Using "civil rights" to sell charter schools

WHO'S BEHIND the charter school movement? Increasingly, the answer is: big money. The owners of Wal-Mart, the Walton family, are the single biggest contributors. Bill Gates follows close behind. Not exactly the types known for their staunch commitment to economic equality or civil rights.

Yet New York Daily News columnist Juan Gonzales revealed that Rev. Al Sharpton's organization, the National Action Network, received half a million dollars from a hedge fund to lend its name and energies to the Education Equality Project (EEP). The EEP boasts supporters such as billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, and--wait a minute, what's he doing there?--Newt Gingrich.

Yes, this is the new civil rights "movement"--a movement of the powerful, deep-pocketed, private-jet types, assembled to roll up their tailored silk sleeves to fight for equality in education. Their Web site cries out against the inequality of our current education system...

Before we answer the obvious question--what's their angle?--we need to acknowledge that the "civil rights/social justice" message has worked brilliantly for the charter school movement...

http://www.education-notes.com/

While making money training them for it.

critical thinking be damned

issues here in Amerika.

Those issues must be "won" on economic arguments.

How fucked is that?

What about the billions donated to traditional public schools every year? How is that any different?

Nike's expansion of its "community investment strategy" beyond sports into K-12 academic improvement means more than dollars. For Phillips, under fire from teachers for her push for a more standardized "core" curriculum, it's a vote of confidence from business.

/facepalm

You asked what money. I provided a small example of one company giving millions of dollars to a traditional school district. That is the point.

to the "reforms" gates wants.

the fact is that prior to the current school deform movement, this kind of money was not the norm. and it still isn't. it is, however, for charter schools, which regularly conduct fundraising initiatives, and would not have survived to grow to their present side *without* private money.

I think the reforms Gates wants are necessary, and if he's bringing money to the table to get it done (rather than just saying "Do it or else"), I'm more than all for it. You cannot possibly argue that our education system as presently constituted is getting the job done for our kids. It needs systemic improvement.

us school scores are problematic in comparison to other countries is:

1. our greater degree of inequality.

but i don't think you believe what you're writing anyway.

The primary argument that charter schools are public schools is that they are paid for out of government funds. While they do get most of their budgets from tax dollars, that is not enough to render them public schools. There are many other organizations that pay for operations with public funds but are still private organizations. Defense contractors receive enormous sums of money from the government to provide design and manufacturing of weapons systems, but they remain private corporations...

I think that it is pretty clear that at least some level of oversight of the day to day operations of our public agencies must rise up to our elected officials. Public agencies and offices must have some level of democratic oversight. Charter school principals cannot be removed by elected officials. Their board members are not subject to removal by public elections. The executives of charter management organizations are not accountable to the government for their jobs.

More important, however, is the difference in moral mission. It is the responsibility of the public schools to educate every child who shows up. All children who live in a school district have a right to attend a district school. Furthermore, no public school can in good conscience “counsel out” a student. Private schools are well known to engage the practice of “counseling out” when a student does not seem to fit in or is too disruptive or the school believes that it cannot well meet that student’s needs.

Charter school employees do not work for the government; they are not public employees. While the government has contracted with charter schools to provide a service, they do not act as the government when the provide it. Their operations are not subject to democratic or public oversight; rather their contracts (i.e. their charters) come up for review for possible extension periodically.

http://gothamschools.org/2010/03/26/are-charter-school-public-schools-i’m-afraid-not/


Charter schools are not district schools. Virtually the entire purpose of charter schools is to free them from districts and their authority. Any argument that states that charter schools are part of the public schools because they are part of the mélange of schools that educate our children applies equally to unquestionably private schools. If those who advance this argument cite the use of public funds, they would have to claim that private schools that accept publicly funded vouchers are also public schools, an argument that I do not think they want to make.

http://gothamschools.org/2010/03/31/charter-schools-are-still-not-public-schools/

Be allowed to develop in the winning states? What about public schools which are shut down as "failing schools" only to be reopened as charter schools.

And frankly, if you consider the amount of money that wealthy donors are giving to charters schools in relation to the actual number of charter schools, you will find that per school money is much greater for charter schools.

Public schools are under attack, and sadly it looks that they're going to go down. There's simply too big a pool of public money there to be left in public hands.

If not, kindly back away from the argument.

For the last time, CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. A only a small fraction of charters are for-profit, and charters only represent a tiny portion of our overall public education system in the first place. This is truly uninformed hysteria.

Their advocates call them public to confuse the issue. Charter schools are mostly free of regulation, and more and more are run by private companies...though that was not the original purpose. The corporations have hijacked the process.

Here are some "numbers"

Arne Duncan's goal for the stimulus money is for more testing and for charter schools.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3874

DOE money to flow to schools which defy their unions. To districts which form charter schools.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5099

Taking the "public" out of public schools.....happening quickly.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5680

Are the words "school choice" public code words for the movement to privatize public education?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5000

Blogger gets it: Make big bucks by closing public schools, firing teachers, opening charters.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5558

Now then, as far as RTTT money goes, go check out the law yourself. Here's a nice little summary, I'm sure you'll like the source.

"Illinois, Louisiana, and Tennessee have all recently altered laws or policies affecting public charter schools to enable their expansion and success. Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Ohio and Rhode Island have recently advanced policies to preserve and strengthen public charter schools. Similar efforts are being considered in California, Idaho, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan and North Carolina. "

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-race-top>

There is roughly 1.5-2 billion dollars given to schools each year. Therefore, since charter schools have fewer students, the donation per student is higher, it is that simple. Even though they receive less total donations overall (though that number is climbing) they also have fewer students. It is simple math.

Charter schools are not public schools. They do not have to follow the same rules as public schools, they aren't required to take the same students as public schools are required to accept. Their curricula is different, as are their other educational practices. In short, they are not public schools.

And while a charter school may be listed as a non-profit, it is still making a profit for those who started and run it, since they are almost always signed on as part of the administration or some other paying function of the charter school, where they get their profits in the form of a hefty paycheck.

And yes, there is a huge push for charter schools and other private schools in this country, both from the Obama administration and elsewhere (namely a lot of large private philanthropies). This is simply expediting another transfer of public wealth into private hands. Public education is one of the biggest pots of public money out there, and the thieves at the top simply can't stand to let it be.

Public schools =/= curricula, regulations, or anything else you mentioned. By your standards, magnet schools and career technical education wouldn't qualify as being public schools either, but that's flatly false too. Nor would afterschool programs run under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program.

Secondly, who said that every school is getting the same amount of money in terms of donations in the first place? This point of yours makes no sense whatsoever.

Thirdly, charter schools do receive more in donations, but they are also responsible for their own facilities and infrastructure. The government money they receive is the same per-pupil outlay that traditional schools get, minus a small percentage as the money filters through various bureaucracies. Many charter schools go insolvent precisely for this reason.

Fourthly, charter schools ARE subject to all state and federal standards, regulations, and accountability that traditional public schools are. Where they are free is in some cases (but not all) is in terms of a teacher union contract and any regulations put into place at the local school district level.

Fifthly, you make an outrageous claim that charter school founders make money by being part of the administration, to which I'd counter simply - have you see what school superintendents make lately? Further, do you expect them to make no salary whatsoever? And beyond that, there are rules regarding how much money a non-profit can spend on salaries in direct relation to its revenues, so in most cases, it's not much different than what a principal or superintendent would normally make.

Finally, regarding Race to the Top-- So? I think charter schools that are run properly are a very good thing for children and their families. I'm very happy about Obama's plan for education. Have you ever visited a charter? Personally, I've visited hundreds of schools of all varieties (traditional, charter, magnet, CTE, community colleges, etc.) across the country, and the charter schools that I've seen are amazing.

Either way, I expect a fact-free, knee jerk response from you.

On edit: Regarding the charter student population, that varies from state to state based on laws, but most charters get their kids on a lottery-based system. They are not free to pick and choose who they want, unless they're serving students with disabilities.

I did say, as you might want to check your reading comprehension abilities, that law governing non-profit organizations ensure that this money is in proportion to revenues, and most of these people earn about equivalent to superintendents for traditional public schools.

Not to mention the assets the charter has acquired & OWNS, not works in -- acquired with public money.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/14/825051/-Rachel-Maddow-meet-Dennis-Bakke-of-Imagine-Schools


Eve Moskowitz, charter school operator in NYC, makes more than NYC chancellor of education joel klein:


"The nonprofit organizations connected to the schools have yet to file more recent tax returns, but Moskowitz said in an interview late Thursday she received $310,000 last year - the 2007-2008 year - $250,000 in salary and $60,000 in a bonus.

That means Moskowitz, who is responsible for four schools, makes more than chancellor Joel Klein, who gets $250,000 to run 1,400 schools.

In 2006-2007, she even surpassed John Ryan, the former chancellor of the State University of New York, who earned $340,000 to manage some 70 campuses with nearly 300,000 students.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2009/02/26/2009-02-26_former_city_council_member_eva_moskowitz.html#ixzz0nMFwDf5s


You're so full of it.

"They are not free to pick and choose who they want, unless they're serving students with disabilities."

You said:

"Fifthly, you make an outrageous claim that charter school founders make money by being part of the administration, to which I'd counter simply - have you see what school superintendents make lately? Further, do you expect them to make no salary whatsoever? And beyond that, there are rules regarding how much money a non-profit can spend on salaries in direct relation to its revenues, so in most cases, it's not much different than what a principal or superintendent would normally make."

Please before you insult someone, take a look at Arne Duncan's cabinet. It is filled with Gates and Broad folks, plus a few Walmart for good measure.

NO....the charter schools are NOT subject to the same regulations that public schools are ruled by. They simply are not. The only way they are really public is the public taxpayer money they get.

You can yell and shout and be insulting to other posters as much as you like, but a charter school is one that is publicly funded (our money) but privately run.

and is set to double again with the rttt lift on caps & other restrictions in various states.

in two states, in large and small districts, I've never worked in a district that received privately donated funds.

I do know that charter schools are tools for union-busting and privatization.

Public school districts and public schools could easily allow for more flexibility, and less standardization, among schools...if the current authoritarian, top-down legislation driving the standardization of public education were scrapped for legislation and policies that allowed for it.

That won't happen, though, because that's what helps drive the desire for charters...the myth that you have to step outside the system to try something new and different.

have been found to increase segregation, mostly by income.

"Charter schools tend to increase segregation among students, according to a study released last week by researchers at ASU and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The study, “Schools Without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System,” found that charter schools tend to be highly racially segregated for both minority and majority students when compared to neighboring school districts.

The study’s author, Professor Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, said he has observed this pattern in nearly every study he has conducted about charter schools.

“Charter schools facilitate the re-segregation of our society,” Miron said."

http://www.statepress.com/archive/node/10893

Students are reduce to a test score.

Most charter schools are in urban areas in the first place, and even more closely associated with high poverty areas. Of course they're going to disporportionately serve minority students, because that's who lives there.

"When compared with neighboring public schools, charter school populations are comprised of a high concentration of races, creating a phenomenon known as ‘white flight’ and ‘minority flight’ schools."

No one gets forcibly placed in a charter school. Perhaps there could or should be a quota system in place for demographics within the lottery system, but that would make it very difficult for charters in places like Harlem to serve the very population they're there for. I can't say I have a solution to that problem, but it's not a problem at all limited to charter schools. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/segregation-mississippi-public-schools-2010/story?id=10366223

junior high and high schools. That's one of Duncan's specialties in Chicago.

You won't find a military charter school in the white upper class section.

The charter schools enable the segregation.

This post is so crazy that I'm not even sure how to respond. I think it's time to end this discussion.

Debate over Chicago 'Military' Public Schools Continues

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15586946


A Look at Arne Duncan’s VIP List of Requests at Chicago Schools and the Effects of his Expansion of Charter Schools in Chicago

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/26/a_look_at_arne_duncans_vip


Tomgram: Andy Kroll, Will Public Education Be Militarized?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175022


Arne Duncan and Neoliberal Racism:

http://www.zcommunications.org/arne-duncan-and-neoliberal-racism-by-paul-street


Public Military Academies Put Discipline in the Schools

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/education/06academies.html

Are you associated with a charter school? We have another poster here who I'm pretty sure is a paid shill for them and posts all kinds of bull crap pretty regularly -- it's taken from press releases and isn't convincing anyone.

and that will result in more tax dollars being wasted in the end, because not everybody will be able to afford charter schools, so we the people will have to fund them. Sickening, but I'm sure the rich are happy to see this.