Slog
News & ArtsThursday, August 23, 2012
Education Schooling the Seattle Times on Charters
Posted by Goldy on Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM
The Seattle Times editorial board states the obvious while obfuscating the facts:
But here's something for voters to consider: the charter schools outperforming public schools share a common strength: parent involvement in the classroom and in leadership.
And here's something else for voters to consider: more than twice as many charter schools underperform public schools than outperform them! At least according to the same peer reviewed study the Seattle Times has seen fit to (deceptively) cite in the past.
As for parental involvement, well of course that's a critical ingredient in the success of all schools, public, private, or charter. That and ample funding. So I hardly see parental involvement as an argument for approving charters.
1
The Seattle Times editorial board has absolutely no credibility when it comes to education issues. They have no connection with reality or rationality. Instead, they are ideologically dedicated to corporate education reform to the exclusion of all else.
2
More expensive, private schools absolutely tend to do better than public schools. *Because* rich people tend to send their children to them. People who are statistically more likely to have a higher education themselves, people who are more likely to read to their very young children, couples who are more likely to have one stay-at-home parent who is able to volunteer in the classroom on a regular basis. These people confuse cause and effect, creating an insular feedback loop. In places like Sweden, where basically everyone receives a free public education, the quality of that education tends to be much higher, because "everybody's got some skin in the game."
4
But Urqutha, if that's true, then -- who can we punish?
Oh, what the hell. Let's just punish teachers. Worth a shot, right?
Oh, what the hell. Let's just punish teachers. Worth a shot, right?
5
Thanks to Goldy for pointing out the obvious that the Times either doesn't want to acknowledge or admit.
This piece was either to bully/shame the Washington State PTA for doing the right thing - standing by the goals/values that both the national and state have put forth.
Those goals -which I-1240 DOES NOT meet - were real parent involvement and local elected oversight.
The word "parent" is in 1240 16 times and yet only once is it about parent engagement and that's just as a suggestion to charter proposals to include it.
The newly created Charter Commission would be politically appointed and then have ZERO oversight, elected or otherwise. These are the people who are likely to be the major authorizers of charters (and practically have to take a blood oath to love them to get on the Commission).
The other authorizers are school boards and I doubt - if they read the initiative - that any school board would vote to take on the role of authorizer. It's that bad for school districts.
No, the Times (and now the Washington Policy Center) think if they publicly chastise the WSPTA that it will change minds. It won't. It only makes the Times look whiny.
This piece was either to bully/shame the Washington State PTA for doing the right thing - standing by the goals/values that both the national and state have put forth.
Those goals -which I-1240 DOES NOT meet - were real parent involvement and local elected oversight.
The word "parent" is in 1240 16 times and yet only once is it about parent engagement and that's just as a suggestion to charter proposals to include it.
The newly created Charter Commission would be politically appointed and then have ZERO oversight, elected or otherwise. These are the people who are likely to be the major authorizers of charters (and practically have to take a blood oath to love them to get on the Commission).
The other authorizers are school boards and I doubt - if they read the initiative - that any school board would vote to take on the role of authorizer. It's that bad for school districts.
No, the Times (and now the Washington Policy Center) think if they publicly chastise the WSPTA that it will change minds. It won't. It only makes the Times look whiny.
6
Support of charter schools by the right wing has nothing to do with trying to improve public education. No, the right wing likes charter schools for three reasons: 1) divert and concentrate taxpayer money into CEO pockets by turning K through 12 education into a for-profit system, 2) destroy teachers unions specifically and the union movement in general (and by extension the ability of unions to politically advocate for policies based on progressive/liberal values), and 3) destroy universal access to quality, secular education and ultimately the expectation that you and your kids have a chance at even a hint of financial security and stability.
For some on the right you can add a fourth reason; 4) to have the state pay for indoctrinating kids with an anti-science, fundamentalist religious (i.e. Christian) world view and belief system.
In this regard, then yes, charter schools do outperform public schools. By a landslide.
For some on the right you can add a fourth reason; 4) to have the state pay for indoctrinating kids with an anti-science, fundamentalist religious (i.e. Christian) world view and belief system.
In this regard, then yes, charter schools do outperform public schools. By a landslide.
7
It goes on to say, "The best charters understand this as well as traditional public schools do."
You could say that the piece is "steeped in ambivalence and clouded by nuance."
You could say that the piece is "steeped in ambivalence and clouded by nuance."
8
@7 My main complaint is that the editors consistently talk about charter schools outperforming traditional public schools when the only study they've ever cited shows 17 percent of charters doing better and 37 percent doing worse!
An honest discussion of charters would acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that existing charters help more students than they harm.
An honest discussion of charters would acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that existing charters help more students than they harm.
9
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I miss the good old days when conservatives blamed parents and children for the failure of public schools.
