Ravitch says Waiting for Superman a PR coup for critics of public schools.

[madfloridian]

She warns not to underestimate their power now.

She reviews the documentary in the current issue of the New York Review of Books. Diane Ravitch is the former assistant Secretary of Education under Bush.

The Myth of Charter Schools

Waiting for “Superman” is the most important public-relations coup that the critics of public education have made so far. Their power is not to be underestimated. For years, right-wing critics demanded vouchers and got nowhere. Now, many of them are watching in amazement as their ineffectual attacks on “government schools” and their advocacy of privately managed schools with public funding have become the received wisdom among liberal elites. Despite their uneven record, charter schools have the enthusiastic endorsement of the Obama administration, the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the Dell Foundation. In recent months, The New York Times has published three stories about how charter schools have become the favorite cause of hedge fund executives. According to the Times, when Andrew Cuomo wanted to tap into Wall Street money for his gubernatorial campaign, he had to meet with the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a pro-charter group.

That is apparently true, since we already know he plans to follow the Bloomberg tactic of wresting control from public school boards and unions and putting executive power in its place.

..."In Duffy, Cuomo has chosen a potential lieutenant governor who stands for strong executive authority, especially in education. Duffy has been trying to follow in the footsteps of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who's taken power from local school boards and put it in the mayor's office.

..."The head of the local teachers' union, which vehemently opposes Duffy's approach, told local TV that Duffy's move sharply divided the community. No doubt what the teachers, some parents and community members see as a mayoral power grab, Duffy and advocates for mayoral control, such as Bloomberg, see as ensuring accountability.

Ravitch goes on in her review to point out that the movie symbolizes the clash between public sector and private.

There is a clash of ideas occurring in education right now between those who believe that public education is not only a fundamental right but a vital public service, akin to the public provision of police, fire protection, parks, and public libraries, and those who believe that the private sector is always superior to the public sector. Waiting for “Superman” is a powerful weapon on behalf of those championing the “free market” and privatization. It raises important questions, but all of the answers it offers require a transfer of public funds to the private sector. The stock market crash of 2008 should suffice to remind us that the managers of the private sector do not have a monopoly on success.

Public education is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. The public schools must accept everyone who appears at their doors, no matter their race, language, economic status, or disability. Like the huddled masses who arrived from Europe in years gone by, immigrants from across the world today turn to the public schools to learn what they need to know to become part of this society. The schools should be far better than they are now, but privatizing them is no solution.

I don't think many people realize how deep the feelings are running as teachers are having to cope with direct attacks on their profession that have been enabled by this administration.

That is why Ravitch's last paragraph really grabbed me. She speaks of the closing moments of the Superman documentary.

In the final moments of Waiting for “Superman,” the children and their parents assemble in auditoriums in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Silicon Valley, waiting nervously to see if they will win the lottery. As the camera pans the room, you see tears rolling down the cheeks of children and adults alike, all their hopes focused on a listing of numbers or names. Many people react to the scene with their own tears, sad for the children who lose. I had a different reaction. First, I thought to myself that the charter operators were cynically using children as political pawns in their own campaign to promote their cause. (Gail Collins in The New York Times had a similar reaction and wondered why they couldn’t just send the families a letter in the mail instead of subjecting them to public rejection.) Second, I felt an immense sense of gratitude to the much-maligned American public education system, where no one has to win a lottery to gain admission.

Well said. "charter operators were cynically using children as political pawns in their own campaign to promote their cause."

I could not agree more.

I can tell that the dismantling of public schools is well underway now. I really deep down in my heart don't know if this is what President Obama intended, or if it is an effect he did not expect. I just don't know.

I do know that the reform movement has too much power and money for public school teachers to fight. When it's done down the road there will be regrets, but once it is done it won't be undone.

[Starry Messenger]

1. k & r

One of your best yet Madfloridian. Sickening about Cuomo having to kowtow to DFER, the right wing trojan horse in the Democratic party.

[madfloridian]

3. The stars of the film are the power players. Successful teachers missing.

"The stars of the film are Geoffrey Canada, the CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides a broad variety of social services to families and children and runs two charter schools; Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the Washington, D.C., public school system, who closed schools, fired teachers and principals, and gained a national reputation for her tough policies; David Levin and Michael Feinberg, who have built a network of nearly one hundred high-performing KIPP charter schools over the past sixteen years; and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, who is cast in the role of chief villain. Other charter school leaders, like Steve Barr of the Green Dot chain in Los Angeles, do star turns, as does Bill Gates of Microsoft, whose foundation has invested many millions of dollars in expanding the number of charter schools. No successful public school teacher or principal or superintendent appears in the film; indeed there is no mention of any successful public school, only the incessant drumbeat on the theme of public school failure."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false

[madfloridian]

2. The DFER website, just to see their power among Democrats now.

http://www.dfer.org/

Their issues, charter schools, mayoral control which bypasses boards.

http://www.dfer.org/list/issues/issues/

[erodriguez]

6. Any vote for a DFER candidate is a vote for all of DFER's horrible policies.

F#!@, Andrew Cuomo!

[Starry Messenger]

11. I absolutely loathe DFER.

They refer to their efforts as "bursting the dam". They named their political agenda after an engineering disaster, you'd think people would be more savvy about swallowing their crap. http://edreformer.com/2010/09/dfer-bursting-dam/

President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s federal “Race To The Top” competition produced more simultaneous fissures in the dam than we’ve ever seen. Cash-strapped state legislatures, hoping to win a chunk of nearly $5 billion in federal prizes, passed more education reform legislation in eight months than they had in the previous eight years. Reform in exchange for dollars became the new mantra, and the status quo – desperate to avoid widespread teacher layoffs – found itself uncharacteristically nullified in the political process. (Union leaders were forced to choose whether they wanted layoffs or not – with these changes being the price of additional federal funding.)

Evil.

Here is a table of candidates they are currently supporting as "dam busters"

[KamaAina]

25. Note that Fenty suffered a humiliating primary defeat as an incumbent

provoking the infamous tirade against "stupid" DC voters by education reform diva Michelle Rhee.

[disillusioned73]

4. I hope this "movie" is seen for what it actually is...

PROPAGANDA.

But I got a bad feeling about all this, my wifes family/friends are all educators and they don't seem to be in tune with what is going on. I get the sense that this is going to continue to grow and by the time the "majority" of people that will be affected by all of this realize what is going on... it will be too late.

[madrchsod]

7. i agree...no one will realize until it is to late

[madrchsod]

5. it`s a fight to the death for our republic and ...

so far we are losing.....

[Hannah Bell]

8. knr

[chervilant]

9. Well,

whether or not this is 'what President Obama intended,' the outcome promises to be the same: privatizing public education. The 'bad teachers' and 'villainous unions' meme promulgated by Duncan, Gates, Rhee, et. al, is the primary reason Mr. Obama has lost my respect, and my vote.

I find it ironic, yet predictable, that these 'reformers' are pushing another education agenda that fails to engage our children in essential discussions about THEIR futures, and what THEY feel would secure them an exceptional education. Yet again, we're throwing 'reforms' at our children, instead of encouraging our children to participate in a nationwide initiative to move public education into the 21st century.

My students have suggested

--an Ipad for every student, loaded with every 'textbook' they might need in their pursuit of higher education, and linked with their teachers' computers so they can submit completed homework online.

--classrooms without walls, using some kind of social networking software like Facebook, so that students can learn about their peers in other countries, and form 'teams' to play math or create new literature.

--smaller class sizes--no more than 10-15 students per teacher.

--video and 'ActivBoard' technology in every classroom, with Skype or other live video conferencing available for sustained contact with students from other schools/cities/states/countries.

--a renewed commitment to unstructured physical activity (recess) at least once during the school day.

--more field trips, particularly to ecosystems that faciliate studying biology, geology, chemistry, or other subjects.

--drinking water in the classroom (ironically, research suggests that a well-hydrated brain works better).

--more guest speakers.

--more teamwork in classrooms.

--more art.

--more music.

--better, healthier food, made available to every student (costs for which are built into the school's budget, or charged at the beginning of each school year, so that students don't have to mess with tickets or paying for their meals as they get their lunch). This suggestion is particularly intriguing, as students who've come up with this idea or a variation thereof are often frustrated by the fact that they only have thirty minutes for lunch, and a big part of that time is spent getting to the lunchroom, paying for lunch, and getting BACK to the classroom on time.

--rubrics that allow students to choose from a list of tasks, so they can choose options that are more interesting to them, and that they're more likely to complete.

I think I've listed everything I've heard my students suggest (admittedly, I have solicited ideas for improving our system of education, but some of these items are the result of students' spontaneous observations).

I've said before, and I think it bears repeating: we are NOT a child-centric society. I find the 'reform movement du jour' yet another selfish agenda by people who don't have a clue about children OR education.

Sad, really.

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Charter school "lotteries" are fabricated scarcity

I'm sure madfloridian knows this, but for those who haven't read Juan Gonzalez's reporting on the topic of charter schools, his articles are eye openers.

The image of hundreds of black and Latino parents packed in an auditorium desperately hoping their child would "win" the lottery and get into a local charter school has assumed mythic status in media reports on education reform.

...

But a Daily News review of Harlem Success financial reports suggests the network's huge backlog of applicants is the result of a carefully crafted Madison Ave.-style promotional campaign.

In the two-year period between July 2007 and June 2009, Harlem Success spent $1.3 million to market itself to the Harlem community, the group's most recent financial filings show.

From here.

[sulphurdunn]

12. Fabricated Scarcity

I like that. Mind if I use it?

[RufusTFirefly]

15. Be my guest. (As long as you're not Frank Luntz or Karl Rove, that is) n/t

[madfloridian]

16. That was a great article by Juan Gonzalez.

That is a sad picture at the link....geared to play on the emotions. Propaganda.

[Luminous Animal]

13. I read her article this morning and urge everyone to read the entire thing.

Thanks, madfloridian.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. That lottery scene is just awful

It's abusive to put kids through that. Like I said a few days ago here, if their parents had been that passionate and involved all along, we wouldn't HAVE a need for charter schools.

[JDPriestly]

17. Thanks. They use the term "charter schools," but their real goal

is to lower the incomes of teachers and the requirements for entry into the profession.

Charter schools are the pot in which the wealthy will boil the children of the masses before they simply devour them -- hopes, talents and all. It is another manifestation of the contempt the wealthy have for those who are less wealthy than they.

When they think that you are one of them, in the sanctity of their clubs and their management suites, at the conference tables in their law firms, the wealthy use the word "meritocracy." They consider themselves to be part of a meritocracy -- a more deserving class. That is how they justify using those they consider to be less meritorious. Of course, measuring the merit of others is a privilege they claim for themselves simply because they have more money than the "less meritorious."

And the charter school movement is based on the idea of the meritocracy versus everybody else.

Any parent who actually thinks that his or her child will learn more in a charter school than in a good public school should compare the credentials of the teachers in charter vs. regular public schools, the years of education, the experience in the classroom and then meet the teachers and see which of them is most caring, most dedicated, most knowledgeable about dealing with children.

Charter schools are about paying less. What qualified teacher would choose to be paid less at a charter if they could be paid more at a public school?

Parents need to visit both public and charter schools before selecting a charter.

I know of one decent charter school. It is a non-profit that specifically serves troubled kids -- offering small classes and a lot of individual attention. It is an exception to the rule about charters. And it could just as well be a public school. It does not need to be a charter.

[TBF]

21. Bingo, they are breaking every union they can -

the demonizing of labor is incredible. We are down now to less than 9% of the country belonging to unions. And people wonder why their wages are so low.

[maryf]

18. Thanks, K&R

[Reader Rabbit]

19. Big K & R

I read this a few days ago and was trying to craft a post for it here. You beat me to it and did a far better job than I ever could have. Thanks, madfloridian!

[LWolf]

20. I think it's intended.

Obama is an intelligent man. He would have to be blind and deaf to not know where his ideas are coming from, and what the overall agenda is.

We need the public fighting with us. At the school level, the community level, I get strong, warm support from the vast majority of the families I serve. At the political level? No support.

Do many who are well-served by public education buy into the attacks on public education and teachers because they assume that their school is good, but the teachers and schools in other places aren't?

We need a documentary that gets as much press focused on supporting PUBLIC education.

[YvonneCa]

22. I agree with both of you. I go back and forth on Obama...

...and his level of understanding on this. I also think there is a misconception on the part of communities that this only will impact low-performing schools in high poverty areas...which is not true. So most of them just watch, instead of rising up to save schools.

If public education is maligned and diminished...that hurts public schools EVERYWHERE. And it opens the door to getting rid of all of them.

We need Bruce Springsteen...The Rising! :7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN_cDlAddbM

[LWolf]

23. That's a Springsteen song I'd never actually heard.

I'm not sure how I missed it.

:thumbsup:

[tishaLA]

24. The entire article is great

Here's what grabbed me:

Perhaps the greatest distortion in this film is its misrepresentation of data about student academic performance. The film claims that 70 percent of eighth-grade students cannot read at grade level. This is flatly wrong. Guggenheim here relies on numbers drawn from the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). I served as a member of the governing board for the national tests for seven years, and I know how misleading Guggenheim’s figures are. NAEP doesn’t measure performance in terms of grade-level achievement. The highest level of performance, “advanced,” is equivalent to an A+, representing the highest possible academic performance. The next level, “proficient,” is equivalent to an A or a very strong B. The next level is “basic,” which probably translates into a C grade. The film assumes that any student below proficient is “below grade level.” But it would be far more fitting to worry about students who are “below basic,” who are 25 percent of the national sample, not 70 percent.

Guggenheim didn’t bother to take a close look at the heroes of his documentary. Geoffrey Canada is justly celebrated for the creation of the Harlem Children’s Zone, which not only runs two charter schools but surrounds children and their families with a broad array of social and medical services. Canada has a board of wealthy philanthropists and a very successful fund-raising apparatus. With assets of more than $200 million, his organization has no shortage of funds. Canada himself is currently paid $400,000 annually. For Guggenheim to praise Canada while also claiming that public schools don’t need any more money is bizarre. Canada’s charter schools get better results than nearby public schools serving impoverished students. If all inner-city schools had the same resources as his, they might get the same good results.

But contrary to the myth that Guggenheim propounds about “amazing results,” even Geoffrey Canada’s schools have many students who are not proficient. On the 2010 state tests, 60 percent of the fourth-grade students in one of his charter schools were not proficient in reading, nor were 50 percent in the other. It should be noted—and Guggenheim didn’t note it—that Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school students when they didn’t get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustees. This sad event was documented by Paul Tough in his laudatory account of Canada’s Har- lem Children’s Zone, Whatever It Takes (2009). Contrary to Guggenheim’s mythology, even the best-funded charters, with the finest services, can’t completely negate the effects of poverty.