This interview on KPCC-NPR in Southern California by Larry Mantle was conducted a few days ago.
Mantle made it clear–at least to me–that he favors charter schools, so I was constantly asked to defend my criticism of them. I later learned that Los Angelenos know Mantle as a charter champion. One of the hypothetical questions are posed was “what would be wrong with a district that was half public schools, half charter schools?” Another time, he praised Eli Broad and wondered why I didn’t regard him as a generous philanthropist. You get the drift.
When the callers were put on the air, all of them were charter parents who challenged me.
There were no questions or comments from public school parents.
The parents who called in do not believe that charters divert funding from public schools, where most of the state’s children are. I suggested that they google Gordon Lafer’s study, “The Breaking Point,” which documents the many millions that three California districts lose to charters. I also suggested that California has been underinvesting in its schools for many years and is now below the national average.
I think every parent has the right to make the choice they think is in the best interest of their child, but I think every policymaker is responsible to improve and prioritize the public schools that enroll 85-90% of all American children.
In AIRTALK’s tweet about the show, which appeared pretty quickly on March 11, the show’s tweet says that I consider the 2010s to be “banner years” for public schools. This is ridiculous. Whoever wrote that line obviously did not read the book. The 2010s were a time of budget cuts, teacher shortages, the combined negative effects of NCLB and Race to the Top, VAM, Common Core, and worship of mandated standardized testing. It was a horrible decade for schools, with the only bright spot being the rise of the #Red4Ed movement in 2018. I am assuming that no one at AIRTALK read the book. The topic of conversation was: How dare you dare to question the need for and value of charter schools?
The show takes about 20 minutes. Listen and tell me what you think.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“ I think every policymaker is responsible to improve and prioritize the public schools that enroll 85-90% of all American children.”
Why not improve and prioritize the public schools (district and charter) that enroll 100% of all American children?
John,
Privatization sucks resources away from the schools that enroll 85-90% of the children. We can’t afford to operate three different school systems with current funding levels. Why don’t the billionaires simply pay to run private schools that they fund instead of defunding the public schools that most children attend?
Guys, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to uncover how and from whom Mantle takes his marching orders.
It took me all of a minute of internet research.
Go to this link:
https://www.wunc.org/post/melinda-gates-marriage-parenting-and-why-she-made-bill-drive-kids-school
“Bill & Melinda Gates have donated billions of dollars to vaccination initiatives and projects to combat diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS. They’ve also funded schools, agricultural efforts, community centers and, yes, NPR?
Indeed, if you do a google search for: “Bill Gates” NPR,” …
… you get countless NPR stories (accompanying his radio appearances), where in the articles and radio appearances you get Mantle or some other NPR host licking Bill Gates’ ass (or Gates’ wife Melinda’s ass) like it’s French vanilla ice cream (stole that from Tarantino, btw).
Any time Gates wants to promote his latest scheme, NPR gives him a safe, and unchallenging forum for doing so. Mantle’s ambush of Dr. Ravitch was probably ordered up by Gates the way you or I order a pizza.
If I had known that Diane was going to be interviewed live, I would have tried to call in to support her. I listened to the show shortly after it was broadcast and came away feeling that the pro-charter organization, SPEAK UP, was given advance notice and flooded the intake line.
I have called in to this show in the past, but the staff screens the incoming callers to ask what they want to ask about. I understand the need to avoid callers who are asking similar questions, but, knowing Mantle’s history of blind support of charters, I discovered that it might be easier to get chosen if your question align’s with his agenda. So, the way around that is to tell the staffer one thing and then switch to a different question once you get on. Yes, there is a short delay to stop any inappropriate language, but otherwise, I don’t think they stop you if you just pivot to a different topic.
The ed deformers are incredibly threatened by the amazing work you have done to defend public education, Diane. Their attacks on you and on Slaying Goliath are evidence that you are extraordinarily effective!
Nailed it, Julia!!!
Yes, Mantle certainly comes off as a shill for the charter industry and his callers were clearly charter advocates. Your responses to his questions were focused, direct, and timely.. I was disappointed at the lack of response on his part to the points that you made. However, the interview hopefully will spark additional interest in Slaying Goliath as well as the Lafer study you cited.
I listened to the interview and read the comments.
Re: The comments: HOLY COW, a lot of people are so MISINFORMED.
And, you were great, Diane. Thank you.
