Steven Singer, a teacher in Pennsylvania, explains here why he thinks charter schools should be abolished. They drain resources from the public schools. They are free to choose the students they want and exclude those they don’t want. They don’t produce better results than public schools. They close at alarming rates. They have been the source of many scandals. Some operate for profit.
Why do we need charter schools, he asks? We don’t.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Exactly right
We also need to reduce, dramatically, micromanagement of public schools by districs and state departments and the federal government.
cx: districts
ofc
On the contrary, the goal should be total control of teachers through implantation of a chip by Elon Musk’s Neuralink company.
The plan was all laid out by Plankton in a SpongeBob episode
haaaa
Strong public schools are necessary to democracy. They have academic, social, civil, community and personal benefits. Public schools have a mission that was outlined by our founding fathers. They were never intended to be commodified or owned by private interests. Charter schools are failed experiment that have become a pork barrel of waste, fraud and profiteering. There is a reason there are rules, transparency and accountability in public schools.
Charter schools are failed brain child of marketeers, profiteers and regressive politicians. They continuously put profit ahead of students, and they always will. Vouchers are even worse. They send unaccountable tax dollars to parts unknown and provide less than zero benefits. They are a deficit folly, and they make no sense at all. The federal government has no business sending our unaccountable tax dollars to unproven, speculative schools that have repeatedly failed to deliver on their promises, just because billionaires keeping bribing politicians to keep the public funds flowing into wasteful privatization.
One of the major goals of most if not all Charter School founders is profits, not educating children.
In their minds, if they achieved that goal, they succeeded.
Even so-called nonprofits often profit the people whom they employ.
College Board is a perfect example.
Success Academy is another.
They would be more aptly called “profit laundries” because their basic function is to launder profits (through employee salaries, bonuses and perks) in order to appear (on the books) to be turning no profit.
What is absolutely required to address this problem is a complete rehaul of nonprofit tax law and the hiring of sufficient IRS personnel to investigate and prosecute any organization that is violating the law — along with the individuals who work for the organizations.
I believe the CEO of Success Academy is paid about $1 million a year. Some from public funds, some from her board, which includes some billionaires.
How can an organization like college Board with revenue of over $700 million be considered “non-profit?
They do it by effectively laundering profits through employee salaries and benefits.
For example, in 2020 alone, David Coleman made $2.5 million as CEO of College Board.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/131623965
And it’s all perfectly legal because the tax laws were set up by members of the wealthy class who stand to benefit most from the laws.
Of course the latter is why it is very unlikely that there will be any changes to the laws to exclude organizations like College Board from nonprofit status.
The Parasite
The parasite
Consumes it’s host
Without a bite
It leaves a ghost
It drains host dry
And then moves on
Til by and by
The host is gone
While in theory I agree with much of this – what do we say to parents who cannot move and whose traditonal public schools are, well, doing horrible jobs at educating their children? More money? That will not solve all of the problems? Do we need a system where anyone could start a charter school? No. That said, put yourself into the shoes of these parents – who cannot move, etc. What woud you do for your child? Can you really blame the parent for pursuing other options…I worked in DC Public Schools from 2004-2009. DC has some great schools, but some not so great. I find it fascinating that many of my former students who now have children of their own in DC have decided to send their kids to charter schools. Why? In part because of the horrible experiences they had as students in DC schools…Can you blame them for looking elsewhere?
I do not blame parents for opting for a better, safer option for their children, but money does make a difference, particularly when that money is directed towards direct services for students. I support Singer’s statement. “However, you can’t reform a system that is at its core inequitable.” That belief is at the core of all forms of privatization.
We should also recognize that there is a long standing war against public education. With the help of complicit politicians, urban schools have been systematically underfunded. No students should have to attend unsafe schools with rotting buildings, large classes full of poor students and unqualified teachers. We have the ability to do better, and we must. We have to support schools that provide equitable education in underserved communities, and we have to face the fact that these troubled schools serve mostly poor Black and Brown students. Charters and vouchers are a convenient escape hatch that continues a tradition of inequality, but a democratic solution resides in providing well funded public schools that serve all students.
RT, I agree.
jlsteach,
I respect your point of view, but let’s be clear about what you are talking about, which has nothing to do with charters.
You want the public school system to have schools available in every district that can drum out the kids who they don’t want to teach, and public schools to have other schools available in every district for the drummed out kids that the other schools don’t want to teach.
Remember that your sympathy for the parents you invoke rings hollow if their kid isn’t wanted by any of the “good” charter schools that dump their kids if their kid’s performance makes them less than desirable. Especially if dumping their kid makes room for a more promising student in their place. So what do you say to those parents then? Tough luck??
If that system you just advocated for existed as you wish, I assume you agree with me that it would be the height of stupidity to give the principals of the public schools that dump kids they don’t want to teach extraordinarily high salaries, and give their schools that only teach the least inexpensive to teach students millions in extra funding. I assume you would think it absurd to tell the schools that accepted the most expensive to teach kids those “better” schools dumped that they aren’t doing a good enough job, so their budgets will be cut so more money can be given to the “good” public school whose dumped kids they teach.
Or if you think that is a great idea, you sound like a typical charter promoter.
We have that in NYC. Lots of “choice” public schools that are “good” because – even with a lottery – the parents who choose them tend to be most involved with their kids’ education.
The main difference is that those public schools aren’t incentivized to dump the kids who do get in because no one rewards the principal who loses mysteriously high cohorts of students but claims a “100% graduation rate” with the 50% of the students who are allowed to remain.
There are a very tiny handful of charters like that but they are denoted as failure whose administration should all be fired and immediately replaced by “superior” charter CEOs like Eva Moskowitz who would institute her secret recipe of making 40% of the students disappear and be highly rewarded financially for the 100% graduation rates of the ones allowed to remain.
It makes no sense to incentivize bad behavior and financially reward it using money that is taken from the most disadvantaged students who need it most. So your concern for those parents rings hollow unless you are advocating for a dual public school system– public schools for the haves and have nots in DC. That’s what you want. You should own it instead of glossing over what it is you are advocating – privatizing charters as the school for the “haves” and public schools for the “have nots”.
Privatization weakens the schools that serve all students which results in greater inequity and enhanced segregation. Starving public schools while building up the private sector is undemocratic. It results in public system that resembles a vision from a Dickens’ novel. The public schools become the schools of last resort for poor discarded students that certain members of society have decided don’t deserve a fair chance when these schools should be the backbone of American democracy.
The secret of charter success? Exclude or expel the kids who are disobedient, difficult, low test scores, etc.
What do you propose we do with/for these children?
Dr Ravitch – is that the only “secret to charter success”? As I said I believe it’s illegal and immoral for any school to simply dismiss students without multiple chances. That said none of the anti-charter stances here have addressed he notion that in my small sample many young parents are cohosting charter versus local public school. My theory – their own public school experiences were concerning and they want something new for their kids. Can you blame them?
School choice originated in the late 1950s in response to the Brown decision. Whites didn’t want to desegregate. They didn’t want their children to sit next to Black children. That remains the primary reason for school choice—parents want their children to go to schools with children like them.
You can spin it any way you want, but that’s the fact.
Chile and Sweden embraced choice and there were two big results: increased segregation along ethnic, religious, and SES lines. And decreased test scores.
jlsteach says: “none of the anti-charter stances here have addressed the notion that in my small sample many young parents are choosing charter versus local public school.” (typos corrected).
Did anyone notice jlsteach explaining what happens when those “young parents” in the small sample are finding their kids drummed out of the charter? Or does the “small sample” exclude parents who are are severely economically disadvantaged whose kids have learning disabilities or whose kids need real educators instead of inexperienced teachers who have been taught that any student who doesn’t respond to the one teaching method their 10-week training taught them is “bad” and should be treated that way?
jlsteach, I challenge you to answer this question:
If the secret to charter success is NOT excluding or expelling the kids who are disobedient, difficult, have low test scores, etc, then how do you explain why the supposedly “best” charters have such extraordinarily high attrition rates and the mediocre charters do not? It should be the opposite — the “best” charters should have extraordinarily low attrition rates, just like every single one of the “best” public schools do.
Stop insulting the kids who go to charters and the parents who choose charters for their kids by repeating the nasty insinuation that the suspiciously high number of kids who disappear (or are made to disappear) from the “best” charters do so because either the kids are too violent or because their parents hate good schools.
Just be honest. They are normal kids who struggle to learn or behave and the charter wanted to teach only the students who made them look good.
Parents may want charters but the charters don’t want all of those parents.
I wanted to chime back in on a few things with this discussion. First, on the “underfunding” of urban schools, DCPS spends over $12,000 per student, and that number has continued to go up over the last decade (at least). I am not sure that the underfunding argument completely holds water – now, how that money is spent – that is another issue unto itself. Second, NYC public school parent, you stated, ” that your sympathy for the parents you invoke rings hollow if their kid isn’t wanted by any of the “good” charter schools that dump their kids if their kid’s performance makes them less than desirable” – On this we do agree – I think the way that some (not all but definitely some) charter schools will accept students, only to them kick them out after the deadline to keep the allocation of funds, should be illegal (but sadly the way the rules are in place they are not). However, the parents that I was referring to are parents who from the outset choose a charter school over a DCPS traditional public school. Instead of simply bashing charter schools, perhaps one should ask why these parents are making these decisions…
How can you or anyone justify a double set of publicly-funded public schools?
One is required to accept all students, regardless of their English language ability, their disability status, their behavior or their test scores.
The other is free to accept the students it wants and to reject students that the first group of schools is free to exclude.
Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that many parents would want their child to attend the school that is exclusive, no slackers, no troublemakers.
But is it good for our society to subsidize segregation?
No it’s not. If I had any power I’d say charters had to accept students for the year, and would have more oversight. That said it’s not just the small group of students. It’s also safety. It’s about quality of teaching (in some cases). As you well know we already have a segregated school system without charters. Wealthier parents can move to better school. Those without means cannot. Charters were supposed to provide competition to improve public schools – yet in many cases that hasn’t happened. Does bashing charters always help make traditional public schools better?
jlsteach,
You can have choice without charters. Why are you putting a private organization in there? All of your arguments could be made about ANY for-profit private school. Let’s just agree that the state will pay for any private school and be done with it, right?
Did you ever wonder how a private school could charge $30,000/year, exclude students who aren’t already quick learners, AND expect parents to hire private tutors if their kid struggles to learn? Are you suggesting that there is so much graft in private schools that administrators are embezzling funds?
You imply that spending $12,000/ student is too much money for teaching students from disadvantaged backgrounds, no private tutors, who often begin kindergarten with far less exposure to education than schools that charge $30,000 and more.
What is wrong with you? It’s far cheaper to teach students whose parents have given them every advantage and will hire private tutors to subsidize their kids’ education. It is expensive to teach the most at-risk students. The harm done by charter folks who claim they welcome all students when they don’t is evident in posts like yours. If you believe it and want to starve the public schools, you are being conned. If you know the truth, but don’t care, you are just heartless.
Failed experiment – move on
Thanks so much for writing about my blog again, Diane. I really appreciate it as well as all the thoughtful comments.
I don’t think the issue is pitting parents against districts. It’s the rules a district should have to follow to be eligible for public funding. I think all districts should have an even playing field. Deregulating public education – that’s really what this is – has been a disaster. If there are some regulations we can do without (and there probably are) we should get rid of them across the board. Don’t do for one what you won’t do for others.
Moreover, the solution to underfunding schools won’t be to add a new school and split up the already deficient funds between two schools. We need adequate, equitable and sustainable funding. Period.
Finally, if schools are adequately funded, they can provide a lot of choice to parents and students within a district. You don’t need some fly-by-night charter school that could be run by any old yahoo off the street.
Abolish charter schools. It’s way passed time.
The Reagan Way
Fire controller
Use scab to replace
Charter extoller
Is Ron on it’s face
its face
Damned ChatGOP
I totally agree with your comments, Diane, and Steven’s. When Albert Shanker proposed the idea, it was totally different than the established charter schools.
Here in Washington state it took years for the charter school law to pass, and in 2012 it allowed for 40 schools to be established. Now there are 24, eleven years later. But, about one third failed, many due to financial mismanagement. They left the students and parents in the lurch and had no accountability.
The academic achievement of charter schools in state after state is usually worse than in public schools, as the CPE reports.. In my book “Comparing America’s Public Schools: Lessons from Top Scoring Nations” I used the arguments of those saying we should emulate other countries and proved using the test scores against them that charter schools are not better, and that other countries do not even have them (except a few in Canada). That also proves that they are not some magic solution that people think. Other countries decided that as well.
The solutions are the ones that you state, Diane, and Steven, and public school educators repeatedly enumerate as well.
Thank you, Dan.
Charter schools get “higher scores” when they exclude kids who get lower scores, such as kids with disabilities, English language learners, others who are enrolled but get pushed due to low scores.
Please be aware that “school choice” first emerged as a response to the Brown decision by racists in the South.
Diane, I remember when I first met you at Calvin College [now University] when you were there to give a lecture for their January Series, I told you that Charters were an attempt by an extremely wealthy family, the DeVos/Prince family of Grand Rapids and Holland to find a way to tap into our school tax monies and they provided some of the funding for the January Series. I am aware that there have been some highly successful charter schools, but generally we have seen that they are highly selective in the students they accept [no Autistic or emotionally impaired students] they have higher dropout rates and their students generally don’t score higher on the yearly required state test of yearly progress. They often score poorer.
A lot of people looked at the Charter School Movement as the magic bullet that would make sure that all students would master all the skills and knowledge that we feel they will need to be successful citizens in the future. Well now, after years of experience with charter schools and their failures, even the record of fraud by the operators, we know that the charters aren’t a magic bullet. In fact looking for a magic bullet to make schools better is futility!
If our political leaders really want to improve our schools they need to stop trying to constantly cut the level of funding for them after inflation. They need to stop listening to wealthy families and highly successful business people who don’t have the specialized knowledge that elementary and secondary teachers have, and just start to ask teachers instead.
Kenneth,
You were wiser than me.
As a state Senator in Oklahoma said recently, “How can we pay for two school systems when we don’t pay for one?”