Archives for category: Charter Schools

Last spring, there was a heated debate about a proposed charter school in Brockton, Massachusetts. Many members of the Brockton community said that they did not want a private charter to compete with their public schools. Some said they did. The state board of education approved the charter 7-3.

It was supposed to open this fall. But it won’t be opening because it is not ready. Worse, it is under enrolled. No lottery, no waiting list.

Tracy Novick wrote on her blog (and includes a link to the discussion at the state board’s meeting) about the Brockton situation.

Also, as of the July 19 Brockton School Committee meeting, parents of only 170 students filled out the required release forms to transfer student records to the New Heights Charter School. The charter school said it plans to serve 315 students in its first year. Deputy Superintendent Michael Thomas broke down the numbers, stating that release forms were signed for 65 sixth graders, 60 seventh graders and 45 eight graders.

Almost half the seats in the unopened charter are empty.

Strange, because right after the charter school was approved over local opposition, its leaders claimed that it had received more than 600 applications and more arrived every day. As the Boston Globe put it, the charter was “deluged” by applications, with 40 or more new ones every day. Yet only 170 students actually were prepared to enter.

Surely, you remember the negative ads against John Kerry when he ran for President against George W. Bush. Some veterans of the Vietnam War ran a multi-million ad campaign against him, coming close to calling him a traitor.

Interesting that the same advertising group that created the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry is now running the deceptive ad in Massachusetts promoting charter schools as “public schools.”

Peter Greene looks at the controversy and nails the lies.

Peter writes:

Massachusetts is heating up. Perhaps no state has better exemplified the fierce debate between public school advocates and fans of modern education reform. Ed reformers captured the governor’s seat, the mayoral position of Boston, commissioner of education, and the secretary of education offices, and yet have consistently run into trouble since the day they convinced the commonwealth to abandon its previous education standards in favor of the Common Core Standards– which were rated inferior to the Massachusetts standards even by the guys paid to promote the Core.

These days the debate has shifted to the issue of charter schools. Specifically, the charter cap. Currently Massachusetts has a limit on how many charter schools can operate in the Pilgrim state. The people who make a living in the charter biz would like to see that cap lifted, and the whole business will be put to a public referendum in November.

So well-heeled charter fans have collected a few million dollars, and they have hired DC-based SRCP Media, most famous for the Swift Boat campaign that sank John Kerry’s candidacy. The Swift Boat campaign was also a demonstration of the fine old political rule, “When the truth is not on your side, construct a new truth.”

So is SRCP manufacturing truth in Massachusetts?

Spoiler alert: Yes.

It appears that the multi-million dollar ad buy will lean on that old favorite– charter schools are public schools. And when I say “favorite,” what I actually mean is “lie.” But let’s look at the whole thirty seconds.

Read on as Peter explains the Big Lies that are behind the campaign for privatization of public schools in Massachusetts.

Strange, isn’t it? Massachusetts is the highest performing state in the nation, and the privatizers want to grab a piece of the action (money) with their usual lies.

Massachusetts is the birthplace of public education in America. It is up to the voters to stop the privatization movement in November.

Jean Haverhill is working to defeat the deceptive Question 2 on the ballot in Massacusetts, which would add new charter schools every year. It’s sponsors claim that new charter schools will “improve public education.” Jean and many parents know from the experience of other states that more charters mean less funding for public schools. She knows that charters undermine public schools. Why create a dual school system?

She commented earlier today:


“Haverhill [Massachusetts] loses 2.7 million in these funds that go to charter; the state of MA loses 400 million (there is a city by city of how much is being drawn off)…. Yes, the ad is deceptive when they say there is “more “money for public schools.”

She added:


I was very proud of the Mayor in Haverhill MA (and school committee resolution and talking with city council on this issue)

Marc Kenen, executive director of the charter school association, and Mayor James J. Fiorentini (Haverhill mayor) at last night’s Haverhill School Committee discussion of a resolution against lifting the cap. [The meeting tape is online. ]

Kenan: [2:09:00]:
We don’t have a traditional school committee like you. Our board of trustees is not elected, like you. It’s an innovative model. It’s a different model, we’re trying something different. [He went on to describe it as similar to the way non-profit boards are chosen.]