Diane did great in spite of all the pro charter blather. What’s a little disturbing is that this is an NPR affiliated station and Mantle has been on the air since 1985. But, on the plus side, Diane was allowed on the air to present her case for the actual real public schools and to discuss her new book. To Mantle’s credit, he did not operate as Sean Hannity who often interrupts or shouts down his mildly liberal guests.
You stepped into a Lion’s Den and returned completely unscathed. Now find another Lion’s Den and do it again. And again. And again, so maybe, just maybe, more folk will start learning the difference between being a consumer concerned chiefly with self and that of being a citizen concerned with “We, the people….”
Thanks, Ed. I had a wonderful interview early this morning on a rightwing radio show in St. Louis. The host was not hostile. In fact, his father had been a public school teacher. He questioned me about the need for unions, and I said that unions were necessary to keep people like his father from being dismissed arbitrarily and to make sure that public schools and children have “a seat at the table” when the governor and legislature are writing the budget.
As usual, Diane, you command the facts and they drove your analysis. Your interlocutors, alas, lacked a command of the facts and extrapolated from their entirely subjective experience–and did so from pure emotion. This looks like a hit job to me.
Incidentally, if you look at the comments forum beneath the page the link above clicks through to, it is the kind of open sewer of verbiage–replete with lapses in grammar, style, usage, punctuation, and even spelling–that one all too commonly finds on the internet.
I think I’ve used this quote before in these fora, but Nietzsche, using the French Revolution as an example, talked about a situation in discourse where “the text has disappeared under the interpretation.” That seems to be what has happened here, when hard facts about the failures of the charter school industry disappear under what amounts to inductive statements a la “This is the experience I am having, so therefore it must be true in general,” discourse has failed.
If nothing else, your willingness to sit down for an interview like this deserves praise.
So thank you.
Thank you, Mark. What was most surprising is that the charter school parents who called in insist that charters are funded from some magical source, not from the money that would otherwise go to public schools. They refuse to believe it. That’s why I urged them to read Gordon Lafer’s careful study, “The Breaking Point,” where he documented the cost of charters in California, where public schools lose more than the per-child allotment. Given their strong views, I doubt that any of them took my advice. But it is there if they have an open mind.
Exactly my point, Diane–you had the facts, and the parents who phoned in had, well, I’ll use the word you did, which is apt, “magical” thinking.
So here’s a news bulletin: pure imagination and an ignorance of facts does not trump the empirical work of a scholar like you.
Sometimes when I listen to things like this interview, I think I am bearing witness to the last days of the epistemic methods that began with the Pre-Socratic philosophers like Heraclitus, which is to say, the idea that there is a reality that exists independent of one’s perceptions and beliefs. It was fun while it lasted, but now the public trusts someone like Sean Hannity, an ideological hack, to supply it with data on climate science (just to take one example).
How many sets of dark ages do we need before we accept the value of disinterested scholarship?
Enough from me. Thank you once again, Diane, for the work that you do.
“How many sets of dark ages do we need before we accept the value of disinterested scholarship?”
Mark: Humanity seems to return over and over in his history to the vomit of his own hubris, creating Dark Spots in all the ages of light that come from adherence to truth. Sobering view of man, I think. Makes original sin look like a tick bite.
“I think every parent has the right to make the choice they think is in the best interest of their child, but I think every policymaker is responsible to improve and prioritize the public schools that enroll 85-90% of all American children”
John Stuart Mill famously made the case that was enshrined in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man: The right of the individual extends to the edge of the place where it begins to impinge on the rights of other individuals. If it can be demonstrated that the charter school movement adds to the educational opportunity experienced by majority of students in the United States, then there is nothing wrong with charters. But this is demonstrably wrong, because it has accompanied the failure of educational spending to catch up with growing educational problems. Thus, by the basic rule of the concept of rights as extant until they conflict with those of others, the dual school system model fails the sniff test at the rights level.
We used to remove hard-to-teach youngsters from public schools. This model was widely accepted for a long time. Then we tried a model where removing a child from school killed your graduation rate if you were a public school and feathered your reputational nest if you were a charter school. Attrition in charters was considered a positive and in public school was defined as a negative. Even in the midst of this different set of rules, charters have not succeeded in out-performing public schools.
Perhaps parents have the right to choose what is best for their child. Perhaps they know what is right for their child. Perhaps competition with private schools is good for all concerned. But there is nothing good about creating a school system that allows one branch of society to play by a different set of rules.
