As readers of this blog know, the Network for Public Education has strongly supported reform of the federal Charter Schools Program, which got its start in 1994 to help mom-and-pop start-up charters. Led by Carol Burris, executive director of NPE, we released two reports showing that the CSP program had wasted nearly a billion dollars, that it funded white flight academies, that it was marred by waste, fraud, and abuse, and that it was a major funder for charter chains.
Biden’s Department of Education issued draft regulations to reform CSP, and the charter lobby spent millions pushing back against any reforms.
The charter lobby lost!
Jan Resseger reports the good news: the U.S. Department of Education stood its ground.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Not a huge victory, however a step in the right direction.
It’s up to States to regulate the Public Education system, and that is the battlefield where the war needs to go. In other words, there’s only so much the Feds can do.
The feds can regular the $440 million they hand out to charter entrepreneurs. They can also eliminate the handout altogether because it’s not needed. Let the Waltons, Reed Hastings and other billionaires pay to start new charters.
Ehhhh I’ll disagree here
The feds are spending federal money to fund their own school models locally – which does pull students from local schools they are not directly choosing to fund
They can exercise control over their programs as well as the distribution of federal funds from the congressional allocations (Title IX and the like)
There is plenty of room there in both of those routes to improve
MD Your note reflects an oversight (deliberate or not) of the difference between public and other institutions.
That is, money is spent by “the government” which, in turn, is generated from taxes, or by “the people,” and which is delivered by those whom the people have elected, and who have taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution.
TOTALLY DIFFERENT ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL foundations for charters and other non-public educational establishments. If OUR representatives fund charters (etc.), the oversight/accountability should be even MORE intense and assiduous than public schools and should reach to our representatives themselves, precisely because the capitalist/profit-model is at work in most if not all.
That’s a HUGE difference; and insofar as it holds, there is no such thing as the feds’ “own school models,” and what you are talking about when you say: “The feds are spending federal money to fund their own school models locally – which does pull students from local schools they are not directly choosing to fund.”
Please do tell me if there is some other model that I’m not aware of? If not, I have some reading for you to do. CBK
The CSP while passing the federal money to states to establish schools – is essentially a federal funding of local school models
They pass the money to states with their own regulations to enforce – given how loose those have been until now – I put the blame on the feds not the states for what the CSP became
As far as level of accountability – that’s a political judgment as far as what gets measured and how
You may be morally and ethically right on what should be done – but what is done is based on politicians and bureaucrats and what they can get through our imperfect legal system
Some CSP money goes to states, some directly to the charter corporation.
In almost 30 years, there has never been oversight of how the money is spent.
Daedalus “The Feds” are the only ones who can keep the States from imploding back to the 18th century.
You want North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma to have their way with education? So sorry to hear it. If the civil rights train is not already leaving the station, it will be hastened if education is not accountable to “the feds.” CBK
So, you are advocating for a Federal education system? I might agree, however not under Trump. Think about it.
Look, no one’s gonna be happy with any system that ‘teaches’ their kids. However, no one has the time or means to teach their kid by themselves. It would be great if we has a system where that could happen. My mother taught me until I was 6 years old, and the education was pretty good. But most Moms, nowadays, need to work during the day to ‘maintain the standard of living’, which doesn’t include the education of their children.
Schools have traditionally been one of our most democratic institutions. Suggesting Federal control as a good thing totally destroys that tradition. Odd, eh? You are proposing that a Federal authority ought to raise kids, rather than the parents and neighborhood (school district, not the State).
Perhaps the Supreme Court (Federal) should weigh in? Takes a village to raise a child, but not a Federal government.
Daedalus I’m saying the federal government via our founding documents, their freedoms, mandates, and omissions, the government’s history of breathing life into our public institutions, e.g., in the Constitution and its abhorrence of kings, in the Bill of Rights, and other amendments etc., then the laws, . . . already provide the broad outlines for educating children beyond whatever family and other-social education they get. It’s already the political foundation of what you say, e.g., freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc., that “Schools have traditionally been one of our most democratic (public) institutions.”
I am not “suggesting federal control e.g., some sort of micro-managing of curriculum that would “destroy that tradition,” nor that “a federal authority ought to raise kids, rather than the parents and neighborhood (school district, not the State).” Not at all except, again, as providing the political foundation for that to occur. Pull that away, and we are left with chaos as we are inviting the totalitarian to fill the vacuum of power that is left when democracies die. (That’s what I mean by saying that we take democracy for granted. We don’t recognize it, that we are taking it for granted, and so we cannot see it slipping away.)