Mayor Fiorentini: [2:28:10]:

The gentleman that spoke said, “We don’t have an election, we have a new and innovative way of choosing people to run our schools.” Well, we have an innovative way of running them. It’s called “democracy.”

I wrote and thanked Mayor Fiorentini; we are doing telephone calls and canvassing with door hangers in Haverhill MA two or more days a week if anyone has any time; check your local area; I know Brockton MA has a team also SAVEOURPUBLICSCHOOLSMA.com

I was recently invited to write an article for U.S. News & World Report. I decided to write about the current trend in many nations to turn public schools over to the private sector. Readers of this blog may be familiar with the content and my concerns. But I wasn’t writing for those who are well-versed in these issues. I was writing for the public, which is unaware of the advances of privatization into the heart of public education.

The editors called it “Public education is up for sale.”

Jeannie Kaplan, who was elected to two terms on the Denver Board of Education, writes here about Denver Superintendent Tom Boasberg’s unsuitability to be Secretary of Education.

She calls her post “I’m with Her, Not with Him.”

Reformers have been touting Denver as a great demonstration of the success of their brand of high-stakes testing, teacher evaluation by test scores, and privatization. Jeannie has written repeatedly (see here and here) that these policies have had consistently negative effects, despite the spin.

In this post, she explains why Boasberg should not be considered for Secretary of Education.

She lists the reasons, beginning with the fact that he does not live in Denver or send his children to Denver public schools; instead, they attend public schools in Boulder, which has been untouched by corporate reform. He never listens to parents and community members.

In addition: No experience as an educator. He is a businessman, and, as such, approaches education like a business. The model used is called a “portfolio strategy” and depends on constant churn from constantly closing schools and opening schools.

There are other reasons, but the most important of them is that he is a zealous advocate for education policies that have failed, again and again.

Massachusetts voters will decide whether to increase the number of privately managed charter schools in a referendum in November. Question Two will determine whether the state adds 12 new charter schools every year, using money subtracted from public schools.

Advocates for privatization have launched a $2.3 million advertising budget with a deceptive ad, calling on voters to vote YES for “stronger public schools.” The ad refers to privately managed, unaccountable charter schools as “public schools,” which they are not.

Public schools are under democratic control, not private and corporate management. Public schools are financially transparent; charter schools are not. Public schools must comply with all federal and state laws relating to children with disabilities and English language learners; charter schools are not. Public schools are required to comply with state laws related to student discipline, suspension, and expulsion; charter schools are not.

The ad does not acknowledge that more money for charter schools means less money for public schools. The tiny percentage of children in charters will benefit as the great majority of children in public schools get larger classes and fewer programs.

Wake up, citizens of Massachusetts! Voting yes on Question a Two will WEAKEN YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Carol Burris, former high school principal and currently executive director of the Network for Public Education, wrote about the NAACP’s call for a moratorium on new charters.

Not surprisingly, Shaver Jeffries of Democrats for Education Reform (the hedge funders’ education reform organization) disagreed. So did John King, the U.S. Secretary of Education. King got his start in education running a no-excuses charter school in Massachusetts that was notable for having the highest suspension rate in the state.

Burris writes that self-named “education reformers” believe that the solution to education problems is to take away democracy from people of color; that they don’t know what is in their best interest; and that they should have no voice in what happens in their children’s schools.

The democratic governance of our public schools is an American tradition worth saving. Although results are not always perfect, school board elections represent democracy in its most responsive and purest form. Sadly, it has become no more than a memory in many communities — especially in urban neighborhoods of color where citizens are already disenfranchised in so many ways.

In those communities, privately managed charters have accelerated a decline that began with mayoral control of public schools. The good news is that there is a growing awareness and resistance to privately managed schools. This is evidenced by the remarkable stand taken by the NAACP at its recent annual convention in Cincinnati, during which members passed a resolution that called for a moratorium on these charter schools.

The private governance of charter schools usually excludes parents and local community members, she says.

Let’s take a look, for example, at the Board of Success Charter Schools in New York City to see what “private management” looks like. New York City’s Success Academy has 17 non-staff directors. They are overwhelmingly white and wealthy. Only one of the 17 board members is black — Shavar Jeffries, the president of Democrats for Education Reform and a former candidate for mayor of Newark.

The rest of the board reads more like a “who’s who” of the New York Times society page than the representatives of the economically disadvantaged families of New York City. Board President Daniel Loeb, founder of Four Point Capital, is a multi-billionaire. Six other board members are founders or directors of hedge funds or private investment firms. Campbell Brown, whose education reform website consistently comes to the defense of Success, also sits on the board.

The board of Success is not an anomaly. You can find the board of KIPP here. It includes Netflix billionaire Reed Hastings; Carrie Walton Penner, an heir to the Walmart fortune; and Philippe Dauman, president and chief executive officer of Viacom.

Why does it matter who sits on the board?

Elected boards that represent a community give parents voice. I served on a board of education for 10 years. In order to be reelected by residents, I had to be sensitive to the needs of parents and taxpayers, always balancing those needs with sound governance of the schools. Later, as a high school principal in a neighboring district, I was always cognizant that I worked for an elected board. If I suspended a student, for example, I needed to make sure that I did my due diligence and followed policy, knowing that the suspension could be appealed and the overturned by the board.

Public school principals know that the decisions they make are transparent to the public and that missteps or mistakes are likely to reach the ear of a member of the board. It is highly unlikely that a Success parent could pick up a phone and get the board chairman or even his assistant, if a problem at Success occurred.

Burris believes there are clear-cut solutions to the current undemocratic, non-transparent, non-accountable methods of charter schools. Read her article to learn what they are.

Please send a big THANK YOU to the NAACP for speaking out against the privatization of public schools.

I recently heard from a teacher who taught in a charter middle school in Detroit. He is a certified social studies teacher, who has taught in both public and charter schools. The school he describes here is one of Michigan’s many for-profit schools (80% of charters in Michigan are run for profit). I asked him if he could write about his experience, and he sent the following:

“You are there to produce results, specifically test results; you are there to provide structure; you are not there to think; you are there to obey; you shall follow the curriculum; you shall train students for future careers and colleges; you need to enforce the rules and procedures; if students do not follow the rules and procedures, they need to go.

“White men in suits will watch your classes and nitpick your every move; every mistake and negative outcome is your fault. There is no excuse- there are never any excuses. Arrive earlier, stay later, care more, think less; others will go, maybe you will go; students will go; others will take your places. More structure- more discipline- take away recess- make the students sit in classrooms silently at lunch. Force students to march on the blue line all through the school- they need to obey. But don’t ask why all of this happens- never ask.

“Math and reading; reading and math; reading and more math” is what a student told me when I asked him what he worked on during summer school. These are taught because they are tested. Your job and the school’s charter depend on test score results. So, you teach math and reading test questions, even in classes named “Leadership,” “Workshop,” and “Computer Science.” History is the subject that doesn’t matter, science is the subject that doesn’t matter but gets computers. Gym, recess, art, and music are frivolous- there’s no time for that. Drill students more on test questions. Use the internet more- don’t reinvent the wheel- let your dean and principal do the thinking.
Stop the students from talking, from talking to one another; don’t let them talk using that hood talk, that’s not correct; they are not living correctly. You need to correct them, so put them in front of the computer and let the computer teach. Let the student’s mind go- they need to pass the test- THEY NEED TO PASS THE STANDARDIZED TEST OR ELSE WE FAIL.

“Let the curriculum do the thinking- your thoughts aren’t valued here. Your values aren’t valued here- that’s for JC Huizinga and Clark Durant (look them up). That’s for rich white men who didn’t go to charter schools or urban schools, who never taught in charter schools, who have no training in how to educate young minds. These are the same men who skim a buck off of broken down buildings and communities and who make $300k per year as figureheads but want to tell YOU how to uplift the poor and vulnerable on an at-will contract and a $40k/year salary.

“Let’s do something” Durant and Huizinga and the others must have said; they cared; they really did. But they asked the wrong questions; they didn’t learn their history. They created their own history; they want to take a giant eraser and erase the painful moments for those who are in pain; but you can’t erase pain. Pain and suffering and exclusion caused by systemic racism and lead poisoning and drug addiction and unstable home lives cannot be simply erased with business practices, more structure, and fancy gimmicks. These gimmicks, procedures, and pressures will not bring the jobs back to Detroit nor will it erase the poverty that causes shame and despair for the Black people that remain in the ashes. The charter schools rob the already crumbling public schools of money and students, rob the community from knowing what’s really going on, and pin full responsibility for uplifting students out of poverty on teachers.

“The true solutions require messy answers, holistic and complex answers, and they require the rich white men to give back some of their money, not just using their money to tell other people how to live- people that they don’t know, black faces in black spaces, places that these men would themselves never step foot in.

“So if you want to know what it’s like to teach in a charter middle school in Detroit, it devalues your life as a teacher, takes away your power and values just like it takes away the students’ power and values, substitutes them with gimmicks and buzzwords, and tells you that it’s your sole responsibility to uplift students out of poverty.”

T.C. Weber is the father of public school students in Nashville. He blogs as “Dad Gone Wild.” He is a strong advocate for public schools.

In this great post, he describes the apprehension and the excitement of the recent school board election, which pitted Stand for Children against public school parents in Nashville.

Stand for Children pumped $200,000 into the election in hopes of defeating the incumbent members who support public schools.

SFC had the money, but it didn’t have the votes. SFC got its tail kicked by the people of Nashville.

Or, as T.C. Weber says, the people of Nashville said to SFC, as only Southerners can, “Bless Your Heart.”

He writes:

This summer, Nashville has been embroiled in a bitter school board race that lined up the charter school supporters against the incumbent board members who are skeptical of charters. Five seats on the MNPS school board were up for grabs, with incumbents – and ardent public school supporters – in four of them. But District 5 was up for grabs because incumbent Elissa Kim chose not to run again. Two main candidates quickly emerged, with Miranda Christy falling into the charter supporter camp and Christiane Buggs more closely aligned with the incumbents running for re-election. Adding fuel to the fire was national education reform advocacy group Stand For Children, who flooded the race with cash.

The race this summer was absolutely insane. Like you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up insane. You had SFC flooding people’s mailboxes daily with opposition fliers, some even arriving the day after the election. You had a challenger in one race who probably should have been more forthcoming about his questionable past. There was the apparent coordinating between Stand For Children and a well-respected non-profit organization, not to mention an email that showed charter school leaders working to get school board members elected who were sympathetic to their issues. The local teachers union mistakenly sent out mailers that gave the impression that Buggs was an incumbent. The most vocal of the incumbents, who was endorsed by the local paper, became the recipient of a hit piece by that same newspaper four days before the election – a piece that revealed no new information and left out the fact that several of its sources were on the opposition’s payroll. Luckily, the local alternative newspaper rose to the challenge and pointed out the omissions. Two days before the election, a parent, along with Tennessee Citizen Action filed a petition for an investigation into potential campaign finance violations by Stand For Children.

On the eve of the election, I was filled with trepidation, praying that SFC wouldn’t be able to buy more than two seats on the board. Then the craziest thing happened: the voters cast their votes, and they saw through all the distractions to send a loud and clear repudiation of SFC and their cohorts. Jill Speering won with over 60% of the vote. Amy Frogge won with over 60% of the vote. Christiane Buggs won with over 50% of the vote in a four-person race. These are not close margins. The only race that was close was Will Pinkston’s race. He won by 36 votes, but considering all that he faced in the week leading up to race, it was amazing he was even standing. SFC had only one victory in this school board race when Sharon Gentry won, though she was not a beneficiary of their financial generosity, having received only $6k that came with their endorsement. But her challenger, Janette Carter, still managed to amass 3,200 votes out of roughly 8,000, with many of those votes coming from the congregations of local AME churches. Not a good sign for Gentry.

The results are a clear reaffirmation of the issues public education advocates across the city have been working on for the last several years. What makes things even more special is that this wasn’t a victory by one small group of advocates in one district. No, this was a true grassroots collection of city-wide advocates focusing not just on their district races but on all races. Over the last several months, through social media, these separate individuals from different pockets of the city reached out to each other and banded together across the city for the cause of public education. No one had the luxury of drawing a paycheck from a foundation. The work on these winning campaigns was all done by volunteers.

Let Nashville stand as a national warning to corporate reform: Hands off our public schools! The public paid for them, the public pays for them, and you can’t take them away.

An informed public will not give away its public schools to corporate charter chains, entrepreneurs, and non-educators seeking fame and fortune.

As T.C. Weber put it:

Today is a good day. Not just for Nashville, but for everybody throughout the country who believes in public education. What has happened in Nashville is proof that the conversation about what is needed in public education is changing. People are recognizing that the policies of the reform crowd are not good for kids. We need to seize on this momentum to drive home policies that are good for kids, like equitable funding for our schools, increased daily recess time, decreased emphasis on testing, empowering teachers, and more. Reformers like to point to Nashville as a “model” for their success stories. This election now provides a model on how to fight back and win against corporate reform.

We need to remember, though, that these victories are hollow if we just celebrate the political wins and then don’t show up to put in the work in at our schools. Nobody believes that our schools are currently the best that they can be, nor do we deny that for years they have come up short for many children of color. By recognizing those facts and using the support we’ve created, we can finally address those shortcomings in a meaningful manner. It would be a great tragedy if we as citizens failed to grasp this opportunity.

On election day, I heard a story about a mom who watched the conversation unfold this summer and as a result, felt empowered enough to pull her child from a perceived high-performing school in order to enroll her in their neighborhood school. Another neighborhood leader was so inspired by the election results that she is planning to commit to recruiting young families to support their neighborhood school. We need more of those stories, and if we keep working together and remembering what’s important, we will hear them. It really feels like a new day is dawning. And Stand for Children… as they not-so-nicely say here in the South, bless your heart.

Michael Barber and Joel Klein have written a report for the World Economic Forum about how to achieve greatness in education. Their report is titled “Unleashing Greatness: Nine Plays to Spark Innovation in Education.”

Michael Barber is the chief education advisor for Pearson. Joel Klein is the ex-chancellor of the New York City public schools, former CEO of Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify (which lost $500 million and was sold off by Murdoch), and current chief policy and strategy officer to Oscar Health Insurance, which recently announced a radical downsizing.

The old ways no longer work, they say. What is needed for the future is “whole system reform,” which has happened or is happening (they say) in Madrid, Punjab, London, and New York City. Presumably, Barber takes credit for London and Klein takes credit for New York City. (I note, however, as a resident of New York City, that the schools continue to struggle with many problems, and no one refers to the “New York a City miracle” these days.)

Fortunately, Professor Stephen Dinham of the University of Melbourne in Australia took on the job of analyzing the Barber-Klein formula for greatness.

He sees the report as an illustration of what Pasi Sahlberg called the “Global Education Reform Movement” or GERM.

He writes:

“The terms ‘playbook’ and ‘unleash’ are loaded and instructive. A playbook, in sports, provides a list of strategies or moves for players and teams to follow. These are essentially step-by-step formulae intended to achieve success. In the case of this report, there are nine. Oh that education – and interrelated services such as health, employment and public infrastructure – could be reduced to such a simplistic list. The term unleash implies releasing from restriction and confinement, in this case, opening up education to ‘choice’ and the ‘free’ market. As I have noted, typically, ‘Choice, competition, privatization and the free market are [seen as] the answers to almost any question about education. (Dinham, 2015a: 3).

“Let’s now consider the latest simplistic recipe designed to address the ‘manufactured crisis’ in education (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Berliner & Glass, 2015), a crisis that is in danger of becoming reality if we ignore the evidence and follow such ideologically and financially underpinned and driven prescriptions (Dinham, 2016).

“The authors’ ‘plays’ are:

“Provide a compelling vision for the future

Set ambitious goals to force innovation

Create choice and competition

Pick many winners

Benchmark and track progress

Evaluate and share the success of new innovations

Combine greater accountability and autonomy

Invest in and empower agents of change

Reward successes (and productive failures).

“Detail on ‘how’ to achieve the above is lacking, although brief case studies where these have purportedly been successful are provided (e.g, New York, Chile). A common theme is the belief mentioned previously that deregulation, competition and choice will deliver an overall lift in educational performance. The evidence is however, either weak (e.g., on greater school autonomy) or contradictory (e.g., vouchers, charter schools, free schools, chains or academies) (Dinham, 2015a).”

Read both the report and the critique. Funny the authors don’t look at Chile and Sweden, two nations that took the path they recommend, with disastrous results.