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As we both know, the founders' vision has been replaced by a totally different conception of charters.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.
Comments
Make sure to read the comments below Ravitch's article. Some are equally as interesting or more so and some are absolutely heartbreaking. One thing is for sure - no one should try to oversimplify the case for or against charter schools any more than they should oversimplify the social, moral and financial implications that K12 education has for society.
From a 2008 report:
- “The Gates Foundation is governed by the Gates family. There is no board of trustees; nor any formal parliamentary or legislative scrutiny.”
-In the words of one interviewee: “‘The Gates Foundation is only interested in magic bullets – they came straight out and said this to me.’”
-“The Foundation is too dominant. It is unaccountable. It is not transparent. It is dangerously powerful and influential.”
This report was NOT written about the G.F.’s influence in public ed, but in world health (Global Health Watch), where concerns are emerging as well.
Gates fancied small schools as the magic bullet, but abandoned them b/c they weren’t. Now he’s fiddling around with trying to “improve” teacher quality; his influence is why we hear about it so much on the ed reform scene. People on the ground who work with kids know there are no magic bullets for correcting the effects of poverty on children’s learning. Would someone please knock some common sense into this man
Gates doesn't lack common sense and it is unfortunate that you would berate one of the great innovators of our time simply because his eduphilanthropy was not as successful as hoped. Had it been would you be congratulating him om his successes? The fact that he spends hundreds of millions of dollars on his education work rather than building golf courses indicates to me that he has his heart in the right place. He is willing to experiment, knowing that he may go wrong, but that a life without adventure is one not worth living. We need more Gates' - people who are willing to invest their own money in human potential - people who are willing to help tackle America's education problems and are not afraid of resistance from small minded bureaucratic thinkers who want to perpetuate the idea that there are no answers to society's ills. Left to people of this persuasion such as yourself, we can rely on the fact that all the hard work in the world will not provide an answer and never will.
Gates is putting tons of money into fighting hunger and disease around the world and particularly in Africa. Lots of good legislative oversight would do for that.
Yesterday our school had a staff meeting. I wonder what they do in those meetings? How do they speak? What do teachers have to say? And why don't parents get to attend these meetings in our public schools. If state and district bureaucracies decide how big classes will be, what will be taught, who will teach them, with what books and so forth, where then is the public in public schools? We only need cast a ballot?
If we want schools to be the centers of our communities and the source of inspiration for a life long love of learning, we can't hand off every decision.. These are our children. These are our schools. We paid for them. We attend them. But we have almost no say in any decisions that affect the lives of our children. This is the way the bureaucracy functions and, like all governmental activity, it is an immovable object for the individual. We are hurdling down the road to ever greater factory schools. I am for just about any change to prevent that from happening.
One reason I think the L.A. Times editorial is important is because it was written by an editorial board that has shared in Gates' magical-thinking belief in miracle insta-solutions.
They now have a clear example of how he badly disrupted a lot of schools in pursuit of what he thought was a miracle insta-solution, small schools, and so they themselves are questioning the right of one person to wreak havoc based on a poorly informed whim. And that's the case no matter HOW good his intentions are -- yes, of course he could be building golf courses or something else frivolous. But meaning well doesn't justify everything.
An education journalist who has supported "it's a miracle" solutions gave me the view that it's better to try something, anything, which seems to be the principle behind a lot of edu-philanthropy too. Well, would we do that in medicine? What about the principle "first, do no harm"?
If schools took Gates money and simply went through motions instead of undertaking real reforms, how is that the fault of Gates?
As to what goes on in school staff meetings, they discuss weighty matters such as whether to get leather or vinyl coverings for the playground balls. That's why the public isn't invited to the meetings.
It would not be accurate to call it a whim. The small schools goes back a ways to early 20th C., with a second wave from the 60's and a third again in the 80's. It isn't as though Gates just concocted some hairbrained scheme without any institutional support. The lack of education funding made its widespread application impractical. I supported this initiative and I still do. And the many teachers favor this approach. But progressives despise no one more than a billionaire and if you are the biggest billionaire you keep piled on mercilessly.
eone else doesn't either.
Anonymous: Even Chester Finn wrote (Education Gadfly 9/3/09):
"...recent months have seen the relationship between government and private philanthropy grow entirely too intimate. Many of our major foundations, including some for which I generally have high regard..., have, with the best of intentions, acted as if their foremost mission were to instruct federal and state officials on what to do, tug the strings of public policy in directions that they favor, and spend their own money in ways that compliment (or foreshadow) outlays of government funds. What's more, the flow of active human traffic between foundation and government offices--in both directions--suggests not only that there's much overlap between private and public agendas but also that some of the same folks are working both sides of that street in alternate months…But there's a problem here, too: the possibility of a Faustian bargain that, in the throes of short-term passion, fails to note the long-term risk." Duh.
Sharon, what is your point? That philantropists should keep their mouths shut? Philanthropy is the politically correct term for political payoff - lobbying essentially. That is the way government works all over the world. You pay to play.
It seems to me that philanthropy would be just fine from your perspective, if I can read into it a little, if it went to traditional public schools and if the givers kept quiet. The problem is this - people don't give up there money to support bureaucracies, unless you call it taxes. They spend their money on change, innovation, something new.
I'm not at all clear on why we should spend billions trying to prevent knuckleheads from destroying themselves and everyone around them while we ignore those that come to school for all the right reasons. It is no wonder that the public is searching for a way to either move to a neighborhood (outside San Francisco) or start a charter school that will be selective. Public options are few - SOTA is one of
Chester Finn worked in government and now heads a foundation. Do you really think he's abstaining from giving government officials a piece of his mind about education policy? Duh.
Yeah I agree with Don. Billionaires get dumped on. Poor billionaires. And we should we educate minority, poverty stricken children? They don't want education anyway. Lets all start schools like SOTA and keep them out and pay for them with my tax money. All children are created equal but some are more equal then others
I see. Our masters in government should make all the decisions and those subjagated by those decisions should remain silent. If I donate to my school's PTA should I as a PTA member be able to vote on how they spend the money? Or should I just donate and hope that someone smarter than me will know what to do with it? That really didn't work out to well on Obama's failed stimulus plan.
It is the liberal party that is now in power in Washington, your party Sharon.I hope you will refrain from expressing your views on Obama's steroid injected version of NCLB, what in their wisdom they now reverted to call ESEA. You wouldn't want to improperly influenced the process. Practice what you preach and stay silent.
Anonymous,
The nonchalance, sarcasm and pettiness in denigrating a good man, billionaire or not, speaks more about you than Gates. After he and his wife pour a fortune into education in the hopes of doing some good all you can do is kick dirt in his face. This behavior is the conversational equivalent of looping of the heads of anyone in the monied class. It is envy and jealousy that compels such attitudes. What we want are more people, billionaires included, taking an interest in education and spending their money to experiment with innovation. Did Bill Gates make one cent with his efforts?
As far as equity, it is a dishonest game progressives play to demand equity when we already spend far more on low performing students. Equity is not the problem. We invest our money in education but it doesn't pay off for many and that is due to the fact that nothing money can buy will solve the problem. Liberals believe money is the root of all evil and that it will also solve everything.
You nailed that, Don. I would add this about equity. Education is all about providing what each individual student needs to excel. It is not about providing exactly the same thing to each student. That may be equal in some limited sense, but it is not equity.
While i agree with Don about gates doing what he can I dispute the notion the Ca schools spend more on low performing students. As a recently retired teacher who taught for 30 years I can tell you that is complete nonsense. The resources float to the top Don. This is the reality. I'm talking the low performing students in general ed as opposed to the GATE and higher performing students not special ed which constitutes a small percentage of school populations. Low performing students and schools are in crisis and lack even basic materials, much more so than higher performing schools and students. That is a fact
I find it funny that equity means giving different students different opportunities. Sounds like like seperate but equal to me. And that model doesn't work, has never worked and will never work. Quit rationalizing discriminatory practices
Anonymous@8:30, I'll respond to your assertions about funding, but first I'd like to know why you are anonymous? Certainly after a proud 30+ year career in teaching you have nothing to hide. Mr. Chips would never have hidden himself like this.
You are aware that SFUSD is a revenue limit district? We also have a weighted per pupil funding system, allocating more money to students with greater needs. This additional funding is not inclusive of all the funding that comes through compensatory education, an amount which is substantial. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is patently false to characterize the funding scheme as having the resources "float to the top". Actually, to use your terminology in reverse, they sink to the bottom. I agree that as a society we should put resources into solving our collective problems,but not endlessly without results. The achievement gap is a misnomer - you can't buy intellectual equity, achievement must be earned, not bought.