Charter Schools and the ultimate disinformation

Note: Michael Martin is a research analyst for the Arizona School Boards Association and a frequent commenter on the EDDRA Discussion List, run by independent researcher Gerald Bracey. EDDRA: Education Disinformation Detecting and Reporting Agency

As will become apparent when you read, Martin is responding to another EDDRA commenter but his insights are well worth considering. BTW, he has also done a great deal of research on the impact of lead poisoning on low-income urban children: http://www.azsba.org/static/index.cfm?contentID=149


by Michael Martin

I'm sorry, I fail to see the logic in any of this. I was an early supporter of charter schools and still believe they have a role to play in society. I was on legislative staff in Arizona when a Democratic senator asked me about the idea circulating to create charter schools and I argued that there were many circumstances where a charter school would be valuable, such as a shelter for domestic violence victims, for migrant children where the school could follow the harvest, and other examples.

But don't make charter schools the scapegoat for what is clearly another agenda that is exploiting charter schools.

This discussion of why the federal government is mandating charter schools despite evidence they fail to improve test scores should first of all recognize that they may be mandating charter schools BECAUSE they fail to improve test scores. You ASSUME that their impetus is to improve the lives of children because that is what motivates you, but there is no evidence that it motivates them.

We just completed a thread about a corporate sponsored commission that explicitly excluded any people who have to look at school children each morning. This commission included as its primary sponsor the Achieve organization that was founded by the person who was CEO of R.J. Rynolds Tobacco when it promoted Joe Camel to poison children. So why do you persist in thinking the basis of the argument about education in general has anything to do with the welfare of children?

Look at the original arguments that formed the basis for charter schools and the primary argument was that charter schools would be cheaper. That private enterprise would run schools cheaper than public schools. Recognize that the primary impetus now for charters is that they will break the unions and their high wage demands. Mandating charter schools represents the same logic as mandating tax cuts regardless of the consequences. Specifically it means they want government cheaper regardless of the consequences.

You talk about "possible" racism when former President Carter points out that the national discussion about incivility arises only because of the fact that the President is Black. The clear message behind the healthcare controversy is that it will provide healthcare to "them" while most of "us" already have healthcare. Consider why the anti-healthcare rallies often featured angry people who are on the federal healthcare program Medicare opposing a federal healthcare program for the poor and there isn't much logical ground other than to consider racism. But I would suggest that racism is not the primary issue either.

I suggest it would be more astute to recognize that it is really a synthesis of racism and classism. In particular, we have developed a multinational upper class that sees everything in terms of dollars, including people. They view everyone who is not in their class as "them" and see all children other than their own as nothing more than the equivalent of farm animals, as labor inputs, as creatures. And they see politics as nothing more than dollars spent to control politicians.

Sitting on my desk are books titled The Global Class War and The Divine Right of Capital and The Transnational Capitalist Class and The Soul of Capitalism and Global Capitalism which talk about a huge reality you are ignoring.

But don't make corporations the scapegoat for what is clearly another agenda that is exploiting corporations either. Most people work for corporations and most people are justly proud of the corporations they work for and what they contribute to the world. But most people have nothing in common with the multinational upper class that controls most major corporations.

The fundamental issue is not charter schools and it is not corporations or capitalism (which I also support), it is clearly a class of people who believe that money defines everything. They see nations and citizens as archaic. I call them The New Aryans because they have the same philosophical conception of themselves being supra-national superior beings and everyone else being expendable.

We are sitting on the verge of an incredible moment in history when the ideals behind America and American public education are poised to sweep the world. For many years we lived by the credo inscribed on the Statue of Liberty that what were considered "refuse" in other lands could come to America and transcend class. Public education was specifically developed to turn the children of refuse into people free to transform the world. Today we are seeing children around the world given the opportunity to go to school and transform themselves and their world. In China and India more and more children of virtual serfs are given the opportunity of an education and the eventual opportunity to create a society that transcends class.

But today we also see the multinational upper class reacting to these opportunities by creating initiatives in each country through their economic power to ensure that education creates only a worker class. Their vision of the world is a global class of leaders dominating their "workers" as if they were little more than beasts of burden and the workers have no unions, no rights, no opportunity to transcend class. Doesn't it occur to anyone here that the ultimate goal of these New Aryans is to create a sweatshop America? If you look closely at the Abramoff scandal of corrupting Congress a few years ago it was founded on the political machinations of maintaining sweatshops in American Guam.

Just as a mental exercise, pretend that you are a New Aryan with a global interest in maintaining your class. How would you go about doing that? Think about it. What would you do to ensure that your labor inputs do not influence your decisions? Would you want education to be defined entirely in terms of employability and to de-emphasize civics and history and logical thinking? Would you want schools to be controlled by mandates from easily corrupted federal authorities instead of myriad elected community leaders who have to look parents and teachers and children in the eye every day? Would you see diversity in common schools as a unifying influence, or would you see it as losing the opportunity to pit groups against each other? If you cannot figure it out as a mental exercise, I predict it will be imposed on you. Not difficult to predict since they are obviously in the process of doing it.

— Michael Martin
EDDRA discussion list
2009-09-23

In the case of health care reform, an elite upper-class is working diligently to block NEEDED reforms.

In the case of education reform, an elite upper-class is workng diligently to impose DESTRUCTIVE reforms.

We didn't think it could get much worse than NCLB.

In either case, it is the domination of the masses by an obscenely wealthy few. The charter school movement has been hijacked by corporate America.

It hurts that so many progressives (especially in mainstream media) do not yet see in education what they so clearly recognize in health reform.

It was late last night when I posted and I didn't have time to do much to keep this thread going. Hope a few will be interested.

"It hurts that so many progressives (especially in mainstream media) do not yet see in education what they so clearly recognize in health reform."

A couple years ago I work at a summer camp for kids with special needs. While there I made "friends" with a severe ADHD (possibly with asperger's) kid, his identical twin (less severe ADHD), and his mom; mostly because he was one of two campers who really reminded me of myself at his age, and he was the one that needed the most help. Over the past two years I have kept in touch with him and his family and found out more about him and his struggles (while he worked to give me a B+ in my education practicum class wootwoot... course thats another story entirely lol). The main struggle always seemed to be teachers who refused to understand him and his idiosyncrasies (sp?) and being at least somewhat alienated from his classmates due to his speaking difficulties.

Finally after 9 years in such a system (was held back once so he is still in 8th grade... and I counted kindergarden) his mom decided she had had enough. Luckily for her there is a (few) nearby private school(s) for special needs kids. She enrolled her son in one and at least so far this year he seems to be thrieving. He has already made friends, he has teachers who make him love being in school again, and he just seems to be happier in general. True there are no test scores yet to show that he is doing better, but those sound like great signs to me. After all who cares if he is smart enough to learn all throughout his life if he has no desire too.

The thing is, its a private school. His mom makes a decent enough salary (a nurse I believe... though I could be wrong) but between the summer camp (between both twins she spends over 3,000 grand a year on them) and this school (another 13,000 a year) and any other therapudic services she gets (not sure if there are any now but she used to get his social skills training and other life skills things) this adds up a lot. Then she is a single mom and I have no clue how much assistance she gets from their father, which leads to more costs. She won't be able to do this for 4 more years, she seems worried about being able to even continue this next year. There are many charter schools like this throughout America... but sadly none in her area. Why shouldn't there be more schools like this that are free to attend. I get that the cost is high, but so is the cost for individual aides for kids like these, and special education in general. If a kid starts feeling happier and gaining back that love to learn... that love of school, it sounds like a great program to me. I don't care if such a thing is done through charters like in other parts of America or some sort of voucher system like I have heard is done in Canada (something makes me doubt this though from what I have heard from Estee Klar... can anyone confirm or deny this), lets get all kids in a school that will help them. Anybody care to disagree?

No thank you. Though some people dream about them.

Because that is what our neighborhood school gets us. Even if 75% of our teachers are great (which never ever happens) that means that we have 2 teachers we learn nothing from at a time... gets you that little bit closer to hell.

That sounds a lot closer to hell in my opinion.

I just think the government should help pay for the the best option possible. If my friend was in public schools right now he might have an individual aide (certainly most of his current classmates would), be receiving at least some special services, and would be costing the state A LOT more money then his mom is paying now through all of this. Whats wrong with sending him here instead of send him to the public school where he wouldn't be learning, wouldn't want to be learning, and would just be more miserable. I am sure there is a good reason I am missing here... but I just don't see it.

P.S. To me the system we have now is basically enforcing everyone to see a general practioner even if what we need a psychologist or whatever... it makes me scared about government controlled health care like many people here want with the single-payer option.

First of all, the existence of schools with special "charters" that allow them to be run by private enterprise is a form of privatization. That right there makes charter schools anathema to supporters of public education.

Secondly, there is an imbalance of power. Charter schools have more flexibility, more local control, than other public schools. That imbalance of power is not a healthy thing.

Third: It sets up "tiers" of education. That imbalance of power includes the ability to pick and choose who gets to attend. There are MANY ways, not all of them straightforward and transparent, that this occurs when some schools can limit enrollment, deny admission, or rescind admission without formal expulsion, and others cannot. It creates "elite" schools and relegates those that don't "fit" to schools with less power to make a difference in their students' lives. Charter schools are set up for many reasons, some of them worthy. There are good charter schools out there. There are also charter schools set up to facilitate "white flight," religious education, and class separation. All unworthy of public education and public funding.

Fourth: Charter schools are a privatization tool, as mentioned above. They are a step towards privatization. They are also an anti-union tool. Schools are, or should be, about education. They should not be used as weapons to achieve political goals.

Finally: Charter schools are unnecessary. Education reform has marched the wrong direction. Remove the authoritarian, top-down control. Give ALL public schools the same local control that charter schools have. An important (and expensive) step is to open all district schools to all students. That's a big transportation expense. Allow all public schools to cap enrollment. Of course, with an enrollment cap, and the effort to keep schools small, you'd have to build enough schools to make sure that there was always a place for students moving into a district.

Then you could have schools within each district with specific focuses; every school in the district could be a "magnet" school of some kind. Parents could choose the school that best fit their child's needs and interests.

All public. No privatization. No union-busting. No corporate fingers in the pie. All with enough regulation by the district to ensure safety and equal opportunity to learn. All with the same labor standards and pay rates, negotiated with the local union. All with enough local control to make the school flexible and responsive to the needs of the families they serve.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I agree with you for the most part on the others, though maybe not to the same degree (I have worked in an innercity school and saw how much harder some of the students tried when they knew there was a better school on the line, to me thats a good thing to see) or don't care about the issues as much as you do). The thing is though, even most magnet schools are still neighborhood schools, most magnets I have ever seen, maybe 5% of the schools population went their for the magnet part of it (btw I have went to 2 in my life, my elementary and high school were both magnets; elementary for the year-round schedule and a huge emphasis on computers and technology (at least for the 90s practically light for this decade); and my high school was the music/arts charter in the city, had the best music program in the state with only 2 or 3 rivals). The other 95% of the population is there because it is their neighborhood. I am not sure if it is like this everywhere, but in my experience thats what it is like. With charters 100% of the population is there for the charter (or at least their parents are) that is a huge difference.

To liken this to my friend, that would mean that 95% of his classmates would be the type of students that bully him, socially isolate him, or just ignore him. That a good deal of his teachers might not believe in what the magnet school stands for and might not give him that great of an education (lets face it, most magnets don't clean house so it takes 35 or so years to make sure every teacher believes in the magnet.) It will still cost the state far more money as it will be far less efficent in getting the services out (5 to 1 ratio is always preferable to a 1 to 1 cost wise, and generally educationally wise too (aides suck... I speak from experience)).

Personally I don't care what you call it, but make schools that are JUST for gifted kids, or are JUST for special needs kids, or are JUST for artistic kids, or whatever. Not schools that might have 5% of the population into such things. Not schools that might hire a few extra teachers for such a purpose leaving all the other teachers who were given 1 college course on how to educate such kids. Though then again, maybe this is just me. Speaking as a former special needs kid, it doesn't matter what public school it is, it sucks for us, magnets wouldn't help matters much other then maybe adding a program or two to further alienate and generally attempt to normalize us.

It doesn't work effectively that way. You have to open up all the schools in the district to all; then you can have schools with special focuses. Otherwise, the special focus you get is the one you happened to be zoned for, not the one in your district best suited to meet your child's needs.

I don't think whole schools for special needs kids or gifted kids are a good thing, though. Unless the "special need" is so profound that it can't be met in a regular school setting, I don't think whole schools should be that homogeneous. Research doesn't support it. Gifted kids SHOULD be clustered, and served appropriately. Special needs students may need more time, more resources, etc.. than the regular ed population, but they also need to function with the general population, as the gifted do. As we all do, when we aren't in school.

Structure schools to keep them small, keep class size small and the ratio of adults to children high, with plenty of support staff. Allow for abundant space in classrooms and on campuses, longer days, and more flexible scheduling.

And make sure that all teachers are highly skilled in differentiation, which is the most effective way to serve the needs of a heterogeneous population, given the structure (see above) to facilitate it.

"Charter schools" are what they are because they have a special "charter" from a district dispensing with a lot of rules. Exempting some, but not all, is inherently undemocratic.

Every state, county, and district is different, of course. My county dept of ed runs some special schools for kids with mental health and/or behavior issues. They are fully public schools, have their own county district structure, and work in partnership with all the districts in the county to serve those students in a variety of models. They send psychologists to every school to do actual therapy with identified students; they offer half day programs, with transportation to and from home school for students who will benefit from more intensive therapy and social skills training. For those who need more, we have a full day, year-round program with an adult per every 7 students, a psychologist, family counseling and education as well as individual counseling for the student, and a whole scaffolding structure to ease the student back into a regular school, a little at a time, until they are fully transitioned back. Even then, they continue to meet with families and the school, and track the students' progress.

Those aren't charter schools. They are public schools for kids with special needs. They have a district, they are not exempt from rules and regulations, and there is no private group influencing curriculum. They don't need a "charter" to operate.

First off, can I see the research against schools for kids with special needs? I am just curious about that because my friend seems happier, healthier, and more willing to be smarter. Isn't that what school is for? I go to many message boards for parents who have kids with asperger's (and other related disorders) and you see time and time again that they can't get anything out of the school. Their kids are bullied by students and ignored by teachers and administrators. This is true beyond borders (just ask Estee Klar or Luke Jackson) and throughout most of the US. You might have a good school district (though I still doubt every teacher is good, and there is no bullying) but most school districts aren't this way.

Then this is true despite any political affilations, there are a ton of schools the one my friend goes to in Republican areas such as Dallas/Ft. Worth and theres a ton in the Bay Area of CA. No matter what there is a desire for schools like this. Then there is the fact that every one of the teachers at most of these schools (with maybe 1 or 2 special exceptions, a sign language teacher for example) has their degree in special education, something that you have a hard time saying with any other school outside of this.

Personally I don't care how it is created or managed. I don't care if its a charter school or not. I just care that they have a place where they can be themselves, they can learn, and they can be safe. Generally speaking, in todays society, with todays societal norms and morals, that happens best in a school made for them. Perhaps if we start giving teachers more then 1 class in special education, where they might spend 1 or 2 class periods covering a disorder that you could spend a month if not a class on, it might be better. Short of that... I am not sure. I like your schools idea, but then again it sounds like a school that you have to be failing to get into... many kids that need a new school aren't failing. Like my old friend Barb used to say... if a kid has a 140 IQ and is struggling to maintain a C average, something is seriously wrong.

As for taking away some rules for some being wrong, being in special education I have always thought give to anyone what they need. Is giving a sign language interpretur to a deaf student wrong? What about an individual aide to another? I am sorry I don't care how we educate these kids, and neither do most parents of kids with special needs like these. Go to the Yahoo group called Asperger's Support sometime if you want proof of that. Most parents there homeschool, and from what I have seen that is the norm for asperger's students whos parents can manage it.

then one of those reforms is doing away with "neighborhood" schools.

It's just as possible, and a better solution, than "charter" schools, if the goal is to allow broader choice and a better fit for students.

Of course, that's not the goal of charter schools; it never was.

The goals are privatization and union-busting.

Which charter schools are better at than they are at educating.

If parents don't choose them they will stop coming right? Parents generally speaking want whats best for their child, not whats best for a political movement. So if parents choose a charter school that is specifically for kids with special needs, then they must have some reason to have a reason to not want their kid to go to other schools in the area. Thats why I don't care if they are leading towards privatization or union-busting.

Though then again I don't care what option they create, just as long as they create an option other then the neighborhood school or pay 10,000+ a year to get out. And I still wonder why you think a homogenous school would be harmful for special needs kids.

the choice should be offered within the public system, regulated by elected school boards, complete with union representation, and free from private influence or control.

Choice should also be offered to all; keeping public schools under the authoritarian thumb while offering more flexible choices to a few do not help the system or improve conditions for all students.

And that's what public education is about. All students, not a few.

Choice can be offered appropriately and democratically through the public system, instead of going outside the system and undermining that system as a whole.

Lets put yourself in my friend's mother's shoes. Your son in struggling in school, despite being quite intelligent. He feels that teachers hate him, and you have seen evidence to suggest that you might be true. He has entered into a depression due to lack of friends and lack of success at school (not to mention comparing himself to his twin brother), and if nothing else you have heard rumors that he at least sometimes cries himself to sleep at night (I witnessed it even if she never has).

You hear about a charter (or private) school designed specifically to serve your sons needs. Not only are all the teachers enthusastic about educating him, they all know how to adequately (if not supurbly) educate him. They have counselors and speech language patholigists on staff to help him with said depression and said lack of having friends. It is in fact, instead of just in name like most schools (kids that know what its like to be bullied on a regular basis don't bully others and said special education teachers have extra education to stop the rest). Beyond that they will teach him that its okay to be himself, some that all kids with special needs need to hear at school but never do. Would you totally ignore said school or would you send your son to it? People don't choose to send their kid to such a school because it undermines the system, they choose it because it is the best option for their child. Why would you expect anything different.

If your friend's mother came to me, as an educator, I'd invite her to send her child to my public school classroom. Or to any number of my colleagues classrooms who are trained in differentiation for gifted students.

All of whom teach in public schools.

Are you really going to deflect the point with fictional role-playing?

And remember the child needs more then just differentation for gifted students (did you even read my orginal post?) he is also ADHD and borderline asperger's. So your the mother in the above situation and you have been fighting for him for 8 years (well 9, they held him and his twin back a year). So you would honestly continue to send your son to a place where gets more and more depressed and less and less educated, rather then send him to that private/charter school. I don't believe you for a second. No mother puts her political values over her sons education.

Beyond that, you want to know the honest truth? I don't give a damn about teachers unions, I honestly don't. In most states teachers can't strike anyway (like they proably shouldn't be able to), so what power do teachers unions have anyway? I don't believe that the industry will become all privitized any more then I believe the RWers that say that the government will choose your doctor for you if we pass the public option (like they do in other government controlled areas... like education for example). I believe that is LW fear mongering (personally I distrust both extremes btw). So that takes away your two best scare tactics.

Then there was the issue of it taking away from other kids. I assume you mean money here, but like I have said before most schools would probably give him an invididual aide. That runs what, 20,000 a year? Maybe more? His current school is educating him for 13,000 a year. So no... it would be saving more money for the other kids.

So what other scare tactics do you want me to disbunk?

Since I AM a mother, and I DID usher 2 sons through public school.

As a teacher,I'm wondering if he has an IEP, for ADHD related and Asperger's related issues, and an IGP, PEP, or whatever his state and district call plans for identified gifted students.

If so, then, as his mother, I call for a meeting with the special ed and gifted departments to make sure that his placement is appropriate and that his teacher knows how to serve his special needs. If that doesn't work, I go to the school, then district psychologist.

And I keep calling for meetings until an appropriate placement is found.

As a parent AND a citizen, I work hard, meanwhile, to help achieve constructive reform, so that my son, and ALL students, find an appropriate placement within the public school setting.

Hell, I don't have to be his mother. I've done that for students. One Aspie, in particular. He wasn't recognized as an Aspie at that point. After sitting through 2 years of SSTs as a member of the team, he landed in my room. When I had up close and personal time to observe, I called our district psychologist. I described the student, asked if that sounded like Asperger's, and, when he said yes, asked him to contact the parents. A layperson's diagnosis wasn't appropriate. He did, parents had him screened, he's asperger's, he got an IEP, some adaptive PE, some specific goals pertinent to his asperger's, and he stayed with me, since I had the most training in working with gifted students on that campus. He thrived, his parents were happy, and I worked with him for another 4 years before I moved out of state.

He's a sophmore in high school now, and doing well.

So you consider labor, represented by unions, to be left-wing, and efforts to support labor to be extremist?

That explains a great deal.

The school would never accept a soft Asperger's diagnosis, so just for ADHD issues and a bit for his dyslexia (but since its so mild hardly anything). From what she has said, they will follow the IEP to the letter, but never do anything above and beyond it, and will still demean him whenever it serves their purpose. An IEP very rarely ever means anything, and many teachers and administrators will fight against it (my mom was basically given the message that if she tried to get me a good IEP they would stick me in the ED/BD room... which considering I did have some anger management problems they easily could have).

Imagine a teacher that will follow your IEP (which looking back at when I interviewed her for a college assignment, has things like letting him get up and walk around if he needs it, test taking outside of the classroom if he needs it (always helpful btw, wish I had it in high school and not just in college), and written instructions) but would always be strict with him, yell at him, or even act angry with him. Nothing about that violates the IEP, but it will make you feel like a failure. And trust me, this happens a lot, just ask Alex Barton (or heck, Luke Jackson can tell you all about that too) and trust me that this **** isn't that rare. Then there are things like having a set routine, having hands-on work, and other things that can help him. His mom has talked about how he tones out when there isn't either of these.

There is so much a school can do that is not and never would be talked about in an IEP. For example at his new school everyone of his teachers is experienced with how to educate kids like him (not just 1 or 2). He can get invidual, group, or peer counseling. He can get social skills training (and does for sure). All of this is free btw. All teachers will truly differentiate, not just claim to like just about every public school teacher I have ever worked with. He will always have a classroom with no more then 10 students, and probably frequently 2 teachers. He will be with likes that are a bit unusual like him (you would be amazed at how much that kills bullying). He will be taught that who he is, is okay. He doesn't have to be NT for his teachers sake.

I just don't see why you would choose a public school where he would struggle, over all of this. Of courses your not a parent of a kid with special needs... and your a public school teacher (bit of rose colored glasses come with that and theres nothing wrong with that, everyone believes their profession always helps and everyone in it is like them).

And I never said that last part, I said I don't care about unions (of which there are many in charter schools). Where did you get extremeists or left-wing? I just don't care about teachers unions compared to students. So you consider corporations, represented by private schools, to be right-wing, and efforts to support them to be extremeist? Though can I ask, do you hate Montessori schools too?

P.S. I would invite you to go to the Yahoo group mentioned before too.

But all it takes for an IEP in the two states I've worked in is a diagnosis of "autistic-like characteristics" from a district psychologist. It doesn't even take an official diagnosis.

What's in the IEP is a local issue. The school shouldn't HAVE to go beyond that IEP; what the student needs should be IN it. There are regulations, but under-serving a student usually occurs because of lack of resources.

I did once work for a district that tried to limit IEPs, and what was written in them. It was a funding issue. Education is always underfunded, and so is special education.

Then again, in my current district, our special ed teachers go above and beyond. They not only offer more, and better, service than I've seen in any other place I've worked, they will help ANY student, regardless of whether or not they have an IEP. All we do is indicate a need, and they serve it.

What you are describing can happen. It shouldn't, but it can. Of course, it can happen in any school, and it can happen with any student, not just students with special needs. In this kind of case, it sounds like a problem for the admin to deal with. As a parent, I'd sure be talking to that admin on a regular basis, and I'd get my child moved to a teacher who understood his needs.

Those situations can happen in any school, charter or magnet, public or private. I don't support unprofessional behavior on the part of my colleagues. I'm all about making sure that kind of shit happens rarely, and when it does, is immediately addressed to benefit the student. That's not an issue of public vs charter. It's an issue for every school, classroom, and teacher.

I do agree with you on one thing; teachers should be experienced with how to educate students with special needs. ALL teachers should be. There are a variety of ways to make that happen, and it should happen WITHIN the system.

I don't think I ever indicated whether my personal children had special needs. For the record, my two sons were identified gifted. If you don't know, intellectually gifted students are an "at-risk" population. My single grandson has a long list of diagnoses related to physical, neural, and social/emotional issues. He could not be served in a regular public school. That became obvious in kindergarten. By first grade, he was spending half day in a county program for extra support, and he spent 2nd and 3rd grades in a full day county school for children with his issues. All public schools. They successfully helped him transition back into a local school, and he's doing quite well there. I have BOTH personal and professional experience.

I would, and did, choose public schools because I want to support the public system. Because I believe that public education is a keystone in a democratic society. Because I believe that the best way to ensure that all children get equal opportunity to an education is to make sure that we have a fully supported, vibrant, public system.

We don't have that right now. Our factory system is weak and dysfunctional. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of those who have been working to privatize public education. It was one of Ronald Reagan's big goals, and it has been marching inexorably forward since he was in office. I've offered you alternatives, not just to the privatization tools that charter schools are, but to the factory system that makes it so difficult to meet the needs of everyone who isn't "average." People aren't standardized parts to be assembled on a factory line. That's why the factory system fails.

I want to change that. I don't want to destroy public education, or create more inequalities in educational opportunity than there already are in the process.

This is what you said about unions: "I don't give a damn about teachers unions, I honestly don't." Where did I get my question? You also said this:

"I believe that is LW fear mongering (personally I distrust both extremes btw). So that takes away your two best scare tactics."

That identifies the left as an extreme, and indicates a dislike of the left on your part. The left supports labor. The right, and much of the center, supports the corporate power structure. I freely and openly place myself to the left of center, and I don't have much respect for the policies of the right OR the center. I certainly consider privatization and union-busting to be right-wing goals. Undemocratic, and un-Democratic, both. Extremist or not, efforts to support them are harmful to the survival of public education, harmful to workers, and harmful to the nation as a whole.

I don't hate Montessori schools. I like them. Personally, I support universal public pre-school through trade school or college, and I think that Montessori-based preschools and early primary programs should be part of what public schools offer.

That way they would be available to all; not just those that can pay tuition, or get themselves on the roster of a charter school.

The center-right majority don't stand with me there, obviously.

The system you are advocating sounds great, and it sounds like it would take 30 years to achieve (and it needs schools jut for special needs kids... I am still waiting for those research studies) and will never exist everywhere, or even most places. Right now schools exist that you would probably agree with me sound great in the private system. I am saying is if a school has shown difficulties in educating children there parents should be allowed to take them out of the school system and get them into a school that works for them NOW, not 5 years from now or 10 years from now or 30 years from now.

I suppose you can deny me that it sounds like a great school... but I don't think that would get you very far... maybe though. Here is the link to his school: http://www.hillschool.org/ . Does that school really seem that horrible to you? Does it really seem like students really struggle there. I don't know... it doesn't seem that way to me. I would have loved to go to a school like that when I was a kid... and from what I have seen so does my friend.

Then way I see the education system is sortof like I imagine... or hope... you see the healthcare system. Everyone should have a choice of what school they want to go to, no matter what it is, where it is, whatever. Keep money out of religious schools sure... I agree with that. Then give everyone money to choose said school based on their needs. So for the average kid give them what the district would give them (here in Iowa a lot less then in California but whatever) and for special needs add in that amount. If they choose a school like the above one, so be it. Just like if I didn't want to go to a nearby doctor or see a specialist I should be allowed to. Most will probably choose the public schools, especcially for the lower levels when specialization is less important for most kids, not to mention less possible.

I just don't see how she should have to pay 13,000 a year to educate her kid on top of what she pays to educate every other kid in the school district when no one helps her support her kid. I just see that as being un-democratic I guess. Democracy is always system that has a hard time caring about minority groups, and asperger's people are what, 1 in 300 or so... maybe closer to 1 in 500 (just asperger's not all autism spectrum disorders which is closer to 1 in 150, though possibly even 1 in 100 by now.) Its hard to imagine how much of a vote we have in changing the whole system. Even when you add in people with other "mild" developmental disabilities (mild ADHD doesn't count but worse cases sure do), the amount doesn't even reach 1 in 10 probably. I am sorry, that is just how I feel, you probably see it as privitzation of the industry... but I see it being like single-payer healthcare.

Oh and I think such a system should have every school avaible to everyone, have to accept everyone to receive funds as long as they fit the profile of the school (which can not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. etc.; but a would have a right to refuse a kid without special needs if it was a special needs school or in similiar situations).

What you want seems to be to have every teacher be a specialist in everything. Have every teacher know everything about every 'type' of student... I really don't see that working. There is too much to know and theres too much to educate. Meanwhile your arguing for smaller schools where you might have 4 or so real special needs kids that aren't in the special education classes in every grade... hardly enough to justify a class for. I am sorry... I just don't like this idea.

Can you really try arguing that the above school probably wouldn't be best for my friend, or the millions of others out there like him. I suppose thats what the arguement all boils down to. So would you send your kid to such a kid if it was avaible for free and totally public? Because I don't think the answer should change just because its private.

P.S. I did go to a private college, is that evil of me?

P.S.S Does your school district offer social skills training, group, invididual, and peer therapy (free of charge), etc. Something makes me doubt it (I wouldn't mind seeing a website for your school district if you do.

much like those I've described. That's why I know it's possible, and it doesn't take 30 years.

It just takes politicians, and a public, who is willing to staff and fund schools like that on a wider scale.

If a public school is not meeting the needs of students, that public school needs the staffing, funding, and support to better serve students. Taking some kids out to attend charter schools will not achieve that.

for me or most of the parents I talk to. Sure they would be a step in the right direction but you have never mentioned social skills training, no bullying EVER, individual, group, and peer counseling, or any of the other things I mentioned this school had. For now your educating them in a worse way for 20,000 more a year (I am willing to bet normal student funds + aide funds = about 33,000 or more). Is it just me or is there something wrong there? So just tell me, how many schools have you seen that even offer social skills training?

like you have a vested interest in making sure that public schools will never meet your criteria. Of course I didn't mention anything about social skills, bullying, etc.; that's not what the topic under discussion was about.

That doesn't mean that public schools don't address those issues. They are a hell of a lot easier to address in a community-based system, instead of a factory-based system, which is why they are always an on-going problem.

Not that any charter school, or any other school, will ever exist that experiences "no bullying EVER." As long as the students are human, there will be those that are trying to develop their bullying credentials. It's what the school does to prevent and respond that are key.

And yes, there are some really great things happening out there in public schools.

But then, one of the whole purposes of charter schools is to filter students, denying access to those more difficult to educate. Students coming from backgrounds where learning is not valued, and where bullying is, are a bigger challenge than charter schools like to take on.

First off, I think your confused about why I think that those schools will have less bullying. They are taking kids that all were bullied at their previous school. Kids that were bullied like that (think Ryan Patrick Halligan or Thomas White if you need a good comparison... though I am sure they public school system was great for both of them, thank God neither one of them was sent to a school for special needs kids) generally don't become bullies themselves. Even if say 5% of them become bullies, that means that quite a few of the bullied kids at their previous schools will never have to deal with bullies again. I am sure that means little to you, but that means a heck of a lot to me.

Beyond that I have metioned social skills training and bullying several times here, because thats what these private and charter schools you hate already offer. Thats something that will really help these kids that isn't offered in just about every public school. Beyond that like I said, having every teacher major in how to educate you at some point in time is also great.

And how many aspies/ADHD kids/ etc. have you ever educated... we are always difficult to teach :-p. I doubt they deny access to many kids when we are all so difficult to educate to begin with.

1. I don't hate the schools themselves. I hate privatization, I hate setting up tiers of education that aren't available to all, I hate pseudo-reform with the intent of bringing public education down. I hate inequity. I hate unequal access to, therefore opportunity, to education. Which is why I support public education and oppose "reforms" that were designed to privatize.

2. I'm not at all confused. Victims of bullies can, and do, become bullies. Not a big secret. Segregating all the victims together doesn't prevent, or lessen, bullying.

3. How many aspies/adhd/etc.? :eyes: 17 aspies. More adhd kids than I can count. More gifted kids than I can count. More kids with IEPs for various learning disabilities that I can count. As well as the homeless, the abused, the neglected, the emotionally unstable... I can guarantee that I've taught more of them than you have.

This year alone, I serve 21 students with IEPs; those 21 break down into 1 aspie, 7 adhd kids, including one gifted adhd, and one learning-disabled gifted kid, 5 kids with various mental health issues, and 8 others with other identified learning disabilities. Plus 6 other gifted students, and another bunch of "average" students.

4. I notice you say "we." That begins to make sense. I can that you aren't seeing beyond charter schools to the bigger picture, and the more wide-spread and long term solutions that we need. I'm sorry about that. If you ever want to turn your passion to bigger, better, longer-term solutions, you'll be welcome.

1. Rich people people can already afford schools like the aformentioned to adequately serve their kids. I would rather give them to everyone, then just to the rich. If my friends mom made a little less a year, she would never be able to afford it. Even still I am sure she would rather put her money into the kids college fund, though she knows if she does that, her kiddo will never go to college. Sad spot to be in don't you thing. Though, I suppose you might prefer just the rich getting good education, but I don't.

2. Is it possible for more then 100% of the kids to be bullied? Beyond that aspies and ADHD kids don't generally become bullies, and yes I know this from experience. Like I said before, even if 5% of these kids get bullied, 95% of them were before... so which is better?

3. 1 aspie... yeah I am sure he doesn't feel like a freak. How frequently does he get bullied (and don't tell me never). Oh and can you tell parents of kids like Ryan Patrick Halligan, Alex Barton, or Thomas White how great public education is it would be fun to see them laugh in your face. Beyond that I have taught... maybe... 50 aspies and 100 ADHD kids. Maybe less ADHD kids but far more aspies.

4. Okay fine, I want social skills training in every school that serves aspies/adhd kids that isn't in a district designed to serve said kids. I also want every teacher that works with special needs kids or gifted kids to have certification to teach said kids. Masters is prefered in at least one, but at a less then masters level is okay. I want teachers aides where neccessary, to at least have a bachelors degree and to have to take courses in how to educate said kids (too often this is not the case. Until then, I want the kids to be able to learn elsewhere, it will be cheaper then it is now anyway (like I said before 13,000 is a lot less then 30,000) and they will be able to save money for such things when they time comes that they can have it. Sound good to you? If I get all of that I will start saying the public system is okay, but considering your becon of light in the special needs community doesn't even offer those things (or you would have already said they did) I doubt thats going to happen any time soon.

Earlier this year a friend of mine and myself were talking about how much the world sucks (for lack of a better explanation). I went into talking about another kid named C (who coincidently is also Z2 friend). You see C was adopted from Russia (I believe, though possibly Ukraine) and adopted into about the worst family ever... though I will spare you the details (largely because I lack many of them and those that I do have are not for anyones eyes). Somewhere along the line I mentioned that he was a Christian and read his bible a lot (and probably understood it a lot better then most), and my friend told me that it is amazed that he still believed in God... I despite my own Christianity have to agree.

Now before I go on to much longer this is how I feel about public education in general, its really hard to believe after the **** (pardon my french or my astricks as the case may be) I have seen. I can't go a day without getting 10 emails in my inbox about how depressed these parents I try to help kids are (mostly from groups, sometimes directed at me). I have seen what the unemployment rates for asperger's people are... and it makes me scared... and it makes me wonder how you can claim to be doing your job with these kids. I look at how even kids like Luke Jackson (quite possibly one of the youngest kids to ever get published in that capacity) can't even finish high school due to depression, and it makes me sick. I work at a summer camp and have kids (including the aformentioned one) in the bunk next to me crying themselves to sleep at night because they can't make friends and no one gives a care to help them, and I don't get how a 12 year old can be that depressed... even though I know I was. Then I work with parents who have had the unthinkable happen to their own kids thanks to bullying... and I don't get how it can happen.

If it was just 50% of the time, I might believe it was just a coincidence, but its not. Even on sites like Wrong Planet, you very rarely see any kids happy with their school. You very rarely see any adults that can get and keep a job for a prolonged time... and with me just being 23 and only having a few jobs... you can bet thats scary. The only thing that keeps me confident is knowing that I am smarter then most... which who knows how long that will keep me ahead This isn't even a support group really. It isn't even a site for those looking for help... just those looking to talk to those like them. Yet, the case is always the same... they hate where they are... way more then the general public. They complain about bullying, about lacking friends, about lacking social skills, about feeling like freaks, about teachers that can't or refuse to understand, they even talk about teachers that bully them on a regular basis...

You can not tell me with it being as wide spread as I have seen it... that it is just a failure of a few school systems, of a few people. It doesn't get that wide spread unless its a problem with the system as a whole... that is going to take years and years to fix. All the time with healthcare reform I hear about how many people will die before it is fixed, is the loss of a kids desire to learn, to desire not to go to a place of torture, to desire to be happy and carefree, any less significant? The simple truth is, we can't afford to wait, we need action now.

Already there are schools set up designed to serve us. Where every teacher at the school knows extensively how to educate us. Where bullying will be significantly lessened, if for no other reason then it is impossible to be more then 100%. Where we will get social skills and life skills training so we will one day be able to find and hold a job with a lot more ease... and it won't be cleaning tables like we would probably get at public school (not even trade schools routes like it sounds like you would wish upon many of us... no doubt I might have been told to go that route if I lived elsewhere in America). Where we will know... truly know... that we are not alone in this world... that there are others like us (1 in 150 sounds a lot different to different people... to me it was nothing like then the sound of angels). That we will have teachers that are there because they want to educate kids like us... you can't imagine how much that would change things.

I look at this school, and wonder to myself, why does it have to be so expensive that only the rich can afford it. Shouldn't it be made so that everyone, no matter if they can pay 13,000 a year or not can afford it... shouldn't the 30,000 the school would be spending on a kid with special needs, go to educate him where ever he and his parents want him to be education. Tell me if I am wrong... but that sounds... amazing to me.

1. I'm glad to hear you say so.

2. "Don't generally become bullies because I know it from experience..." You need statistics, not anecdotal evidence, to make this claim. My anecdotal evidence, which I will not generalize: I've never seen an aspie be a "bully" in the traditional sense. ADHD kids? Yes, they can be.

3. 1 aspie. {b}THIS YEAR. He transferred OUT of a county school for people just like him. A public, not charter, county school with a 7-1 student to adult ratio, because he WANTED to function with the general population, and his teachers, and family felt he was ready. Poor him. As for taking anecdotal evidence from any particular individual about public education? See number 2. Although I am sorry, of course, if anyone's student was not well served in any kind of school they attended.

4. I'm glad you want social skills training for the rest of the population. I'm sure they are grateful to get that concession. I also want every teacher that works with special needs kids and gifted kids to be certified and qualified to do so. Since those kids are in the general population, and are going to be in the general population, that means I want those skills to be required for teacher certification. We aren't there yet. More realistically, my state certifies teachers and then gives them "endorsements" for certain populations. That's a good place to start. You and I agree about making sure that teachers are qualified to serve students with special needs. I'll go one further; we need a restructuring of the system to facilitate teachers' efforts to do so. That would include small schools, small class sizes, and abundant support for all students who demonstrate a need. It's easier to address social as well as academic issues in that kind of setting.

Finally...who is my "beacon of light" in the special needs community?

Not desirable to be sure, but evidence is evidence right. So anyway...

1) I would be more glad if you would say that everyone deserves a good education.

2) http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3006889&page=1 it aired a few years ago, really good special, and mentions one of the only public schools I ever heard to have a social skills program (whereas every private and charter school has them designed for this population has them.) 90% bullied on a daily basis, and never mentions how many others are bullied on a weekly or so basis. And we both agree that we have never seen an aspie bully another kid, so that means that the new school would probably be a lot nicer to them then the old school.

3) Of course schools like this should always be a choice, though may I ask how we are defining "kids like him". I have seen school programs designed for autistics of all levels before, but never just aspies, well not ones that were anything more then a resource room. When it comes to spectrum disorders "kids like him" can mean so many things. Beyond that you teach elementary school... wait until the bullying starts (generally in 6th and 7th grade and continuing through his senior year of high school, heck I was bullied quite a bit in college, though by then it was largely because I didn't drink) and see how eager he will be to go back to normal schooling.

A great movie to watch for proof of this is Autism: the Musical, paying special attention to Wyatt's and to a lesser extent Henry's stories. Wyatt was forced into a special education program though he only had a bit more severe case of asperger's then I had. He was scared to leave the program because he knew about bullies even from a far, but it wasn't right for him and he and his mom knew it (and I believe but could be wrong that his mom posts on HP regularly... one of the moms does). His parents tried fighting it with a lawyer, but were told it would cost huge money and probably fail anyway. After the movie ends it says they find a new school where he is thriving and has no bullies, what they fail to mention is that it is a private school like the one I suggested before (I believe Henry went to one too, but when your the son of Stephen Stills or a famous documentation its a bit easier to pay for private schooling).

4) They will never get any of the things I requested. We will continue to have untrained and uncaring teachers year after year after year (who we can't fire because they never have done anything really wrong). We will continue to not make it so teachers have to take the extra 16 credit hours for gifted kids and 30 credit hours for special needs kids, because no one wants to take another 45 credit hours worth of classes. That is generally what TAG and special education boil down too, at least here in Iowa. So we still do dump such kids into a system that doesn't fully understand them. Small schools and small class sizes also limit the number of gifted and special needs kids that could possibly be inside, generally leading to more freakiness. The first time I met another (suspected) aspie was my junior year of high school. Coincidently that did a lot to help me feel less like a freak. So you have a lot of give and take there. It also makes it a lot harder to set up social skills classes as if you have say 3 aspies/severe ADHD kids in a school of 600 (high estimate) then you have 1 or 2 such kid in a school of 250 (lower estimate but still pretty high). Hard to set up a class for one or two students.

And your classroom is the beacon of light in the special needs community or at least thats how your making it sound.

that everyone deserves a good education.

That's exactly why I want to support the system that serves all, instead of sorting out ways to serve some, but not others.

:eyes:

I'm done with you. You've made your point; it's all about incompetent, uncaring teachers. Since you are blind to the multitudes of competent, caring, teachers; since you are more interssted in attacking public education than in supporting those multitudes in positive, authentic reform that would do more to ensure tht everyone gets the good education they deserve than the charter school movement will ever do...

I'm done.

Tell him how much teachers care. Tell him how much teachers respect him and want to help him. Tell him about how these teachers exist in multitudes of competent, caring, teachers (90% of whom have spent one week or less on learning how to educate an asperger's student). Then you can come tell me what you learn.

Then while your at it tell Luke Jackson (youngest person I have ever heard of to be a published best selling author... wasn't able to graduate), Thomas White (brought a gun to school to get himself kicked), Ryan Patrick Halligan (suicide), or any number of other victims of the school system about all of that.

Tell that teachers union to stop defending Alex Barton's teacher. It is pathetic when you can't fire someone right away for what amounts to child abuse.

It stunk. Absolutely stunk.
And there was no public school close enough, or with the room to take another student. The answer?
Homeschooling. The student in question is in college now, doing great.

Homeschooling doesn't seem to be to popular around here either. Especcially not with a virtual charter school I am sure you had to use considering I believe it is against the law to homeschool your child any other way in CA. But I love the homeschooling option too, I have known many of the special needs parents I work to help out that have used it.

although I agree somewhat with the OP that in some cases, Bush at al pushed charters, NCLB and corporate "public" schools in order to destroy teachers unions and make more money for consultants/cronies, I think that many parents were not happy with various aspects of public education (be it violence, kids being pushed ahead without having learned the material they needed to, terrible graduation rates, overcrowding, etc) and for this reason, wanted those other options such as vouchers and charter schools.


Maybe the traditional public school won't work for everyone, and other options should be considered - I don't agree with the OP that these choices have occurred in order to create a permanent underclass, but that some parents feared that that might be the case if the status quo continued. :shrug:

"Public education was specifically developed to turn the children of refuse into people free to transform the world."

THere were certainly idealists who participated in the forming of modern schooling whose goals were noble. But getting legislation enacted to establish mandatory phblic schooling and 'modernize' so that classes were age-segregated and rotated every 45 minutes at the sound of a bell was something that was implemented over the protests of many ordinary parents. Not just because it took their kids away from their farms but also because they saw it as a kind of enslavement to an industrial-style protocol.

Education may well have been happening to children BEFORE the factory schools were established, when the US population was reading Mark Twain and James Fenimore Cooper, Harriet Beecher Stowe or Upton Sinclair; and US children were not held captive in single-age schoolrooms for 8 hours per day plus busy work in the evenings for 9 months a year for 12 years or more. Children had much more mental space to make their own ideas -- while doing physical work, they surely daydreamed about the kind of life they wanted to lead. American entrepeneurs were thriving to an excess, and 'the American dream' was as much about 'being your own boss' as about 'owning stuff'.

Today's schooling is more oriented than ever to preparing students to be competent and comfortable working for someone else: a "useful" goal, but has it displaced the some other ideas now tossed in the dustbin of history? How many of us have the sense as middle-aged adults -- as citizens -- that we are waiting for someone to tell us what is the "next" useful thing we should do? On a career path, or in a corporate job, too busy to lift our heads up to see ahead, but well-trained to be dependable. The tasks are clear but the vision is not.

http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm


But generally I agree with the article. The modern push for charter schools may have exploited the discontent of parents (who perceive the dumbing down occurring in the public schools or who have a fuzzy idea that the schools are to blame) and harnessed it to FURTHER the dumbing down of the masses or to divide them up into opposing groups to be more easily manipulated. It may well end up with corporate schools where kids grow up within branded institutions where their parents work, and are taught corporate ways of thinking specific to that company.

but I liked the article. Thanks for posting.

I'm going to have to get into my inbox and clean it up; after a week of not opening it, there are 247 messages waiting, among them all the ARN and EDDRA posts.

Thanks for bringing it to a wider audience.

:hi:

stupid will only beget more stupid, whether under the current system or a new one.

Are you implying that teachers in charter schools are stupid?

((((((((((The fundamental issue is not charter schools and it is not corporations or capitalism (which I also support), it is clearly a class of people who believe that money defines everything. They see nations and citizens as archaic. I call them The New Aryans because they have the same philosophical conception of themselves being supra-national superior beings and everyone else being expendable.))))))))))

My question...HOW DO WE STOP THEM???????

Thanks LA. :hi: