9486 in the collection
Charter schools' secrets for success; the risks of edu-philanthropy
Carve it in stone: The Standardisto LA Times actually says that educators and the public, not individual philanthropists, should set the agenda for schools.
by Caroline Grannan
A couple of thoughtful commentaries caught my eye this week.
Author and NYU Prof Diane Ravitch is a former insider of the charter/voucher/privatization "education reform" crowd, a former fellow of the Hoover Institution (ground zero for that philosophy), and former Assistant Secretary of Education in the George H.W. Bush administration. She has now renounced her advocacy of those "reforms" and is speaking out against them. Her forthcoming book The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education should be enlightening.
Ravitch goes into detail on her Education Week blog, Bridging Differences, in "The Secrets of Charter School Success" (a response to two studies favorable to charter schools in New York City).
The charter idea was born in 1988, when two men—unknown to one another—converged on the idea. One was an education professor in Massachusetts named Ray Budde. The other was Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers. Both saw charter schools as a sort of R&D program to help public education. Neither saw charters as competition for public schools. They thought that the lessons learned from charters would help to solve difficult problems of curriculum and instruction, while shedding light on issues of organization and student motivation.
As we both know, the founders' vision has been replaced by a totally different conception of charters. Now they are the leading edge of an effort to replace public schools and to oust teachers' unions.
Ravitch points out that New York City's charters are the favored causes of wealthy donors and are enjoying smaller class sizes, well-maintained facilities and other amenities that the charter-promoting Bloomberg administration is denying to public schools.
And closer to home, the Los Angeles Times, which has been an avid supporter of charters and privatization in L.A. schools, still raises red flags in an editorial about the impact on public education of the private edu-philanthropy that's fueling the charter movement.
Outside entities that pour money into education tend to have a view of reform that favors charter schools (as the Broad and Wasserman foundations do), stiffer curriculum standards, weakened teachers unions and more testing. As much as we often agree with that view, public schools -- which are responsible for using public money wisely and are accountable to voters -- must set their own goals.
... Even the best-intentioned gifts have a way of shifting behavior. Educators and the public, not individual philanthropists, should set the agenda for schools.
It's a definite shift in attitude for the Times -- and the mainstream media overall -- to give that much respect to educators, whom they habitually treat with utter contempt. But it's a welcome shift, so let's hope they don't look back.
— Caroline Grannan
Education Examiner
2010-01-13
http://www.examiner.com/x-356-SF-Education-Examiner~y2010m1d13-Charter-schools-secrets-for-success-the-risks-of-eduphilanthropy?cid=examiner-email
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