In the present concrete situation, with the states changing their mandates, for instance, about suppressing the vote, gerrymandering, or teaching history including about slavery, Jim Crow, and racism, sexism, etc., (and now also SCOTUS), I meant in my note that:
. . . what is to keep state legislatures from killing democracy through changes in voting (actually throwing out votes that those in power don’t like) and education (actually firing teachers for saying “certain” words, and banning books) except the Federal Government and its laws, e.g., Brown vs Board of Education, or the later civil rights laws that made it illegal for the southern states to close their schoolhouse doors to black students, or to women (you know . . . that whole history).
Implied in our democracy and its freedoms, however, is THAT everyone must be provided access to learning (education is mandated in many states for children, by professionally trained and certified teachers (it seems even THAT is changing) so that children can become citizens who have the wherewithal to both understand their own democracy and to take steps to keep it (voting at all levels/local, state, federal). Also implied is NOT to omit the uncomfortable or, for instance, the history of religious influence on countries and cultures (not propaganda or “teaching doctrine”), or others’ cultures and ways of living, and not to install the Koch-type propaganda that fosters arrogance and capitalist-only thinking, limits and closes down the very foundation for our children becoming informed and able to intelligently choose what’s right for ourselves and for everyone.
That’s why democracy is, by its very nature, an experiment. As democratic, the people have to choose it each generation. As an experiment, we can still NOT choose it, or choose something else. But the less we know about it and other kinds of political foundations to compare it with, the less we are informed enough to do right by ourselves.
Such broad outlines at the federal level are fluid precisely because they ARE broad and so are in constant interpretive communication with the details of our living as parents, neighborhoods, school districts, businesses, county and state governments.
So, I think you are right when you say that “traditionally schools have been one of our most democratic institutions. Suggesting Federal CONTROL as a good thing totally destroys that tradition.” So, I am NOT “proposing that a Federal authority ought to raise kids, rather than the parents and neighborhood (school district, not the State).” Certainly, someone needs to raise them, however, besides Tik-Tok, other children, computer games, the advertising industry, and blood-and-guts movies.
But as our political foundations already in place, the federal laws already provide freedoms and guardrails, so to speak, for WHY, as you say, traditionally schools have been one of our most democratic PUBLIC institutions. Sorry to be so long, but I don’t like being misunderstood. CBK
Think we need to sit down over a glass of wine, somewhere. We are clearly very close to agreement. Our energy needs to be focused toward those who want to dismantle the Public School system. I presume you have been a ‘public school teacher’, as have I.
As you know, ‘teachers’ are highly independent. In one sense, this is good (it teaches students to explore). In another, however, it is destructive. It eliminates solidarity in the face of political repression. Difficult problems require a calm environment and at least a glass of wine.
Daedalus Yes, on the wine thing. And yes also: I’ve taught in both public and Catholic K-12 but only as an adjunct while I was getting my own education. Most of my teaching experience comes from teaching K-12 teachers who were already teaching, but came back to school for their masters degree. I absolutely loved it. And again, yes, “Our energy needs to be focused toward those who want to dismantle the Public School system.”
I also found that special kind of independence in the teachers I have experienced . . . the best of what is American is manifest in that independence along with librarians.
However, I also think many have come up in (1) their own k-12, college, and (2) in their educational/department courses with little or no real awareness of their own political ground. And, as if we need to pile more responsibility onto k-12 teachers, I think they as a group have been, as you say, not working together for their own positions and professions, but also, they have been quite naive about their political standing.
Time and time again I met teachers who lived and breathed under the assumption that their government representatives wanted and worked for what they, the teachers, wanted . . . and what they wanted was what was really best for the children. If so, then all is hunky dory on that score.
To me, that whole idea has been a scam and up there in the running with “non-profit” charter schools for being the “biggest gaslight situation of the century.” CBK
I believe none of this would have happened without all the hard work contributed by NPE. I hope the feds have a system of accountability that demonstrates compliance with the rules. For example, when they hold a public meeting, they must present a list of names of those attending. At least the revised regulations will stop most of the outrageous profiteering, particularly sweeps contracts.
Also encouraging is that the federal government and the members of the committee stood up to the charter lobby backed by billionaires.
retired Yes . . . I am also encouraged. Why am I waiting for another shoe to drop? CBK
YES!!!
hard and endless work, yes
Thank you Diane and NPE. This is hopeful news!
In view of the powerful multifaceted argument in favor of charter schools presented by economist Thomas Sowell in ‘Charter Schools and Their Enemies,’ I cannot applaud the Biden administration’s “reforms” in this regard. A victory for the all-powerful teachers’ unions but not for politically powerless low-income children.
Thomas Sowell is a libertarian fanatic. He is 92 years old. His arguments for charter schools are based on ideology, not reality. Why should the federal government give out $440 million every year with zero oversight or accountability? 15% of the federally funded charters either never open or close before their grant runs out. 40% are gone within 5 years. Di you think this is a sound expenditure of federal dollars? Let the Waltons and other billionaires pay for them.
I totally agree. However every year our government gives out fifteen times that amount to another organization that can’t even find the paperwork for an audit.
Diane,
Please. Using words like ‘fanatic’ and saying his ideas are ‘not reality’ are the signs of rhetoric run amock. It was once understood that with the power of understanding rhetoric came a responsibility. And, I would add, the (current) age of the person is totally irrelevant (consider your own age). It’s the logic (not the rhetoric) that counts in the end. It’s what makes a better world in the future a possibility.
Please stop demeaning the message by attacking the messenger. This would be flagged in a High School debate. Makes me sad.
“Ideology vs.reality”? Have you actually read Sowell’s book? His argument is supported by well-documented factual outcomes. Ironically, it is critics like you who dismiss such outcomes because they do not fit your ideology. .
Tom Sowell hasn’t been in a school in 50 years. He only cites research that agrees with his free-market, extremist views.
The real research shows that charter schools don’t get better results than public schools. Many get far worse results than public schools.
Those that get high scores cherry-pick students and kick out those they don’t want.
A startling number close their doors within g
Five years of opening.
Don’t waste my time.
I gotta say, the ‘research’ relies on bullpucky testing scores, therefore it’s bullpucky. The ultimate goal is (to me) a more informed, cogent adult. Unfortunately (given the state of our society) it seems I’ve failed. Yet, there is a bright student or two, which is all we retired teachers can expect, apparently.
What objective measures would you use to assess educational outcomes if not such “bullpucky” tests of basic language and math skills?
As for Diane’s “cherry-picking” objection, Sowell effectively rebuts such arguments on pp. 102ff.
Why won’t you read anything other than Thomas Sowell?
There is objective data showing that charters don’t get better results than public schools.
Charters in Ohio and Nevada get worse results than public schools.
Many charters are run by for-profit corporations.
Many charter operators are in prison for embezzlement.
If you refuse to open your mind, stop wasting my time.
The failure of some charter schools is not an argument against all charters schools—some of which have dramatically outperformed their closest public counterparts.
For someone who graduated from Hunter High School, a public high school, you should be ashamed to align yourself with the rightwing attack on public education. Public schools take all kids. Charter schools choose.
Though public, Hunter is able to “cherry-pick” students from the 5 boroughs by competitive exam. Moreover, it is under the jurisdiction of Hunter College, and is thus free of the stultifying influence of the NYC Board of Education.
Sadly, thanks to leftwing ideologues the quality of public schools in general (esp. in poor neighborhoods) has eroded precipitously since the 1930s and 1940s, when Sowell and other low-income blacks were actually able to get a good education in Harlem public schools, for example.
I therefore feel no qualms about advocating alternatives to traditional public schools, which are proving largely impervious to sensible reform from within.
Read my book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.” I once thought as you did. Then I woke up. There’s hope for you too.
No charter school that accepts the same demographic of kids as public schools has “dramatic results.” Not one.
The success of an education can be measured by the success of the society it produces. Unfortunately, that takes a few years. For a while America seemed to be gaining. Then we hit a peak (I’d say around 1960) and it’s been downhill since then.
Tests are useful to the teacher to determine if more time needs to be spent on a particular topic, or if the method needs adjusting. They are BS when applied to either student ‘grades’ or teacher ‘performance’.
Got a book for you. “The Mismeasure of Man”, by S.J.Gould.
You’ve got to be kidding me. The ‘all powerful teachers unions’? The largest one doesn’t even dare to call itself a ‘union’. Teachers are such individualists that they can’t even imagine coming together for a common goal. They are also so focused upon their students that they can’t bother to spend energy on their own well-being.
Whose well-being was uppermost in the decision to keep public schools closed for so long during the pandemic? Surely, not that of the kids, who were at demonstrably low risk for Covid.
Are you a research scientist? Where did you get your doctorate? Enlighten us.
Michelle Marder Kamhi
“Whose well-being was uppermost in the decision to keep public schools closed for so long during the pandemic? Surely, not that of the kids, who were at demonstrably low risk for Covid.”
100% Pure Grade AA Bovine Excrement. Younger people/children are at the same risk of contracting, spreading and suffering the consequences of being infected by Covid.
Your statement is a lie, plain and simple.
Did you address this to me, ‘Duane’? Odd, but that’s what happens when you let ‘tech’ make the decisions. Machines (and ‘bots’) are remarkably stupid, Once upon a time, supposedly ‘liberal arts’ folks understood that.
No, it’s addressed to Michell MK.
Thanks for the clarification. Go in peace, bro.
Regarding your objection to Thomas Sowell’s ‘Charter Schools and Their Enemies,’ how often do you cite research that doesn’t support your thesis? As for Sowell, he ably rebuts the sort of “real research” you allude to.
Michelle Marder Kamhi Certainly, we can compare and contrast different information, arguments, and sources that, in turn, inform our own. That process is extremely helpful in sorting out and discussing the arguments with others in many contexts.
But we’re not in college anymore, Dorothy, nor in a mental armchair. It’s not a mental exercise of either/or anymore, as essential as those are in some situations. The present concrete situation, however, calls for entering the dialogue as participants in a similarly concrete fight for our democratic existence. <–that may sound like hyperbole, but I assure you, and considering the massive and accumulating evidence, it’s not.
So, while we can still talk freely about such things, at some point, those who understand the situation (do you?) have to take a stand on (1) the arguments as presented and, importantly in this context (and I speak for myself if not Diane), (2) the arguments’ and their sources’ evident political foundations.
In Diane’s case, she has been hanging around these issues for YEARS and written several books about it; and has demonstrated regularly both an openness to genuine argument and a willingness to call the pitch or better, offsides, when the evidence is profuse and clear. Though I am sure neither I nor she is immune to error, in my view, not in this case and especially since Sowell’s and his sources’ political foundations are quite clear and not up to the speed of most of those cited here, or, more to the point, of understanding AND supporting either democracy or the U.S. Constitution.
As example, how many times did I have to watch Fox News, and compare it with most of the others, and in the context of the actual words coming from the mouths of those they continually twist and misquote, to understand that Fox=degenerate? Let me know when either Fox or Sowell undergoes a political conversion? CBK
Catherine,
Sowell underwent his political conversion many decades ago, when observation of real phenomena prompted him to abandon the Marxist ideology he had embraced in his youth. As it happens, I underwent a similar conversion from left to right years ago.
I’m not sure how Fox got into this discussion, but since you raised it, it’s worth noting that Fox’s much-maligned Tucker Carlson, for example, was alone in reporting (before the 2020 election, when it might have had an impact on the outcome) that Hunter Biden’s laptop was not mere “Russian disinformation.” Now that we are deep into the disastrously feckless Biden administration, the media sources you apparently trust more than Fox have conceded the reality of the laptop and its contents—without any apology, of course, for their previous cover-up. Not to mention their years-long claims regarding Trump’s “Russian collusion.”
Regarding democracy, giving low-income parents greater choice in how their children are educated seems highly democratic to me.
Sowell’s transition occurred 70 years ago. I seriously doubt that he has been in a public school for more than half a century.
There really are data collected by the US government showing that charter schools are no better than public schools, and many are run by for-profit grifters. They scam the public of millions—in some cases like Ohio and California—of hundreds of millions. Some get high scotes by excluding kids with low scores.
Really, until you read something other than Sowell, your opinion is uninformed. You might as well quote the charter lobbyists.
Did Sowell mention the A3 charter chain, which stole hundreds of millions from the state of California?
That’s a specious argument. Sowell’s data aren’t from 70 years ago. They are from the 2017-2018 school year. Moreover, he clearly explains that it is meaningless to use government data comparing public schools as a whole with charter schools as a whole because of their widely divergent demographics. His comparisons are much more fine-grained, based on schools drawing on essentially the same population, even housed in the same building.
As for scams like the A3 chain, Sowell by no means advocates indiscriminately embracing all charter schools. He merely argues that charter schools should be given a fair chance, under scrutiny by some authority not linked to the public schools, which have a vested interest in preserving their monopoly. Not to mention what is perhaps the most effective scrutiny—by parents themselves, who can vote with their feet if not prevented from doing so by official policy.
Finally, where’s your outrage over the millions wasted by the public schools that are failing to educate so many poor and minority students?
Charter schools have been in existence for 30 years. They have a track record. They get the same results as public schools when they enroll the same demographics. The charters that get high test scores, like NYC’s Success Academy, do not enroll the same kids as public schools. They have a small percentage of students with disabilities, and no students with profound disabilities. They also have a very high attrition rate. Most students who enroll in Success Academy do not make it to graduation. Their first class of 100 or so students produced 16 graduates.
Sowell is a rightwing ideologue who ignores the high failure rate of charters. Read “Asleep at the Wheel” and “Still Asleep at the Wheel,” which documents the very large percentage of charters that don’t survive 5 years.
What about the failure rate of public schools in low-income communities? Or are you a left-wing ideologue who ignores such failures?
Read my book “Reign of Error.”
Michelle MK Public schools are not a “monopoly” insofar as they are not a business, a non-profit, or a profit-making concern. Rather, they are funded by taxes, which are spent by our representatives, who are charted to be frugal, but who also are elected, and who take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution of a democracy, which is for/of/by the “the People,” who pay taxes so all can have life and liberty and pursue happiness/well-being. What a concept. It’s government at the service of the people with government servants . . .on principle, it cannot be “a monopoly.”
Comparing “government schools” with charters, whether profit or non-profit, or public private partnerships (<–more doublespeak), is a common fallacy (whether deliberate or out of ignorance) in the so-called reformers’ language. It is used to mislead parents and others who haven’t thought it through and who are busy, and so trust what well-organized and well-healed capitalists with big names tell them.
I could go on with the rest of your note, but I won’t. Just this: You’re in the wrong place . . . such snow jobs don’t weather well here. CBK
Definition of “monopoly” from the American Heritage® Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2016:
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently … arises from government support. . . .” (Milton Friedman).
Michelle MK “*Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: ‘Monopoly frequently … arises from government support. . . . (Milton Friedman).
Sorry to bother you with this, but there is no “one group” controlling the means of producing or selling . . . unless you refer to the entire “we the people” of the United States and our tax base, then to the flow of “government support,” again, through elected officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws governing/for/of/by-the people.
If our sworn representatives are supporting monopolies, then they are already averse to and severed from “the people,” their oath, the Constitution, and the laws . . . but then corruption occurs and grows when they begin to change the laws to the advantage, to their own self-service (as Trump did and does, and at present the NRA does, etc.).
Do you really not understand this difference and how even the language you use is permeated with capitalist-only language and assumptions, and omissive of a clear understanding of what democratic government means? CBK
Don’t think I’d rely on Milton Friedman for anything.
Daedalus About Friedman . . . I wasn’t going to say anything . . . . CBK
Catherine and Daedalus:
Milton Friedman’s public policy theories are based on two core principles: 1) voluntary interactions between consumers and businesses often produce results superior to those crafted by government decree; 2) policies have unintended consequences, so economists should focus on results, not intentions.
What problem do you have with that, and what sort of policy would you advocate instead?
Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys were given full rein in Chile, and they only proved that their ideas required a brutal militaristic dictatorship in order for such a system to stay in power (work). They had a lab, they had a chance, and they failed, miserably. Economics may use ‘math’ but it’s more of a religion than a science.
Though my guess is that you won’t bother to read it, the following article offers a more judicious assessment than your account of Milton Friedman’s dealings with Chile: “The Economist and the Dictator,” Reason Magazine,12.15.2006. In any case, it is egregiously deceptive to cite Pinochet’s Chile but ignore the wide-ranging constructive influence of Friedman’s ideas, as detailed in his Wall Street Journal obituary as well as in the New York Times.
Michelle Marder Kamhi Good question (see your note below).
I think the problem is one of understanding the difference between (a) policy and (b) the political foundations that underpin said policy. Or: the two core principles are not core enough? (Perhaps Freidman is clear on this in his other writings, some of which I have read, but a long time ago where I only remember being left with a negative impression, probably about the below paragraph. If I had time, I would pursue that line of questioning, so my comments remain hypothetical . . . drawing only on what you say here.)
My distinction, then, in your stated “core principles” narrative, would be in saying that, instead of voluntary interactions. . . . being “crafted by government decree,” rather, the foundations of democratic government (by the aforesaid circularity of power) CONDITION those interactions towards levity and fairness . . . so that, for instance, such “decrees” cannot be crafted by predatory capitalists alone and so as (a bit of humor here? but not really?) “to screw the people,” (e.g., get rid of anything public, poison the planet and its water, racist redlining, drug the public with their pain pills, etc.), or worse and more generally corrosive, to take deceptive steps towards fascism, e.g., that are for keeping everyone ignorant of their intentional end-runs, even to vote against policies that are actually for their own well-being).
Public policy and regulations on businesses emerge from the principles that inform the foundations of democracy, and not from a wish to “craft decrees” or to hinder legitimate business practices. We can only have our freedoms if we don’t abuse our responsibilities and call down more laws to control our excesses. By “legitimate,” I mean to set the conditions for actual fairness for all concerned, including those who have little or no political power. (Need I explain THAT?) For a predatory capitalist, however, “legitimate” begins with “be sure I get mine and kill anything public while you are at it.”
On the other hand, businesses and their end-run consequences, insofar as they are involved with predation, self-service, and/or capitalist-only principles, make it their job to slander, smear, and obfuscate democratic principles (that support anything public) knowing and intending quite well what the consequences of their actions will be. Look at what’s going on presently: nothing unintended there. CBK
Your note: “Milton Friedman’s public policy theories are based on two core principles: 1) voluntary interactions between consumers and businesses often produce results superior to those crafted by government decree; 2) policies have unintended consequences, so economists should focus on results, not intentions. . . . What problem do you have with that, and what sort of policy would you advocate instead?”
Michelle MK The briefer response to your note about Freidman is that self-regulation of capitalists (or the “invisible hand,” which is based on natural, not human sciences, and so is the biggest joke in economic literature) . . . equates to no regulation at all, and certainly not governed by democratic principles; or it is regulation according to the whims, biases, and low-level politics du jour of the self-serving. CBK
Michell,
I have always been a critic of ‘short term’ evaluation (despite being forced to give it). However, ‘charter schools’ have had a long time to prove themselves. Would you put your money into a fund that failed for 30 years to do better than average (or a bit worse)?
Charter schools were actually pushed by public school teachers because they thought local school boards were holding them back. As it turned out, those school boards were smarter than the billionaire owners of charter schools. Who’d have believed it! Billionaires are just as stupid as an elected school board! (Except when it comes to stealing money from the rest of society, of course).
Michelle Marder Kamhi ** First**, you say: “I’m not sure how Fox got into this discussion,. . . ”
Hmmm . . . Well, Fox News is an example of why, according to massive and accumulating evidence, intelligent people don’t have to listen to political garbage forever to make a judgment that it’s, . . . well, . . . it’s a purveyor of political garbage. It was an analogous reference to your call for Diane to consider political references that inform what continues to be extremist and now dangerous political views . . . “dangerous” insofar as they undercut the very political ground that conditions peaceful argument in the first place. She’s probably been there, done that. From my memory of it, I think her conversion was real “upward” transformation and not “sideways” or just a change from one extreme to another.
Second, so the laptop thing was a press and political disaster with no apology? Here’s one: I am sorry that the press didn’t catch that one sooner. My guess is, it made them more aware and cautious.
On the other hand, and though I have no problem admitting error, even if, like others, it makes me cringe, it’s a little different when (a) you know that a good smearing is on the way, as if errors make for stupidity and deliberate evil of ALL forever that Biden and the mainstream press do; (b) when the list of the smearer’s unapologetic wrongdoing is longer than life itself; and (c) when the assumption becomes: “THERE WAS NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION! by TRUMP, . . . remember him? . . . the one who can change reality with a Sharpie and who cannot NOT lie?
And again, I think what you call a “political conversion” is rather a reactionary change to another extreme view. . . not exactly what I meant, but that’s okay.
Did you read Diane’s note to you about reading her books? Good idea. CBK
I have written three books about charter schools. Why don’t you read one of them? I was Assistant Secretary of Education for Research in the George H.W. Bush administration and I was a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, where Thomas Sowell has been employed for decades.
Why don’t you read one of my books and inform yourself of a different point of view? I’ve been on both sides. Sowell has not.
Read:
“The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education”
“Reign of Error”
“Slaying Goliath”
Why not open your mind to a different point of view?
“Why not open your mind to a different point of view?”
You’re asking the impossible!
I have never supported charter schools.
Not only do they not have to comply with mandates to which public schools are required, but they can throw out a child out just by saying,
‘We have done all we can.’
I this helps public schools.
In response to Duane E Swacker,
“Younger people/children are at the same risk of . . . suffering the consequences of being infected by Covid.”
What’s your source for that dubious fact, Duane?
Here are some of my sources:
Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death By Age Group https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html
Number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the U.S. as of June 2, 2022, by age
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/>
Severe covid in children is generally linked to comorbidities
https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20210917/comorbidities-in-children-linked-to-severe-covid19