Welcome to Education Alternative's Series on Homeschooling!
We publish Saturday mornings between 8am and 12noon EST
We follow the kos rule of Participating in someone else's diary
Follow us at Education Alternatives for our occasional weekday pieces on homeschooling. If you would like to write for this series, please contact us at educalternatives@gmail.com
Yesterday I was excited to attend a panel put together by our own TeacherKen titled, What Progressives Can Do to Stop the War on Public Education. I expected to walk out of the panel fired up with a to do list of a couple of items. Instead, I was left frustrated beyond belief and felt that while the panelists had interesting things to say, their presentation was an example of everything wrong about the so-called progressive conversation about education. More below the fold.
First, let me introduce you to the panelists. TeacherKen you already know - retiring high school teacher with a prestigious career and a large following at DailyKos. He was joined by Diane Ravitch, most well known for being an outspoken opponent of NCLB after having been an essential part of crafting the legislation, and John H. Jackson, President and CEO of the Schott Foundation for Public Education.
Very early, the panelists seemed at odds in their messaging. Because the title of the panel mentions The War on Education, there was no surprise that charter schools were mentioned. But while Mr. Jackson told us that charter schools are only 4% of the schools in the US, the conversation on education spent an inordinate amount of time discussing them. His suggestion was that we stop and we start talking about public schools, period. I don't think his message got across to either TeacherKen or Dr. Ravitch. They proceeded to slam charter schools for a large portion of their presentation. I am sure Mr. Jackson felt frustrated because he was not there to discuss charters but to make the point that POLICY was the path to improving schools, not PROGRAM. Unfortunately, we didn't get the opportunity to hear what policy we could support at either a national or local level. The panel also spoke of ALEC, privatization of schools, and a few other topics, but IMO the anger at the for-profit charter model was the overarching theme.
We were told about a few organizations to look up and support and also told to be careful of others because they were actually wolves in sheep's clothing, like Stand for Children. I was left with the feeling that it would be hard to trust any organization working on education issues without doing tons of homework - not a great place for a parent who wants to get involved. Maybe we need a basic website that rates Education Organizations on their political efficacy and their ability to be truthful about their ultimate goals.
We also learned that our nation has a problem with implementing education philosophies that work but that the US is actually the place where other countries turn to when looking for examples of innovation. The example given was about how Finland actually sent people to the US to learn about some of our education solutions, took what they learned back to Finland and successfully implemented the changes back in their own nation. TeacherKen recommended reading Finnish Lessons if we were interested in learning more.
When the panel started taking questions, I actually felt like the energy in the room shifted. We were no longer a passive audience being told about the War on Education, the war of which all of us in the room were already well aware and about which we had widely read. And it was the second person that mentioned the elephant in the room. Dana Borrelli, the director of a small, independent charter school in Rhode Island, asked if her school, Highland Charter, was a wolf in sheep's clothing. She wanted to know if charters like her own were evil, if they are part of the problem, and, if not, then why the conversation about charter schools couldn't be a more nuanced one. The response from both TeacherKen and from Dr. Ravitch was that her school was not part of the problem and then each of them proceeded to tell us why other charter schools were a part of the problem. They spent more time slamming the charter model, validly slamming the corporate for-profit charters that are proliferating in states with poor charter law, but negating any positives they had mentioned in their first sentences. The balance was apparent - every time you say one positive thing about a small, successful charter, it must be followed by a diatribe about the evils of the unsuccessful charter school model (I'm so sorry Mr. Jackson!). This woman's school once again became wrapped up in the evils of the charter system.
I am so frustrated that progressives cannot see how this is fracturing our community. Many, many parents who consider themselves progressives and who believe in public education send their kids to charter schools. Many teachers find themselves in the same boat. And every time the left frames the education debate around the evils of charters, those parents and teachers feel attacked for their choice, they feel unwelcome in the conversation, they are less motivated to offer their help and support to the broader battles, and they are often made to feel like traitors by those who don't understand successful charter systems in states where charter law is strong.
Many people who asked questions after Director Borrelli were parents and grandparents. Some spoke of starting programs to empower parents in the education process, possibly even bringing parents into the governance of schools, not in a way where they can vote to privatize but where they can participate in meaningful ways. The panel seemed to accept that these groups could be useful but they didn't embrace the idea. I did not leave the room feeling like parents were a part of the solution; I rather felt like parents were just told to go and look for ways to help in their local communities and that was the extent of it. I hate to tell you this but I think those parents already knew that before they walked in the room.
I felt the time after the panel was the absolute best. I stayed in the room and did my best to talk to many of the people who had asked questions. I met Director Borrelli and she seemed intrigued by our Education Alternatives groups and was happy to hear that a progressive blog was actually discussing Charter Schools in a more nuanced way. I met Karran Harper Royal, founding member of Parents Across America. She will be speaking on a panel titled, Education as a Right-Wing Wedge Issue--and How to Stop It later today. I am hoping to walk out of that session with a to-do list that I can bring to our pages and to feel less frustration and more focus and energy.
After the session, I spoke to many people about what I was feeling. I needed to process the ideas and I do that best through talking. Bsegel and I met and talked about his experience teaching in a charter school in Southern California and my own experience with a home-study charter in Northern California. We spoke of framing and messaging and how lousy the left is at building community that works together to fight these issues. We ran into TeacherKen and Jeff Bryant, from Institute for America's Future. I was unable to convince TeacherKen that my experience in the panel was one worth listening to. Jeff Bryant was much more receptive and he seemed to leave the conversation ready to continue it and maybe even to take some of the things bsegel and I spoke of into conversations with other people. I would love for folks to actually sit down and figure out the framing of the conversation because we have got to stop speaking of education in the words of those that would like to privatize the system.
I think that the right has put corporate charter schools out there as a red herring - stinky and smelly and oh so tempting to pay attention to so that we will ignore the larger issues at hand and so that we will attack our very own progressive public schools that are supported by charter law.
At the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that a small thing needs to happen - we need to find a way to label those horrible charter schools without slamming the entire charter system.
My suggestion is to call them Corporate Charters. Mr. Bryant wasn't happy with that because he rightly says that not all these schools are run by corporations. But I would argue that it doesn't matter. Framing isn't about defining a thing with precision. It is about labeling it with an idea that resonates - these schools are run LIKE corporations. The framing is there - with the Occupy movement calling attention to the 99% and the conversations about Citizens United, the word corporation sends a message that is already understood by a wide audience. These schools are Corporate Charters - they run off a for-profit model, they have boards filled with hedge fund managers and financial consultants, they are planned by a professional elite removed from the teaching profession rather than a local community. They are corporate in every way except for the fact that they don't sell stock. Let's start calling them what they are and lets once again embrace those independent public school charters that are offering great alternatives in their communities. At the end of the day, I agree with Mr. Jackson - our discussions about public charter schools should take up about 4% of the conversation about the public education.
Thanks for reading the series today. I know this isn't directly about homeschool but we progressive homeschool parents care deeply about our public education system and we always want to remain a part of the conversation and a part of the solutions.