I had a strange discussion recently about “States Rights.” It was very much the same debate. I don’t give a damn about the theoretical implications of the argument. There is a movement, or a trend, or an undercurrent assoicated with States Rights, and it is that (vile) movement which leads me to form my opinion, not some theoretical discussion.

Likewise, the charter school movement is populated by those who would do us harm. There is no shame in forthrightly opposing them.

Jonathan

What distinguishes charter schools from other public schools is their form of governance — they are outside the district administrative structure and hierarchy. The question that needs to be asked is whether there is anything intrinsic in that system of governance that leads to the creation of schools dominated by the anti-union, anti-public education far right. I would argue there is nothing.

The independence of charter schools has creates opportunities to create schools outside the mold of district schools, but unless you think that the anti-union far right is the only political entity capable of exploiting opportunities, it does not follow that this is necessarily an avenue of anti-union, anti-public education far right. Indeed, I think we need to be brutally honest with ourselves and admit that if it has been the right wing which has exploited the opportunities posed by charter schools far more often than not, a great deal of the responsibility for that lies with progressive educators for leaving the field open to them.

Why shouldn’t progressive educators be setting up charter schools that are excellent public schools, serving students who are otherwise being served, by taking advantage of the freedom from administrative bureaucracy? Isn’t this what Shanker advocated when he first proposed the idea of charter schools? Since when have progressive educators and teacher unions become defenders of district bureaucratic governance?

Saying that our objective is to eliminate charter schools is to leave the field of charter schools completely open to the right wing. It is leaving a crucial field of battle with the promise that it is irrelevent. Moreover, it gives the operators of charter schools great propaganda when charter school teachers try to organize themselves into unions — “you are consorting with the enemy,” they will say.

But with the UFT establishing its own charter schools, and working with progressive charter schools — and even if they are a minority, there are far more than you give credit for — it is not possible to accuse us of being opposed to charter schools. It is now clear that what we are opposed to are charter schools where teachers are denied voice and the opportunity to organize and bargain collectively.

You have made an error; I don’t advocate leaving the field of battle over charter schools. What I advocate is to oppose their existence at every turn.

Charter schools effectively reduce the pool of funding available to public schools; “cherry-pick” their student populations; take unfair advantage of their teachers’ youth and enthusiasm; and (with the exception, of course, of the two that are run by the UFT) provide a fertile ground for anti-union proselytizers.

If the UFT hadn’t entered into the charter school fray by opening their own schools, I doubt that any pro-charter school opinions would be found here. That would be a good thing.

We disagree on the approach to charter schools. I would argue that what you suggest is to leave the field of battle, giving charter schools over to the right wing. From where I sit, that would be a serious political and strategic error. Educational progressives and teacher unionists were asleep at the wheel while the right wing gained a rather significant beachhead among charter schools; to turn away from a battle over the heart and soul of an important part of public education would only compound that error, and make it possible for them to expand an anti-union, reactionary presence within our sector.

The following has been stated before in this space, but needs to be reiterated in the context of this discussion:

Under NCLB, every single public school in the country that has even one student in Performance Level 1 or 2 (e.g., below the “proficient” cutoff) will be subject to closing by the year 2018. All of their funding – state and federal – will be diverted to private and charter schools. This is no paranoid rant … it’s in the law.

Why? It’s because under the current assessment method – norm-referenced tests – there will always be a certain percentage of students below the cutoff. It’s the way the tests are designed.

Charter schools are well-positioned to benefit from NCLB’s absurdly punitive wording.

This is yet another of the Bush administration’s plethora of scams. I sincerely hope the American public wakes up before it’s too late.

Leo Casey at Edwize has a post up this morning about the conflict over charter school expansion in New York state.  He cites some of my work (and has added some wrinkles himself).  I’ve already documented the New York Charter……

check out this cheap shot on Kathleen Cashin

http://edreform.blogspot.com/2006/12/comments-on-how-to-reform-district.html

Media attack on Klein/Bloomberg!
they’ve gotten a free ride for years

This movement as a whole is anti-union and anti-public education. We should say that.

Charter schools walk the fuzzy line between public and private, to confuse people, and to divert public funding. We should say that too. (empowerment plays a similar other game, from a different direction).

Charter schools teachers are, for the most part, unorganized. We should say that. We should attack the problem. We should organize these schools. And we should help them win better pay and conditions.

And we should advocate against expanding this anti-union enterprise (ie, no playing footsie with the charter cap; we should oppose raising it. “Forthright” is worth something). And we should advocate returning charter schools to the unambiguous sphere of public education.

Jonathan