10
There is also such a thing as a public charter school. Not sure you have them in Washington State.
11
How mant times have Washington voters rejected charter schools? Seems at least twice as far as I can remeber.
12
A good reason why the Seattle Times editorial board and other corporatist apologists and shills, likes charter schools, is well articulated here:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/23/f…
Coming to Washington soon?:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co…
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/23/f…
Coming to Washington soon?:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co…
13
People who can afford to get their kids into charter schools (whether by private tuition or by living in the right neighborhoods, etc.) have stay-at-home housewives -- and short-schedule high-salary breadwinners -- that have the free time, support, resources, and their own education, to be able to have all that involvement.
14
@10 There is no such thing as a public charter school. Whether something is public or private is determined by ownership. Since the public does not own charter schools, they are not public schools. They may provide universal service to the public, but so does Puget Sound Energy, and they are not a public utility because they are not owned by the public. They may derive most of their revenue from government sources, but so does Lockheed, and Lockheed isn't a public corporation because it is not owned by the public. It is ownership and ownership alone that determines if something is public or private and charter schools are not owned by the public so they are not public schools.
I am quite sure that we don't have them in Washington State. I am quite sure that no one has them anywhere.
Given your level of ignorance on this matter, Central Scrutinizer, why did you think you had anything to contribute to the conversation?
I am quite sure that we don't have them in Washington State. I am quite sure that no one has them anywhere.
Given your level of ignorance on this matter, Central Scrutinizer, why did you think you had anything to contribute to the conversation?
15
An honest discussion of charters would acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that existing charters help more students than they harm.
The more accurate way of stating that is:
An honest discussion of charters would acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that existing charters help more students than public schools do.
Public or charter, there's no evidence that either "performs better" (a profoundly meaningless concept when really thinking about education instead of standardized tests and political ideology). And parents deserve choices.
@13 Your post is about as fact based as a certain Senator's recent remarks regarding rape.
I personally know lower-middle class working parents who rely on their charter school to give their family a satisfying education experience. And there are impoverished families all over the country who value their charter schools.
So weird to hear liberals tell parents that they should have fewer school choices because of ideology.
The more accurate way of stating that is:
An honest discussion of charters would acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that existing charters help more students than public schools do.
Public or charter, there's no evidence that either "performs better" (a profoundly meaningless concept when really thinking about education instead of standardized tests and political ideology). And parents deserve choices.
@13 Your post is about as fact based as a certain Senator's recent remarks regarding rape.
I personally know lower-middle class working parents who rely on their charter school to give their family a satisfying education experience. And there are impoverished families all over the country who value their charter schools.
So weird to hear liberals tell parents that they should have fewer school choices because of ideology.
17
Uh, sorry Charlie, etc.. Charter schools are public schools by definition. They are owned and funded by the public, from the same pool of money that funds "regular" public schools, and there is no tuition. Most have a lottery system to determine who gets to attend.
18
@11 - we have turned down charters THREE times
1996
2000 (the Yes side funded by $3M by Paul Allen)
2004 Bill Gates ($1M), Walmart guy from Arkansas $800k, Netflicks guy from LA ($500K), head of The Gap from San Francisco ($100k)
Today? Bill Gates is in nearly $2M, $600k from yet another Walmart heiress in Arkansas, ditto for Netflicks guy.
And yet, public education in California and Arkansas - both with charters - no better than here.
And Washington State is virtually the ONLY state to take this issue to the ballot and we've said no three times.
What will it take for them to believe WA State voters?
1996
2000 (the Yes side funded by $3M by Paul Allen)
2004 Bill Gates ($1M), Walmart guy from Arkansas $800k, Netflicks guy from LA ($500K), head of The Gap from San Francisco ($100k)
Today? Bill Gates is in nearly $2M, $600k from yet another Walmart heiress in Arkansas, ditto for Netflicks guy.
And yet, public education in California and Arkansas - both with charters - no better than here.
And Washington State is virtually the ONLY state to take this issue to the ballot and we've said no three times.
What will it take for them to believe WA State voters?
19
Gates, Allen, Hanauer and their buddies are ready to spend millions and millions to shove charters down the throats of voters. Organizations representing principals, superintendents and even parents all oppose this poorly written initiative. So the 1% on one side and the rest of us on the other side. Geeeeeze.
20
Utah is having GREAT success with charter schools. While the schools are enrolling about twice the percentage of IEP students, many of the school proficiency schools are above that of the public district schools in their local areas. What is amazing to me is that people think that charter schools, which are also public schools though operating on reduced funding, are an opposition to district schools. The main concern of anyone in education is to educate children, not to take down other schools. It is time people started looking objectively at successful charter schools and incorporating what works for them into all schools.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS