Archives for category: Corporate Reformers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mary Gonzalez: Texas Needs to Supports Its Public Schools, Not Charters and Vouchers

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2017 //
8

Mary Gonzalez is a member of the Texas House of Representatives. She is now serving her third term in the House, and she is deeply concerned that the state and the federal government want to destroy public education.

The goal of school choice, she says, is to create a separate and unequal system of schools for the state’s 6 million students.

She writes:

In 2011, the Legislature cut $5.4 billion in public education funding and implemented a testing regime that centered accountability on a dehumanizing, ineffective standardized test.

In short, schools would get a lot less money while facing impossible standards. It was as if schools were intentionally being set up to be labelled as failures. Why do you think campuses are now being labeled A through F?

Creating the perception of failing public schools in the minds of the public was necessary to fuel the “school choice” movement.

Listening to the political rhetoric at the state and national level, this strategy seems to have been effective. Instead of a collective discourse on strengthening and funding our public schools, the conversation centers on supporting charter expansion and vouchers.

The expansion of “school choice” translates into the creation of multiple systems, facilitating a structure of separate and unequal.

Charter school quality, however, is questionable. Research demonstrates that, on average, they don’t outperform traditional public schools.

The real problem with “school choice” is the creation of an unequal, tiered system that allows students to fall through the cracks. These tiers are only created when money and resources are taken away from public schools.

In the long term, this approach is unsustainable for a state serving nearly 6 million students.

The unequal distribution of resources, along with the fact that charter schools do not operate under the same rules as public schools, exacerbates the problem.

Charters claim to be “public”, but are actually run by corporations or nonprofits, rather than locally elected school boards that are accountable to parents and the community.

Charters are not subject to the same regulations as public schools. Those regulations include class size limits, student-teacher ratios, and having school nurses and counselors on site.

Also, charters can control enrollment through admission requirements like geographical location, discipline records, sibling priority, academic ability, and through dismissal and expulsion procedures that differ from those of traditional schools. This allows charters to preferentially select students who are less-expensive to educate.

When we fragment the public school system, we create more opportunity for inequity without making any real gains.

Democracy requires a strong and equitable public school system. Choice will undermine that goal.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Equity, Privatization, Testing, Texas

Democratic Senator Will Introduce Neil Gorsuch at His Hearing for Supreme Court Justice

By dianeravitch
March 19, 2017 //
25

Democratic Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado will introduce Neil Gorsuch at his Senate confirmation hearings for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is from Colorado.

Bennett is one of the most fervent advocates for school privatization in Congress. Before entering the Senate (he was appointed to fill a vacancy, then was elected), he was superintendent of Denver, where he promoted high-stakes testing and charter schools. He is a DFER favorite.

Apparently, he forgot that not a single Republican senator was willing to support Merrick Garland, the highly respected federal judge nominated by Obama for the seat that Gorsuch is likely to take.

Ian Millhiser of Think Progress says of Gorsuch:

Gorsuch’s record suggests that he is to the right of the late conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia, and possibly as far right as the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas. As a judge, Gorsuch voted to limit women’s access to birth control in the Hobby Lobby case. He tried to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood in Utah. And he is likely to provide the key fifth vote to uphold voter suppression laws that skew the electorate to the right and help keep Democrats like Michael Bennet from winning elections.

Those who have followed the rightwing tilt of Democrats like Bennett are not surprised.

Categories Charter Schools, Colorado, Corporate Reformers, Privatization

Missouri: Bill to Expand Charter Schools Passes House, Goes to State Senate

By dianeravitch
March 17, 2017 //
3

The privatization steam roller continues to move through the Republican controlled states.

The Missouri House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill to expand the number of charter schools in the state. The bill now moves to the Senate.

After more than five hours of debate Wednesday and more than an hour of debate Thursday, the measure advanced to the Senate on an 83-76 vote.

Charter schools are tuition-free public schools that operate independently from elected school boards. They currently operate in St. Louis and Kansas City only; the plan would allow charter schools in places like Columbia and Springfield.

The sponsor, Rep. Rebecca Roeber, R-Lee’s Summit, touted the legislation as a way to provide students and families with more choices. The changes, she said, will bring competition to schools, triggering improvement and innovation in education.

Public education advocates warned that charter schools have not fulfilled their promises of success and innovation, but Republicans were determined to pass the bill anyway.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Missouri, Privatization

AASA Denounces Trump-DeVos Budget Cuts and Privatization Priorities

By dianeravitch
March 16, 2017 //
3

AASA Executive Director Responds to President Trump’s FY18 Budget Proposal

Alexandria, Va. – March 16, 2017 – Earlier today, President Trump released details for his FY18 budget proposal. It is a “skinny budget,” in that it only covers discretionary funding, and within that, doesn’t fully list the impact on all discretionary programs. The proposal cuts funding to the U.S. Education Department by $9 billion (13 percent). It provides a $1 billion increase for Title I, but the increase is for states and districts to use for portability and choice. This is in addition to a new $250 million school choice/voucher program and a $168 million increase for charters, bringing the total amount of NEW funding in the President’s budget for choice to $1.4 billion. The budget level funds IDEA, eliminates ESSA Title II Part A and eliminates the 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

In response to this budget proposal, AASA Executive Director Daniel A. Domenech released the following statement:

“AASA is deeply concerned that the first budget proposal from the new administration doesn’t prioritize investment in the key federal programs that support our nation’s public schools, which educate more than 90 percent of our nation’s students. While we would normally applaud a proposal that increases funding for Title I by $1 billion, we cannot support a proposal that prioritizes privatization and steers critical federal funding into policies and programs that are ineffective and flawed education policy. The research on vouchers and portability has consistently demonstrated that they do not improve educational opportunity and leave many students, including low-income students, student with disabilities and students in rural communities-underserved. AASA remains opposed to vouchers and will work with the administration and Congress to ensure that all entities receiving federal dollars for education faces the same transparency, reporting and accountability requirements.

“AASA is disappointed at the significant cuts proposed to critical education programs, including the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Title II. FY 18 dollars will be used by schools across the nation in just the second year of ESSA implementation, and the idea that this administration thinks that schools can do this work—and the administration claim they support this work—without supporting teachers and teacher leaders, and their professional development, is a deeply disconcerting position.

“As recently as yesterday, Secretary DeVos indicated an interest in supporting state and local education agencies, and ‘to returning power to the states whenever and wherever possible.’ AASA is concerned that while the Department indicates it wants to return power, the proposed funding levels—including continued level funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and cuts to core programs in ESSA—deeply undercut state and local efforts in these areas and expand the reality of federal requirements without commensurate support, further encroaching on state and local dollars. The return of power, however well intended, when systematically and deliberately paired with low funding, translates into unfunded federal requirements.

“AASA remains committed to parity between defense and non-defense discretionary (NDD) dollars, and we are deeply opposed to the proposed $54 billion increase in defense discretionary spending being offset by NDD spending cuts. AASA supports robust investment in our nation’s schools and the students they serve, and we support increased investment for both defense and NDD funding by lifting the budget caps, as set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011, for both. NDD programs are the backbone of critical functions of government and this proposed cut will impact myriad policy areas—including medical and scientific research, job training, infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement, public health and education, among others—and programs that support our children and students.

“Increased investment in education—particularly in formula programs—is a critical step to improving education for all students and bolstering student learning, school performance and college and career readiness among our high school graduates. AASA remains hopeful that our President, who has consistently articulated an interest in growing our economy, growing jobs, and keeping this nation moving forward, will recognize the unparalleled role that education plays in each of these goals and work to improve his FY18 budget to increase investment in the key federal K12 programs that bolster and improve our nation’s public schools, the students they serve and the education to which they aspire.”

###

About AASA
AASA, The School Superintendents Association, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. AASA’s mission is to support and develop effective school system leaders who are dedicated to the highest quality public education for all children. For more information, visit http://www.aasa.org.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Vouchers

Kentucky Legislators Capitulate to Big Money, Approve Charter Law

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
11

Over the vociferous opposition of parents and educators, the Kentucky state senate voted to authorize charters in the state, thus opening it up to exploitation by entrepreneurs, out-of-state corporations, and hucksters.

The threat to public schools could not be clearer, as the state senate voted 23-15 to betray their constituents and go with the big money backing private management of charter schools that have no track record of improving student achievement.

The Republican governor Matt Bevin is a Republican free-markets ideologue, so he will of course sign the legislation.

Parents will have to continue the fight to preserve their communities and public schools from the privatization vultures.

The new charters will be required to have certified teachers, which the so-called reformers said was an intolerable burden that would prevent innovation, like having untrained teachers in the classroom. The reformers’ idea of innovation sounds amazingly like the schools of the 19th century–unregulated schools with no certified teachers.

But reformers got what they wanted: charters and money. They are looking out for adult interests, not for families, kids or communities.

The bill allows for school boards and only the mayors of Louisville and Lexington to approve charter schools in those districts or cities. Earlier in the day, the Senate Education Committee added language saying charter school teachers must be a qualified teacher and that students will not be able to go to a charter school across county lines unless a regional charter is created.

The changes also require mayors to provide written notice saying they want to be an authorizer of charters and clarified that only the mayor of Louisville would be able to authorize charter schools in Jefferson County, as opposed to mayors from the county’s smaller cities.

After passing the full Senate amid criticism from Democrats on how charter schools would be funded, Republican senators fought back and filed an amendment to an unrelated House budget bill — House Bill 471 — which seeks to transfer federal funds and state money to cover the costs of students who move to charter schools.

Sen. Ray Jones, D-Pikeville, was furious at the move, saying “this is one of the worst things I have seen happen to public education in my lifetime.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Kentucky, Privatization

Charter School Leaders Meet with Betsy DeVos to Celebrate Her Agenda for America

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
10

Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform posted a photograph in which leaders of charter schools met with their new champion: Secretary Betsy DeVos. She was joined by charter leaders from D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and California. The Ohio charter leader didn’t make it because of the snow. There were also leaders from the for-profit sector, including the virtual charter sector.

Betsy DeVos is one of them. Their hero now is in charge of the U.S. Department of Education, and she wants to divert billions of dollars from children in public schools to feed the charter industry. O happy day!

The charter industry and DeVos are on the same page. They hope to make enormous gains during her tenure in office. They see the public schools not as a public good or a civic institution, but as a target, a prize to be conquered, defeated, looted, and depleted. But it’s all for the kids!

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Privatization

Paul Hill: Why DeVos Is Unlikely to Succeed in Promoting Vouchers with Federal Funds

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
3

Paul Hill is founder of the Center for Reinventing Public Education and a professor at the University of Washington. When I was on the other side of education debates, I served with Paul on the Koret Task Force at the Hoover Institution. He is one of the nicest people I know but we now disagree about the value of choice as a means of “reinventing” public schools. Paul is the creator of the idea of portfolio school districts, where the school board is supposed to treat schools like a portfolio of stocks, closing “bad” ones and opening new ones to replace them.

In this article, Paul Hill maintains that DeVos will not have the money to achieve her voucher agenda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58c83826e4b0816ed87b5e43

He says that if she turns the $15 billion in federal money for poor kids, that comes out to only $600 per student, and that is not enough to fund vouchers or to induce people to open new schools to accept voucher students.

He does not deal with the recent spate of reports showing that vouchers don’t have a positive effect on academic outcomes for kids who get them, and in some major studies, have actually been shown to lower the test scores of low-performing students. So he deals not with whether vouchers will help kids but whether the federal funds are sufficient to make them happen.

He writes:

“Betsy DeVos’ most fervent supporters and opponents agree on one thing: that she would like to divert federal funds from existing public schools and cause a mass migration into private schools. But simple arithmetic tells us that these expectations about what she can accomplish—or destroy, depending on your point of view—are wildly inflated.

“The federal government doesn’t spend nearly enough money in education to have such a big effect. Federal Title I funding to local education agencies, the main tool at the Department of Education’s disposal, totals $15 billion. If DeVos were able to turn all that money into private school vouchers for students currently receiving Title I services, each eligible family would get about $600. If the same money were spread among all public school students, a voucher would be worth less than $300.

“That kind of money doesn’t cover private school tuition, which starts at about $10,000 a year. With a $600 voucher, a few families who were on the cusp of affording private education could decide that the little bit of extra money was enough to allow them either to stay in or transfer to private school. Those families might stabilize or even slightly increase enrollment in private schools. It’s unlikely that many families now attending free public schools would decide that a small discount—$600 represents about 6% of average tuition—justifies ponying up the remaining $9,600.

“The Trump administration has floated a fallback proposal, tuition tax credits for anyone who contributes to a voucher program. Donors could reduce their taxes by a dollar for every dollar they give. This approach—correctly called a tax expenditure—would have exactly the same effect on the federal government’s bottom line as a government-operated voucher program would. Readers can judge whether a deficit-conscious Republican Congress is likely to approve a tax credit that adds more than $15 or $20 billion annually to the national debt.

“Vouchers (whether funded directly or via tuition tax credits) could benefit communities that have struggling but high-quality private schools that might be preserved rather than being lost entirely. But whether a modest-sized program can do anything more than help fill up existing private schools depends on the answers to a few questions. Once existing private schools reached their current capacity, would they expand to take more students, or would new private schools emerge? Would entrepreneurs be willing to start schools knowing that even with their vouchers, families would have to pay almost full tuition? Would those schools be good enough to keep the families they attract and to grow to an economically sustainable size?”

I question whether there are a significant number of struggling but high quality private schools to accept voucher students. The good private schools have few, if any, empty seats. Not many want to accept kids with low test-scores, no matter how much voucher money they bring.

I am not as sanguine as he about the poor prospects for vouchers. I agree that the federal money is symbolic but it may be a stimulus to state’s to add their supplement, bringing the voucher up to $5,000 or $7,000. This still is not enough for voucher students to gain entry to good private schools but it might be enough for mediocre religious schools with u certified teachers.

Even if the vouchers don’t make much of a dent, DeVos’s advocacy for charters will stimulate stages to open more of them, despite the dismal record of charters in DeVos’s home state of Michigan. And of course we can count on her to bad-mouthnpublic schools in every public appearance. She will be sly. She will say she favors great schools of every kind, because she is all for the kids. She even likes “great public schools,” but she has never seen one. She will ignore the large body of research about the failure of voucher schools as well as the research showing that charter schools get results no different from public schools, and some are far worse than public schools. She certainly doesn’t care about charters’ high teacher attrition or about their unfortunate practice of excluding children with disabilities.

So while she is unlikely to achieve her lifelong dream of getting rid of public schools, she will have a bully pulpit to bash public schools. This is unjhealthy for our society and our democracy. Friends of public education should not forget that DeVos is a dedicated enemy of public schools. Ignore her honked words. Don’t be deceived. She will not change her views.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Vouchers

An Interview with Kenneth Zeichner on the Pop-Up Graduate School of Education Called Relay

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
5

The blog “Seattle Education” interviews Professor Kenneth Zeichner about the “Relay Graduate School of Education,” which exists solely to dispense credentials of dubious value to charter school personnel.

The message “#rejectrelay.”

“Ken Zeichner is the Boeing Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Washington. He is a member of the National Academy of Education and a Fellow at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado.

“A former elementary teacher and longtime teacher educator in NY, Wisconsin, and Seattle, his work has focused on creating and implementing more democratic models of teacher preparation that engage the expertise of local communities, K-12 educators and university academics in preparing high quality professional teachers for everyone’s children.

“He has also challenged the privatization of K-12 schools and teacher education by exposing the ways in which venture philanthropy has sought to steer public policy in education, and the ways in which research has been misused to support the privatization process. His new book “The Struggle for the Soul of Teacher Education” will be published later this year by Routledge….”

It is a fascinating interview. It begins like this:

“As an introduction, could you explain for our readers: What is the Relay Graduate School of Education and why we should be concerned.

“Relay Graduate School of Education is an independent institution not affiliated with a legitimate college or university that prepares new teachers and principals and provides professional development services for teachers and principals to school districts and charter networks. It was founded in 2007 by three charter school networks (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First) within Hunter College’s Education School and became independent in 2012 changing its name to Relay Graduate School of Education.

“Until recently, its teacher preparation programs were all “fast tracks” preparing uncertified teachers who were fully responsible for classrooms after only a few weeks of preparation. Among those who they prepared were many TFA (Teach for America) teachers in NYC. Recently, they have begin offering a “residency” option in certain locations where during the first year of the two year program their teachers are not fully responsible for classrooms and are mentored by a licensed teacher. In both the fast track and residency versions of the program teachers receive a very narrow preparation to engage in a very controlling and insensitive form of teaching that is focused almost entirely on raising student test scores. Relay teachers work exclusively with ‘other people’s children’ and provide the kind of education that Relay staff would never accept for their own children. The reason that I use Lisa Delpit’s term “other people’s children” here is to underline the point that few if any Relay staff and advocates for the program in the policy community would accept a Relay teacher for their own children. Most parents want more than a focus on standardized test scores for their children and this measure becomes the only definition of success in schools attended by students living in poverty.

“The evidence is clear that the kind of controlling teaching advocated and taught by Relay has often resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum (1), and in some cases in “no excuses” charters, in damage to the psychological health of children as evidenced in research of Joan Goodman at Penn in Philadelphia.(2)

“We should be worried about Relay because it prepares teachers who offer a second class education to students living in poverty, and in my opinion based on examining the evidence, it contributes to exacerbating existing educational inequities in both student opportunities to learn and in the equitable distribution of fully prepared professional teachers.(3)

“According to their website, it appears Relay was founded by three charter
school networks: Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First. Can you explain for our readers what student populations these charters serve and their approach to student instruction?

“These charters exclusively serve students living in poverty, most of whom are of color. Relay teachers also work in other charters however, and in some cases they may also teach in public schools.

“Relay originally received NY State approval when they were still part of Hunter College.They have used this approval and their accreditation by the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Accreditation to gain approval to operate in other states. One could legitimately raise the question- how can a program gain approval from states and accrediting agencies that prides itself in having no theory, where few if any of its instructors have advanced degrees in education, and where much of what most people believe teachers need to know and learn how to do is missing from their curriculum, The answer is that Relay is very good at packaging and selling itself to others as offering successful teacher education programs despite the lack of any credible evidence supporting their claims. Their mumbo jumbo and smoke and mirrors game did not work however, in either CA or PA where the states ruled that Relay’s programs did not meet their state standards for teacher education programs.

“One of the more shocking parts of the Relay story is the use of Doug Lemov’s book Teach Like A Champion (TLC) as an instructional bible for the Relay program. Can you explain who Doug Lemov is and why TLC is such a toxic approach to student instruction.

“Doug LeMov is currently a “faculty member” at Relay and the managing director at Uncommon Schools, one of the charter networks that formed Relay. Lemov’s “Teaching like a Champion” is the basis for the Relay teacher education curriculum. These generic management strategies are highly controlling and are dangerous when they are the main part of what teachers receive in their preparation. Relay has argued that the choice is between theory or practice and that they focus on practice. This is a false choice, and while I agree that teacher education needs to focus on practice, and that some of these strategies are useful if they are used in the proper context, it matters what practices you focus on. Additionally, teacher preparation also has to provide teachers with theoretical background in learning, development, assessment, language, and so on. There is no attention to context, culture, or even subject matter content in LeMov’s strategies. There is also no credible research that supports their use with students.

“Relay’s list of philanthropic investors reads like a who’s who of education reform. The Gates Foundation is on the list, along with the Walton Foundation, and The Learning Accelerator – which is all about blended learning and the development of human capital. What do you think these groups hope to gain by supporting Relay?

“Yes, Relay has been heavily supported by philanthropists like the Gates and Schusterman Foundations and by venture philanthropists such as the New Schools Venture Fund as well as by individual hedge fund managers.(4) The funding of non-college and university programs that are linked to charter school networks helps these individuals and organizations further their goals of deregulating and privatizing public schools. As the charter networks continue to expand across the country and replace real public schools, there is more of a need for teachers who want to work in these schools that are often tightly regimented. Many graduates of professional teacher preparation programs in colleges and university do not want to work in these charter schools. Foundations that want to expand the proportion of charter schools throughout the country must help create a parallel set of charter- teacher education programs to prepare teachers for charter schools.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Discipline, Education Industry, Higher Education, Privatization, Teacher Education

Mercedes Schneider: A Closer Look at the Unimpressive Academic Record of Florida Voucher Schools

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
3

Recently Trump and DeVos gushed over the Florida tax credit voucher program and featured a graduate of one student who graduated from a voucher school.

This inspired Mercedes Schneider to look at the academic record of Florida’s voucher schools. It is not impressive.

Voucher schools are supposed to save students from failing schools. But most of the state’s voucher students do not come from F-rated schools or even D-rated schools. Most come from schools rated A, B, or C.

She looked at the school that produced the young woman who attended Trump’s first address to Congress. She is surely a fine young woman but her school is not. It is certainly no model of success.

She writes:

“Let us consider the gain scores of Esprit de Corps Center for Learning, the school that Denisha Merriweather attended via tax credit.

“In 2014-15 , 44 students completed assessments that produced gain scores. (The researchers cautioned about the stability of gain score results when the number of students tested is below 30. Thus, Esprit de Corps meets the 30+ test-taker condition.)

“In 2014-15, Esprit de Corps’ average gain score was -3.66 national percentile ranking points in reading and -13.52 in math.

Its average gain score from 2012-13 to 2014-15 (three years) was -0.65 national percentile ranking points in reading and -2.69 in math.

“In an effort to obtain more information on Esprit de Corps’ math gain score history, I consulted a few more FTC reports from previous years.

“According to the 2013-14 FTC report, Esprit de Corps fared better in 2013-14: 0.03 in reading (remember, a zero gain is right at the national average) and 6.9 in math (calculations based on 43 student assessments). However, its three-year average gain scores (2011-12 to 2013-14) in both reading and math were -0.65 and -2.69, respectively, which indicates lower gains in previous years, especially in math.

“In 2012-13, Esprit de Corps had only a slightly negative math gain score (-1.3), and a slightly positive reading gain (1.3). Still its three-year combined gain score in math (2010-11 to 2012-13) was notably negative (-4.3). Three-year reading was close to zero (0.3). (Score based on 47 student assessments.)

“In 2011-12, Esprit de Corps’ math scores were again especially low (-12.4), and its reading gains were also negative (-2.6) based on 47 student assessments. And again, its three-year average gain in math (2009-10 to 2011-12) was particularly low: -3.8. Its reading gain was negative but close to zero: -0.20.

“Esprit de Corps has an arguably established history of negative gains in math, as confirmed by its three-year scores from 2009-10-to-2011-12 to 2012-13-to-2014-15.

“This school-level reality complicates pitching Florida vouchers via tax credits as an across-the-board, superior public school alternative based on test score outcomes.

“Nevertheless, it seems that the push for vouchers in the DeVos era is one conveniently deaf to evidence and infused with the superiority of ideology.”

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, Florida, Privatization, Vouchers

Wendy Lecker: Betsy DeVos Pushing Charter Schools as the “Gateway Drug” to Privatization

By dianeravitch
March 14, 2017 //
13

Wendy Lecker is a civil rights attorney who writes often for Connecticut newspapers. I did not see this column when it first appeared, but think it is worth reading now. Locker was first to use the term “gateway drug” to describe charters, meaning that they are the seemingly benign but insidious first step towards privatization of public schools.

She writes:


Betsy DeVos’ nomination brings to the fore some important truths about charter schools. Charter schools are part of a larger strategy to privatize and eliminate public schools. The slogan that charters and choice are part of a “civil rights” agenda is propaganda originating from ultra-conservative white Christian activists disguising their true aims.

In reality, choice in the form of charters increases segregation and devastates community public schools in our most distressed cities. As charters have proliferated in predominately minority cities, children and parents of color bear the brunt of this destruction.

To describe the proliferation of charter schools and vouchers as “the civil rights issue of our time” is both hypocritical and cynical. To see the utter failure of charters to address the needs of children of color, one need look no further than Detroit, awash in charters that have been a diversion from the consequences of structural racism and deindustrialization. Promises aplenty, but no help for the city’s neediest families and students, whose public schools and communities have been gutted by competition with ineffective charter schools.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Corporate Reformers, Detroit
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »