believe support for public education over the forces that want to offer a taxpayer funded charter that doesn’t have to play by the same rules to compete with voters’ neighborhood public school is a winning issue. Voters will get it, but not if they aren’t hearing it (except from people like Diane Ravitch, which is different than hearing it from Bernie and Warren).
NYC public school parent: Yes indeed–constancy, . . . and of Diane AND others’, including our elected officials. (On the other side, I remain gobsmacked by the Republicans’ wholesale abandonment of their own principles–I’d take an authentic Republican over Trump any day.)
Ultimately, in a democracy, where-we-go depends on the people. <–And with that in mind, I also am reminded of Germany’s “notable moment” during the time of the Wiemar Republic just before Hitler squatted and shat on the entire country; and then about how many good people died defending democracy over the years.
Also, about public awareness in our present situation, I am reminded recently of how the National Rifle Association’s hard message became further-and-further away from what their own members and associates were saying and, now, how the NRA is (apparently) coming apart at the seams (and seems).
I am afraid to say this, but I will anyway–in that there is hope. CBK
CBK,
YES there is hope. The Reformers are desperately pushing vouchers and charters even though they know full well that charters drain resources from public schools and weaken a vital public institution and vouchers allow kids to attend inferior religious schools that teach bigotry. Reform has turned into nothing more than a raid on public resources, with no benefit to anyone. Other than those who make a profit.
I am working on a data-base and analysis of CAP supporters, including education funders. There is no doubt that CAP has a barrel full of supporters who have pushed the Common Core, charter schools, computers as proxies for teachers and the rest. CAP is a mega-propaganda mill from multi-year deep pocket funders.