Nancy Flanagan is a retired teacher in Michigan with long experience in the classroom and one of our best education bloggers.
In this post, she wonders why the Democratic candidates are mostly mum about charters. At the last Democratic debate, when the question of charters was raised, Andrew Yang was the only one who openly expressed support for charters. The good news is that Andrew Yang will not be the eventual candidate. Even Cory Booker avoided the subject. Bernie Sanders, whose education policy is sharply critical of charters, did not take the opportunity to express his views. He should have.
Flanagan writes:
I believe charter schools have done untold damage to public education, and I’ve had twenty years to observe the public money/private management ideology establish itself in Michigan. First, a scattering of alternative-idea boutique schools, another ‘choice’ for picky parents. Then they go after the low-hanging fruit, the schools in deep poverty—and then the healthier districts. There is now agreement with an idea once unthinkable in America: corporations have a “right” to advertise and sell education, using our tax dollars…So—no, I cannot be agnostic. In the end, I’d like to see charter schools go away, one at a time, forever, because mountains of evidence have proven that they’re ripe for fraud and malpractice, and because there are far better public-school options, in every city and neighborhood. I think that’s preferable to trying to extinguish or ban charter schools outright—although ending all federal financial support for charters is Step One. That will necessitate a new Secretary of Education. The rest will mean changing hearts and minds—a long, slow process.
She adds:
Education is my issue, but charters are a mere slice of a bigger pie. It was gratifying to simply hear candidates talk about education on the stage. Here’s what I would like to hear from a candidate:
Let’s invest more in fully public education—the kind that’s community-based and has elected oversight. Let’s acknowledge the places where it has crumbled and rebuild them, instead of abandoning them. Let’s work toward more economically and ethnically diverse schools, making them places where building an informed citizenry and developing individual talents—not test scores—are our highest goals.
Right on, Nancy!
Let’s keep pushing the candidates and demand them to speak out against privatization.
Real Democrats do not outsource public money to privately managed schools and religious schools.
Right on Nancy, indeed! We can have alternative schools WITHIN the public schools. We negotiated them and had them in the ’70’s in Columbus, Ohio. They also were magnet schools, racially and economically diverse. Unfortunately, the idea was hijacked by those who wanted elite schools. So our alternative high school, which was intended to offer programs that worked for “non-traditional” students, became a college-prep, academically gifted school. I watched my son–who was brilliant, but “alternative,” leave his school when it became a “race to the top” kind of school. I’m so depressed about what happened in Columbus and across the nation. When people shout, “We’re number 1,” and want to shout, “Who cares!!”
Jack,
Love your comment. Your last line resonated: When people shout, “We’re number 1,” and want to shout, “Who cares!!”
AMEN, WHO CARES?
RTTT, LEARN Act, NCLB, ESSA, Charter Schools, and Vouchers are just stupid laws, which promote JIM CROW.
Just finished reading Child of the Dream (A Memoir of 1963) written for young people by Jackie Robinsons daughter, Sharon Robinson. This book needs to be read by all, even adults.
CHARTERS are BAD … but the DEFORMERS want control over the citizenry … get them while they are young … mentality.
Colonial Model is well and alive
Or private prisons.
I think that ESSA also needs to be addressed because it is filled with FAUX accountability measures and, by design, is hostile to public education and teacher voice in their working conditions.
USDE has otsourced implementing the newly required per pupil expenditure calculations required for school report cards. Those groups in charge of guiding states are certain that cost savings are the most important issue and that you can solve these, for example, by paying a teacher a bit more to teach twice as many students in every class.
I would be more interested in advocacy and support of students in public schools rather than a statement on charters.
By that measure only Biden and Bernie have weighed in. The Bush/Obama/Trump approach doesn’t just promote charters and vouchers. It ignores or actively harms students in public schools. I recognize that the two issues are connected but I would like to see a recognition from politicians that this “movement” they have all been captured by offers absolutely nothing of value to tens of millions of children who attend public schools and often actively works against their interests and harms them.
I don’t want to pay public employees who provide no returned value to the vast, vast majority of students anymore. I don’t particularly care if they’re ideologically opposed to our schools. They sold this as “improving public education”. No one in the public was told that meant they would refuse to provide any actual support or practical contribution to public school students, based on their ideological beliefs.
It’s outrageous. We should insist they do the work they’re paid to do or replace them with people who will.
This is not Warren’s K-12 education plan, but her plan for “Universal PreK.” It could forecast her ideas for pubic education if elected. It is notable for a few things that should alarm supporters of public education in that it mirrors Arne Duncan’s K-12 model.
Her theory as outlined here is a privatized PreK system.The plan has means testing that does not make it universal and will be an additional burden for families who don’t qualify at the income cut off. I’ve listed a few major red flags here and below the link is the plan as posted on her Medium site.
Public-private partnerships will be the delivery mechanisms for funding PreK. This is similar to the funding model set up for charter schools. Pay private third parties to manage pre-schools.
She fails to mention ESSA & DoEds PreK social impact bonds (pay for success bonds) that are written into the public-private partnerships grants. SIBs are structured to give bankers BONUSES if the PreK they finance leads to children in SPED losing services by third grade. If ANYONE in the Democratic primary understands SIBS, it is Warren.
“Local communities would be in charge, but providers would be held to high national standards to make sure that no matter where you live, your child will have access to quality care and early learning.” What does “local communities will be in charge” even mean? Elected boards? School boards? State Depts of Education? And of course, standards will be in place but who will be held to those standards- the private management company or the teachers? Haven’t we seen enough of the detrimental effects of high stakes accountability with standardized testing & standards? Also, assessing infants & toddlers is extremely difficult and results are often invalid.
There is no mention of serving all children including those with disabilities or guaranteeing IDEA rights and protections in the privatized PreKs. Head Start is required to serve 10% of it’s population for children with disabilities. In Warren’s plan, the Eva Moskowitzes of PreK can expel kids with disabilities who don’t FIT the program or who would COST the for-profit management company money. With SIBS in place, preKs are incentivized to not admit or to cut services for children with disabilities.
There is nothing about expanding the fully public Head Start birth to age 4. All that would need to happen to expand HS is to lift the income means test for entry & fully fund a HS birth to PreK in every community like public schools. Head Start gets direct federal funding- no third party comes in between the $ and the classrooms. Think of the thousands of jobs that an expanded Head Start could create in every community.
Here’s the link & her plan for anyone who wants to review it:
View at Medium.com
And here’s the best part. The federal government will pick up a huge chunk of the cost of operating these new high-quality options. That allows local providers to provide access for free to any family that makes less than 200% of the federal poverty line. That means free coverage for millions of children.”
ESSA is trying to create a private, corporate operated alternative to Head Start. These partnerships are seed money to get the privatization ball rolling. The federal government is underwriting this massive experimentation on young children once again with no evidence to show that this a legitimate way to treat preschoolers. To keep costs down, it will most likely provide lots of cyber instruction, which anyone that has studied child development knows is the wrong direction. Poor, minority children are the play things of the 1%, and the feds are incentivizing it.
a crucial understanding: ESSA IS TRYING TO CREATE A PRIVATE CORPORATE ALTERNATIVE. “Pay for Success” basically means “pay for dividing kids up into discrete populations and funding only those who CAN afford tech product…”
“Arne Duncan’s K-12 model” ?
That would be the Model T (for Test)
“Anyone can have a school that is any color so long as it is bleak.” — Arne Duncan
There are several reasons why candidates do not address privatization voluntarily. Part of the reason is certainly voters. Another reason is donors. Several of the candidates take money from wealthy and corporate donors. These people are all in on privatization. A third reason is that corporate media do ask the right questions. They could have asked about Bernie’s Marshall Plan. Crickets! They could have asked about the the NAACP’s moratorium on charters. Crickets! They could have asked about what the candidates think about Obama or DeVos’ education policy or ESSA. Crickets! They could have asked about NPE’s report ‘Asleep at the Wheel.’ Crickets! The Democrats craftily avoid the issue for a multitude of uncomfortable reasons some of which would lose them votes.
Same thing happened with healthcare back in the 80’s. The politicians wouldn’t talk about it because the insurance industry was pumping their pockets full of cash and they liked the money. Look what has happened to healthcare……completely privatized and unregulated with business people making decisions on health issues. Insurance companies dictate patient care and Dr’s have no say and continually spend time “working the system” for better care for their patients. Politicians are complacent and complicit in the plans for dismantling public education and they don’t want to talk about it….period.
Ohio lawmakers, utterly and completely captured by ed reformers, not only poured funding and support into charters and vouchers. They also provided absolutely nothing of value to public school students, and this has been going on for 20 years. Enough.
I get it- “the movement” opposes labor unions and public schools. I’m aware. Duly noted. So what am I paying all these people for? For yet another round of gimmicks and fads imposed on the students and schools they don’t work for and don’t support?
Public school students should have actual advocates in government. Charter school students do! Private school students do! It’s just our kids that get stuck with either anti-public activists or the weak and useless “agnostics” who are lousy advocates and get rolled every time.
Because 1500 elites have decided that public schools are no longer fashionable, 50 million students should be either ignored or actively opposed? Collateral damage? No. I didn’t agree to this horse trade and either did anyone else in the public.
I might limit my choices to people who have actually used a public school.
I’m tired of being led by ridiculous snobs who all attended the same private schools. I think there’s a connection between the abandonment of public schools and public school students by lawmakers and others and the fact that they all came out of the same pipeline and the same schools.
Let’s get some diversity. Let’s find some people who know welders don’t make “40 dollars an hour” and have some idea how hard it is to pay for our wildly expensive and grossly inequitable higher education system. These people are almost comically out of touch. They all worship standardized test scores and elite schools because that’s the measure they use of their own worth.
BTW- Julian Castro openly opposed charter schools at one of the debates.
Sean Fieler, Frank Hanna III, Rex Sinquefield, the Koch-linked Manhattan Institute and Gates-linked Fordham have money in common and they promote privatization. All of them, and William Barr and Betsy DeVos, are on board with Catholic religious schools.
Voters understand the consequences of private prisons because it gets media coverage. The differences between privatization of schools and prisons are (1) school privatization is linked to the taboo topic of theocracy and, (2) school privatization means communities lose the democratic right to elect boards of governance.
Rhetorically, why do commenters diddle around about possible reasons for debate silence at this forum when they themselves avoid religion as a cause? Why would candidates go where public school advocates won’t go?
Lots of people that oppose private prisons still believe charters are fine. Too many people have been brainwashed by the years of negative campaigning against public education. They do not understand the governance issue which is a key understanding. I am always pointing out to people on social media how important local governance is to quality schools.
Ellen Degeneres white washes Bill Gates and gives prizes to charter schools. Her audience is victim to the propaganda. Not surprising that Ellen was enjoying time this weekend in a private box at an NFL game with “W” Bush. Class solidarity.
“Ellen was enjoying time this weekend in a private box at an NFL game with “W” Bush. ”
Have to start calling her Ellen Degenerate.
Democrats could actually take a page from Democratic governors- people who actually won. They ran on supporting public schools. They did this even though the Obama Administration was firmly in the “public schools suck!” camp and at the time public schools were wildly unfashionable and constantly attacked by everyone.
No one actually knowingly elects anti-public school politicians. There’s a reason for that. The vast, vast majority of people attended public schools and send their children to one. Ed reformers get around this obvious problem by insisting they are pro-public school when they run and then reneging when they get into power.
They could just be pro-public schools and deliver on that. It’s not that difficult. Bernie’s plan isn’t just about charter schools. It’s a really robust and optimistic agenda for public school students. They could all produce one- although I suppose they’re have to find the few public school supporters left in elite education circles after 30 years of lockstep hiring of ed reformers.
Most of the politicians only know what they know from hanging around with other elitists. Charters are always on the menu. It takes someone that truly understands the democratic implications, someone that does not opt to feast with the 1%. Bernie is the only candidate that understands the value of public education for working families.
Biden has a 10 point lead over Warren among female voters. WTH?
A lot of females are not supportive of other women. I don’t understand it. I remember when my school got its first female principal, and one of the older kindergarten teachers commented,”I don’t want to work for a woman.” It is just prejudice I believe.
retired teacher: Two of my outstandingly WORST principals were women. ONE was one of the best.
So, statistically, I’d still vote for a woman for president.
The Sound of silence
Silence speaks louder than word
And silence is voice that is heard
The silence is ref
Will make you grow deaf
Although iit may sound quite absurd
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
I agree with this! I watched that debate and was very happy when the moderator directly asked a question about charters. I thought this would be a chance for Bernie Sanders to hit it out of the park and point to the fact that the other candidates were either not answering the question or being vague. And instead Bernie pivoted to “free college”! As if the entire country is somehow unaware that Bernie supports free college and needed to hear that again. It was really disappointing because I knew Bernie was strongly anti-charter but anyone watching could think he wanted to avoid the question as much as the other candidates did.
Just by listening to the debate answers, I would have (wrongly) thought Elizabeth Warren was the most pro-public school because she actually addressed the question and said money should stay in public schools or something like that. And rabidly pro-charter Corey Booker sounded good on justice issues just by avoiding the question.
Here are the kinds of things that SHOULD be said by the Democratic candidates:
“I’m going to be blunt with you, I am angry about the state of public education in America,”
“I am angry about the privatizers. I am sick and tired of these efforts to privatize a precious thing we need — public education. I know we’re not supposed to be saying ‘hate’ — our teachers taught us not to — I hate the privatizers and I want to stop them”
“By the way, too many Republicans, but also too many Democrats, have been cozy with the charter schools”
“Let’s be blunt about it. We need to hold our own party accountable, too. And no one should ask for your support, or no one should be the Democratic nominee, unless they’re willing to stand up to Wall Street and the rich people behind the charter school movement once and for all”
All those statements are what Bill de Blasio said directly to voters during his very brief campaign for President. While de Blasio was not the candidate I supported, I did want him to remain in the campaign because I thought it was important that at least ONE of the candidates was saying this. Just like we needed Bernie in 2016 to change the conversation and directly talk about progressive issues, we need someone in 2020 to do this with public education and charters. I hope one of the remaining candidates understands that they are missing a great opportunity and the fact that they all seem to want to avoid the subject makes them look weak. de Blasio got huge cheers when he stood up for public education. Voters want this. And there is no reason that I can see that Bernie Sanders shouldn’t capitalize on that and make clear distinctions between himself and Sen. Warren on the issue since presumably there are distinctions. If it turns out that Warren is changing her positions to be more like Sanders, than bully for her! But if Bernie turned to Warren in a debate and asked her straight out, she’d have to address the issue or look like she was intentionally avoiding it which would also make her position clear.
^^Linda above correctly pointed out that Julian Castro’s answer at that debate was pretty good. He said “it is a myth that charter schools are better than public schools. They’re not. And so while I’m not categorically against charter schools, I would require more transparency and accountability from them than is required right now.”
As I type this it is actually kind of depressing that Castro’s answer is the “best” we heard at that debate because it really did nothing to educate the public about what is wrong with charters.
This is what I wish the progressive candidates were saying:
“…the original idea behind charter schools was to learn what worked and then apply them in the public schools. And here’s a couple of problems. Most charter schools — I don’t want to say every one — but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation, because they do, thankfully, take everybody, and then they don’t get the resources or the help and support that they need to be able to take care of every child’s education.”
(Another Democrat said that, but not a current candidate).
The candidate that is best for America will say, if a person wants a private education- religious or otherwise they can pay for it. The wealthy who are too selfish to pay for public schools will be forced to pay through the nose. The richest 0.1% rigged American capitalism to lavishly reward themselves for the labor of others. The 99% aren’t just going to persevere, they are going to send the donor class to jail for villainthropy that robs citizens of their democracy.
Then, that same candidate is going to organize a mob to hang AEI staff in effigy and plant a sign in front of its location that identifies AEI as the tool of oppression.
I agree. It was a missed opportunity for Bernie in the debate.
I give Bernie credit for single handedly making Medicare for All into a viable and successful position because he talked about it proudly whenever he got a chance and wasn’t afraid of making the case for it to the public. Bernie did the same with the idea of making community college tuition free. Now the idea of making sure poor and middle-class kids don’t incur debt to go to college seems like a mainstream Democratic ideal. Even the “moderate” candidates are saying free college for all kids except the very rich ones. Just like even the “moderate” candidates are saying “Medicare for All who want but let’s also let the people who like their private insurance keep it”. That is a sea change from “we can’t afford this, sorry”.
I think Bernie – or another candidate – could do the same for K-12 public education. If they want to.
Bernie may not want to dilute his salient points with too many issues. It’s up to Warren to carve out positions. She did that today relative to accountability for judges.
Are there any other progressives in the running?
I just told Congress to pass a new bill to undo Betsy DeVos’s sabotage of student aid enforcement.
Sign the petition: Stop Betsy DeVos
In 2015, Corinthian Colleges collapsed and left deceived students stuck with debt but no degrees. In the wake of the scandal, the Obama administration created a new team within the Department of Education – the Student Aid Enforcement Unit – to police the billions in grants and loans administered each year. By the time Obama left office, the unit had a dozen attorneys and investigators working around the clock.
Then Betsy DeVos happened.
DeVos spent the last three years sabotaging the investigations unit to make sure scam artists and predatory for-profit schools get a free pass. Now, progressives in the House of Representatives have a plan to undo DeVos’s damage and protect students, and they need our help.
Stand with House progressives: Stop Betsy DeVos from sabotaging investigations. One of the main targets of the investigative team was DeVry Education Group. In 2016, DeVry settled with the Department of Education and the Federal Trade Commission and agreed to pay $100 million in damages to the students it defrauded and deceived. When DeVos arrived on the scene, the investigations office was looking into a number of for-profit giants, including DeVry, for deceptive practices, claims about graduates getting jobs and misleading advertising.
DeVos quickly sabotaged the investigations by reassigning and marginalizing staff, and instructing them to narrow their focus. Today, only three investigators remain, processing applications and engaging in small compliance inquiries. Worst of all, DeVos actually hired the former DeVry dean Julian Schmoke, to oversee the new, toothless investigation team.
House progressives are fighting back. Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and Donna Shalala teamed up on the Protecting Student Aid Act of 2019, which would make the Student Aid Enforcement Unit official and give it the congressional mandate – along with staff and funding – it needs to do this necessary work.
Students are nothing but dollar signs to Betsy DeVos and her for-profit college pals. We need tough action to confront her seemingly corrupt appeasement of the most predatory industries within higher education – and that means pointing out that progressives are leading the way.
Stand with House progressives: Stop Betsy DeVos from sabotaging investigations. Click below to sign the petition:
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/protecting-student-aid-devos?sp_ref=516167850.4.200228.e.641104.2&referring_akid=34363.1912996.-5WsO-&source=mailto_sp
For those who are unaware, Credo action (no relation to Stanford and Hanushek) is part of a progressive cell phone company. The money that the company makes funds various progressive organizations. After signing one of their petitions, a person is entitled to vote among progressive choices for Credo’s funding.
Using Credo phone service is a statement of support for progressives instead of right wing companies like AT&T.
Credo is what is needed in every industry where consumers spend money on products and services. It is the financial way to take down Republican control.
If Warren wants to beat Biden she should correct her problem which is, among women voters, Biden has a 10 pt. lead over her. What better way to get female votes than to protect teaching jobs?
Where’s commenter Greg from Ohio?
Teachers are the largest class of Sanders donors.
That’s no accident.
If Sanders and Warren tag-teamed in the primary, they would make short work of Biden — and of Trump in the general election.
Completely agree- Poet.
Is Warren truly a hypocrite, then? I’d hate to think so, now that Bernie has had a heart attack and Beiden is likely to be seen as corrupt because of his promoting of his son’s business deals in Ukraine and China. Both of them will probably be out. Warren would seem to be the next most likely front runner. If she is the nominee, Trump will surely hammer on her for her inconsistencies, thus making it harder for her to win, because even women teachers will find it difficult to support her if she is proposing a private P-K system. Leaving aside religion and politics, obviously such a program should be public and available to all as a right.
Trump is s master at projecting his sins on others. His children are profiteers and grifters, so he slimes Biden. He lies multiple times every day, so he calls Warren a liar. He is the king of slime, smear, insult, belittle, and lie.
Thanks to Diane for posting these excerpts and a link to my blog, and for the good comments.
There was an article in US News and World Distort about a poll showing that 80% of Democratic primary voters (and 90% of black voters) supported charter schools. That may have something to do with the reluctance of candidates to go after charters. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-10-07/poll-democratic-primary-voters-support-charter-schools
But Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat has a great Twitter thread showing that the questions in the poll (which was commissioned by Democrats for Education Reform) were distinctly constructed to favor charters, and once broken down, showed that support was not nearly as strong–in fact, Democratic voters support banning federal funding for charters.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I think the bottom line is that probing this question for a straight answer, once the Democratic field is narrowed to a half-dozen candidates, is essential. I’m not certain more federal intervention in alternate governance / alternate funding schemes for local schools is a good thing.
We won’t get rid of charters in one policy-based fell swoop. We’ll get rid of them, permanently, when people have better choices. As Buckminster Fuller said: ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.’ What I want is a candidate who wants to build new models of fully public education, models that show charters for what they are–ripe for corruption and profiteering.