Nicely put, Roy. Seriously.
You were obviously set up
I think so too.
Oh. My. Lord. Diane!!!!
What a brilliant, brilliant job you did here!!!
Speak softly and carry the big stick of the facts!!! LMAO. This is magnificent. The master at work.
This is Jedi-level. LOL!!!
“If I were Secretary of Education. . . .” –Diane Ravitch
From your mouth to God’s ears, Diane.
The interviewer is clearly nervous. Worried about the decision to bring you on. Lots of nervous laughter. LOL.
Wait until you hear the amazing interview I did this morning on a very conservative talk show in St Louis. The host is Dr. Randy Tobler, KFTK Radio. The intro to the show said Rush Limbaugh would be on later, and I got a bit nervous. But to my surprise, he really liked the book, agreed with me that the schools are being micromanaged from DC and overrun with consultants. We had a great conversation. Can’t wait to get the link and post it.
Wow. Really looking forward to that.
Like the charter movement typically does, they attack when threatened and they attempt to manipulate the facts. That was obviously the case and it shows your leadership of the resistance is making a difference. It was also another example of the lack of knowledge among parents and communities, and the coordinated efforts of CCSA and charters to train charter parents to be advocates.
But like the differences among public and charters: You had the facts – they had none. You spoke for the common good – they spoke for the misguided selfishness of charters. You spoke because you care about public education and all kids – they spoke because they don’t. You spoke for most of us – they spoke for the special interests. You were transparent – they would never do an interview with advocates of public schools.
Another example that it is time to keep pushing forward as they are about to be begin retreating!
Most of the parents that called in only know about education from their own personal perspective. They do not see or understand the bigger picture. That is why it is important to hear from scholars and legitimate researchers.
It was good to hear a final comment from someone that has worked both the public and charter sector. He saw the devastating consequences of charter drain on the public schools. In some cases charters get district money as well as money from wealthy foundations. Those parents whose children attend these types of charters believe that charters are great, but they do not get to see students in public schools in large classes and buildings with lots of deferred maintenance due to charter drain. The cost of charters make the many sacrifice for “choice” the few.
I heard a segment of the interview, about 15 minutes worth, and could not agree more that the interviewer, Larry Mantle, was not impartial. He “wished” he had the opportunity to attend one when in high school, I believe. From my experience as a public school teacher in a Long Beach, Ca., high school, I have taught and coached students who have transferred to my school and recounted various and disgraceful stories that they have endured before entering a new school. One thing I am sure of is that when you treat students like widgets, that’s what you’ll get. I’m also, now, a bit more skeptical of Larry Mantlr.
Thank you once again for your outstanding leadership in addressing the issues in public education. Listening to your responses in the broadcast clearly demonstrates that leadership in so many ways. You owned the context of the conversation throughout the broadcast, despite the efforts of seasoned professionals constantly trying to derail you. The only way the opposition could appear to win a debate with you on this subject would be to not let you speak.
It is always an honor to call or email State and/or Federal legislators when I receive the call to action from you and the team at NPE, because I have independently verified the information you provide as being both accurate and factual.
Everyone at NPE is an example of great leadership in action and this is one reason why we are seeing successes like the COAT act realized. Thank you and everyone at NPE for your unwavering commitment to our children and their future.
I will have to listen wait until my blood pressure is very low and needs a boost. The charter grifters know how to pack the audience with shills.
Lance, listen to it. It’s really a good exercise in crossing swords with diverse views.
One statement Mantle made needs to be challenged. He threw out a hard ball question about charters not being allowing to discriminate. Of course, Diane did not have the actual data in front of her, and I think he knew it. Maybe he should ask her back and allow her to respond to the false claims he was making. We all know that there is massive data available, but that’s not what he wanted to hear. I can’t count how many times charter advocates attempt to quote the law. But, as we know, these laws are broken all the time. The law provides huge wiggle room for charters to remain open even if they cherry pick students or demonstrate very low achievement. After all, it’s kind of awkward to shut them down after so much money has been poured into start up funds, loans and state bonds for charter facilities, even though there are plenty of seats available in our public schools.
NPR is a pathetic joke.
It’s basically Fox News with a different political slant, and not so very different on many things that really matter.
They call themselves “public” radio but don’t represent the vast majority of the public at all — not even of Democrats. They represent the smug corpirate elites in the Democratic party (and no, that’s not a typo)