Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education Scott Stump traveled to Arizona to celebrate the success of charter schools, and he did so at a public magnet school!
This top education official insisted that Tucson’s University High is a charter school.
When he was corrected by a reporter after his news conference, he continued to insist that the public high school was a charter school.
Like his boss, Betsy DeVos, Mr. Stump is on an “Education Freedom Tour” to point out the great achievements of every school that is not a public school.
That is the U.S. Department of Education’s “back to school” message: Abandon public schools.
Never mind that Arizona has what is possibly the most corrupt charter industry in the nation (excepting Florida).
Never mind that Arizona is the only state that legally allows for-profit charters (the others ban for-profit charters but allow for-profit managers to operate nonprofit charters).
Never mind that Arizona charter law permits nepotism and conflicts of interest among members of the board and the management company.
In Arizona, corruption is legal.
Never mind that Betsy DeVos and the Koch brothers poured millions into elected Governor Doug Ducey and a rightwing legislature.
To enter University High, students must pass an entrance exam, so of course the school has high test scores.
But it is not a charter school.
It is a public school, governed by the elected Tucson school board. Unlike a private charter school, it is fully accountable and transparent to the public, not to a private board.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education and commented:
Like someone on here commented, Betsy forgets that when she is pushing “school choice”, public schools are a choice. And 90% of parents still chose public school.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately we (the public) don’t have a choice in who becomes Secretary of Education.
So we get ignoramuses like Arne Duncan, John King and Betsy DeVos.
The last few presidents who DID have a choice, made some particularly poor choices.
As Forest Gump astutely noted, stupid is as stupid does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re absolutely correct. We’d have been better off without a SOE than with the ones we were given.
LikeLike
an important distinction: the CHOICE for sec. of education which will be made after the next election may have more to do with what happens to education than the person who ends up in office
LikeLike
Maybe he didn’t go to a real charter school because they’re weren’t any that weren’t an embarrassment.
I went to a public magnet high school, Benson Polytechnic, that drew from the entire Portland, Oregon area. We had a diverse student body that was highly motivated and had minimum violence or other behavioral issues.
It helped that they had one advantage charters do: they could select students and send disruptive students back to their neighborhood school. The mere threat of that was all the disciplinary action most problems required.
LikeLike
University High is not a charter school but it selects students like one.
LikeLike
It is a public school. It is accountable, transparent, and subject to public oversight and audit of its records. Arizona permits for-profit charters. They get publicfunds but cannot be audited because their business affairs are “private.”
LikeLike
I am well aware it is a public school. I have taught there😀
But I am also aware that it selects it’s students like charter schools do.
LikeLike
So do Stuyvesant High School, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech and other public schools with admissions exams.
They don’t pretend to be THE solution, THE MODEL for all schools, as charter schools. They acknowledge that they are selective. Charter schools pretend they are not selective.
LikeLike
Maybe that’s what Betsy was confused by, the fact that it is highly selective of its students.
It’s called University High school for a reason.
LikeLike
Those schools you name admit they are selective, but they still pretend the selection process is fair and unbiased, which is just a lie.
LikeLike
“they still pretend the selection process is fair and unbiased, which is just a lie…”
Who is “they”?
If you are talking about magnet selective public schools in NYC, then the schools themselves do not claim that their selection process is fair and unbiased. They simply claim it is the selection process and are very, very clear that the students in their school are not a random selection of students. They do not claim to be performing miracles. Nor have I heard one selective high school claim to have a superior curriculum or superior teachers because the average SAT scores of the students is higher than the average SAT scores of a selective (but not quite as selective) high school.
The people claiming that the process is fair and unbiased are either some (not all) of the parents whose kids are in them, some (not all) of their graduates, and those people who see some sort of political advantage in supporting that POV.
In fact, in NYC, the mayor and chancellor and parent groups have been the object of non-stop attacks and hatred because they do not believe that the process that selects those students is good. But they are both bravely trying to change things and even the majority of supposedly progressive politicians won’t have their backs.
LikeLike
“As politicians and parents debate whether the admissions system for eight of New York City’s top public high schools should be overhauled, one group has been quiet—their principals.”
But the former principal of one of the specialized high schools, Stuyvesant, has a range of worries about the changes proposed by City Hall.
From
Former Stuyvesant Principal Questions Proposed Changes to School Admissions
“Jie Zhang says mayor’s proposal could jeopardize excellence at city’s top public schools”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-stuyvesant-principal-questions-proposed-changes-to-school-admissions-1531841841
LikeLike
FYI, you are quoting a FORMER principal who left to become the head of Donald Trump’s alma mater, a private military academy upstate. Who also happened to have two kids at that specialized school, which puts her in the category I mentioned above: “some (not all) of the parents of kids in them”.
In fact, all of the specialized high schools’ CURRENT principals have welcomed an expanded Discovery program which takes severely disadvantaged students based on their strong academic middle school records, not a single day’s exam.
Mayor de Blasio and his DOE Chancellor have specifically acknowledged that the selection process is unfair and biased. And – without almost no support from progressives – they have been belittled, attacked, and accused of trying to secretly destroy those high schools because they have looked for better ways to select motivated students who want an accelerated high school education than there is currently.
I am mystified as to what your point is except I do agree with you that parents who benefit certainly think the system that exists is great. So if by “they” you mean the parents who benefit, then yes, they think it is great.
But the Mayor of NYC and the Chancellor agree with you that it is unfair and biased.
Furthermore, AOC (who I admire and whose position I love on almost every issue) had an excellent chance to support the Mayor’s desire NOT to use a single exam and in a forum do you know what she did? She punted.
“Why can’t we make all schools as excellent as those specialized high schools?” Like most progressive politicians, AOC knew it was easier to simply avoid talking about an unfair and biased admissions criteria that is extremely popular with those who benefit than stand up and say “it’s biased and unfair and Mayor de Blasio is right to want to change it.”
Does that make AOC one of the “they” whom you noted “still pretend the selection process is fair and unbiased, which is just a lie”?
LikeLike
Many selective magnet schools try to balance their population by taking a limited number of students from any one sending district. This way the school gets a more diverse student body, and no one district loses all of its top students. I attended a selective public high school many years ago. I can recall only six students from my junior high school that went on to the selective high school.
LikeLike
A non-selective great school is an oxymoron. Great schools have great teachers and great students who actively learn.
LikeLike
Dunce,
I disagree. Completely. Selective schools produce high test scores. But non-selective schools can indeed be great schools, schools where students feel part of the culture, where they are included and valued, schools where teachers are happy to work. I have visited these schools.
LikeLike
Dunce Me seems like he lives in Russia when he says “A non-selective great school is an oxymoron.”
Probably Dunce Me has never visited any of the thousands of American suburbs throughout the USA. Dunce Me does not know that most American suburbs — affluent, middle class, lower middle class, etc.– have a single high school that serves all of the students in the area and does not simply select the best of them. Those high schools have classes for very high performing students who go to colleges like Harvard and Yale and classes for students who go to a range of less selective colleges including community colleges or get vocational training. And some students go into the military or simply get a job.
Most American parents would be insulted if you told them their school wasn’t great because it was “non-selective” and includes that excellent singer – but mediocre student – who sits next to their daughter in choir and helps her find the right pitch. They would be offended if you told them their school wasn’t great because the best clarinet player in the orchestra and the best drummer in the marching band are in the school despite being indifferent students.
Those parents think their school is pretty great BECAUSE it includes that struggling student who runs the hugely successful food drive that makes sure families who are hungry in the community are fed. They are thrilled that each year their school puts on a highly acclaimed musical with the amazing actor who just isn’t “actively learning”.
And those parents see the brilliant math student who struggles to write an English paper and the award winning writer who can’t understand Trigonometry even with tutors and they don’t agree with you that neither of those students belong in the school.
What I just described is the kind of public high school most middle class Americans experienced and send their own children to. They buy homes in areas because by simply living in that area, they know the school will educate their kids because they live there, not because their kid is “selected” by the school.
LikeLike
I grew up in Houston, admittedly a long time ago. I attended non-selective schools from K-12. The schools were racially segregated as was then the law in Houston. I went to school with students of every ability level and from every economic level. My schools were good schools. I had good teachers. I had art and music, not daily, but weekly. There was a school nurse and guidance counselor and librarians. I don’t really understand the quest for “greatness” other than as a sorting device to favor the advantaged. There is some sort of vanity and vaingloriousness embedded in that illusory quest.
LikeLike
I agree with Diane. In a selective school the students are among the best. The school is highly competitive, and the students get “high” test scores. I taught in an excellent comprehensive school district in which everyone worked hard to serve a variety of students according to student needs. It was an outstanding school district! BTW, I never really cared for my selective school. It had an elite mentality.
LikeLike
“Those high schools have classes for very high performing students who go to colleges like Harvard and Yale” — simply because colleges consider, among other metrics, students’ rank in their class. Obviously, the same student would rank much lower in a stronger school. But this class ranking along with SAT/ACT score is on a chopping block, as more and more colleges consider holistic approach to admit students (which in many cases comes to whether a student is able to pay the price).
“Those parents think their school is pretty great BECAUSE it includes that struggling student” — they think it is pretty great because the teachers are “nice”. Parents of the kids going to selective schools care for actual education (although scores are important as ever).
“They buy homes in areas because by simply living in that area, they know the school will educate their kids” — thank you for explaining how school choice works within the limitations of the public school system.
LikeLike
“thank you for explaining how school choice works within the limitations of the public school system.”
Yes, it works just like “police force” choice and “fire department” choice works.
Are you angry because of the “limitations” of your community’s fire and police department? Do want your community fire department to give a large percentage of their budget to a new and politically connected “charter” fire department that your state governor’s biggest funders support and that new “charter” fire department and their inexperienced fire fighters with 2 weeks training will put out the fires in homes they believe are profitable to put out? And now the public fire department has much less money but hey, who needs experienced fire fighters anyway? Unless your neighbor’s home catches on fire and you watch your own home and your family’s lifetime possessions burning to the ground because the “charter” fire department decided it was too hard to put out and the public fire department no longer had the resources to put it out quickly.
LikeLike
NYCPSP, You just proved my point again: if you live in location with good schools, good fire depts and good police, than you’re ok. If you are not – you are not, which is why people leave Philli in droves.
People play the game only to find out the borders of their district were moved, or the admission rules changed. Or their kids are bussed to some other school to ensure “proper” racial or income mix despite that this school is far away from their home. Cannot even trust the system to play by its own rules.
LikeLike
Dunce Me says: “A non-selective great school is an oxymoron.”
I’m addressing that comment and you keep trying to change the subject.
Public schools that include poor areas are underfunded. Forcing them to give disproportionate amounts of their budgets to charters that select to educate the students who are least expensive to teach does not address that issue.
LikeLike
How can Scott Stump be so dumb?
Suggested USDE entrance exam (if there was one): Identify the key features of a charter school and explain why it is not a public school. This “senior ” staff person has been in career and technical education for a long time. https://www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/stump.html
In fact, “Identify the key features of a charter school and explain why it is not a public school.” is a good two-part question for every person running for elective office.
LikeLike
Alternative facts- a specialty of oligarchies and Catholic dioceses-
Heartland Institute (linked to the Koch’s), “Ky. Lawmakers…tax credit scholarships…” (2018)
The article’s writer sought comment from the associate director of the Catholic Conference of Ky.. Despite living across the Ohio River from ECOT’s debacle and where Dr. Figlio conducted his research, funded by Fordham, the director is under the impression that choice has had “improved educational outcomes across the board in other states”.
Can and do conservatives read research?
Heartland’s motto is, “Freedom Rising”. The Institute would more appropriately boast, oligarchy rising, religions propped up with tax dollars and truthfulness failing.
LikeLike
The odds that there are representatives of Catholic dioceses on the DeVos tour and in the audience citing opinions that are refuted by facts?
LikeLike